Re:Robinhood is facing nearly 50 lawsuits over GameStop frenzy
by ceejayoz on Wednesday March 03, 2021 @09:07AM
(#26328439)
> In May 2012, lawyers acting for Goldman accidentally released an unredacted document revealing compromising internal discussions regarding naked short selling. "Fuck the compliance area – procedures, schmecedures", Rolling Stone Magazine quoted Peter Melz, the former president of Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp. as saying in the document.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Robinhood is facing nearly 50 lawsuits over GameStop frenzy
by user-the-name on Wednesday March 03, 2021 @09:48AM
(#26328991)
> In May 2012
Re:Robinhood is facing nearly 50 lawsuits over GameStop frenzy
by ceejayoz on Wednesday March 03, 2021 @10:02AM
(#26329210)
That's not long ago, and it's after the practice was banned. You think the banking industry has had an ethical epiphany and sudden love for regulations in the last decade?
Re:Robinhood is facing nearly 50 lawsuits over GameStop frenzy
by user-the-name on Wednesday March 03, 2021 @04:31PM
(#26334885)
What I think is that if you are going to make a very specific claim that fraud has occurred, you should back that up with some evidence that is similarly specific, not with a "well it could happen, it happened once before nine years ago!"
Re:Robinhood is facing nearly 50 lawsuits over GameStop frenzy
by ceejayoz on Wednesday March 03, 2021 @07:16PM
(#26336847)
The "Regulatory enforcement actions" section lists a number of cases that "require[d] a licensed broker to break the law".
It's quite clear naked short selling is possible and thus happens sometimes. I'm very dubious it's the case in Gamestop's specific situation. My specific claim is "naked short selling is a thing that exists", which is readily provable.