My hot take is that what they are doing is illegal, but when it comes down to it rulings are done by people, and the extent of their sympathy for the little guy will determine the outcome.
In my opinion, if you have to state multiple times in your plan that what you're planning isn't illegal/manipulation, it's very grey at best.
The fact that one of the premises presented here for the price going up is "We buy a bunch of options, to force (ie, manipulate) someone else into buying the stock, so that the price can go up" doesn't boad well for a "it's not market manipuation" argument either.
Straight from this post:
> It looks like this: RH Call Option buying -> MM Delta hedging/share purchase -> short squeezing -> Greater retail/RHers price action chasing/call option buying -> MM Delta hedging/share purchase -> short squeezing -> Institutional and new channels flip the script -> GME to $400+
They've presented a chain of events that starts only with "We try to buy a lot of it", has a bunch of "other people have to buy based directly on our actions", they even through in a "other people see the price going up and try to pile in" (ie, screw the rest of retail).
> the extent of their sympathy for the little guy will determine the outcome
I don't see the masses of people ending up facing consequences here. I wouldn't be surprised if a group of WSB pushers who made out like bandits do see consequences. I also think it's going to be difficult to consider them the little guy if they make a bunch of money, and the much larger mass of non-WSB retail lose their shirts.
I don't think this is logical. One could also say, "If people are accusing you of doing something illegal/manipulative and you don't respond by stating that it's not illegal, it's very grey at best."
Can we agree this is hyperbole?
The SEC could step in to resolve the squeeze and everyone who bought at 350 left holding the bag when the price drops to 30.
Do you think that people who bought $200/share option contracts this week are all going to end up with 100 shares that they are going to be able to sell for $525 each?
Do you also want cancer charities to stop asking for donations? Should start up founders not be allowed to ask for investor money?
I could totally see the market manipulation argument if this was done in backrooms, with multiple accounts to hide the moves, several shell corporations holding the funds, etc. But these folks are publicly declaring their intent. And the first person to uncover the gamestop shorts has been saying it for over a year. Out in the open with frequent updates.
The short sellers have had a year to get out and leave the company alone, but they were so obsessed with watching a company die that people got pissed and wanted some blood.
The chain of events doesn't start with "we buy a lot and blah blah blah" - the chain of events starts with someone declaring over a year ago "fuck these guys for going all in on destroying a quality company for no reason other than the lulz."
Surely a large group of people getting together and saying "GME is way too shorted, buy buy buy and don't sell until $5k" should either be absolutely definitely market manipulation, or absolutely definitely not?
This. I recall seeing a post recently that essentially said that any action could be construed as securities law violation.
I'm going to assume this wasn't your point, but come on. Don't compare the current actions WSB and others are taking right now to curing cancer.
> Should start up founders not be allowed to ask for investor money?
Startup founders are already not allowed to ask for investor money buy posting on reddit or buying social media ads.
> with multiple accounts to hide the moves, ... these folks are publicly declaring their intent
I don't think anyone has fully look in to what accounts have been pushing things, and at this scale it will be incredibly difficult to do.
> Out in the open with frequent updates.
Just to be clear, I have absolutely no issue with anything DFV (who I assume you're referring to) has done in this situation. But DFV is not the entirety of "retail" that could have crossed a line here.
> "fuck these guys for going all in on destroying a quality company for no reason other than the lulz."
Lol I'm not even going to respond to this.
Where is that done? I think you’re confusing everyone’s ‘this is not financial advice’ shenanigans with “this is not illegal.”