Stocks

[Abey]

Only if it stays that way until her strike date in 2022 (though I guess she can sell the options for a nice profit already)

Not Nancy, her husband and he’s a known market investor

[KSMH]

GME is past 185.

[Baglach]

GME is past 185.

More like 240

[PlatinumGuy]

Not Nancy, her husband and he’s a known market investor

Interesting, I was wondering that she didn't seem the type for dramatic speculation.

[Naftuli19]

AMC part of this WSB game

[Euclid]

Interesting, I wonder if we will see SEC action.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-26/will-wallstreetbets-face-sec-scrutiny-after-gamestop-rally

[madhocker]

https://twitter.com/delk/status/1353768557104914433

Is this any different than the BYND situation last year?

BYND eventually dropped back, but then trended back up to insane valuation levels.

[PlatinumGuy]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-26/will-wallstreetbets-face-sec-scrutiny-after-gamestop-rally

Worth posting this priceless excerpt

the Falcone short squeeze is one of my all-time favorite financial stories and I advise you to read the complaint for humor and inspiration. Quick summary: Falcone owned some bonds of a company called MAAX Holdings Inc. “After hearing rumors that a Wall Street financial services firm was shorting the MAAX bonds and also encouraging its customers to do the same, Falcone decided to seek revenge.” So he bought all the MAAX bonds. Then he bought more: Short sellers would borrow MAAX bonds (presumably from him), and then sell them to him, so that he ended up with “22 million more bonds than MAAX had ever issued.” Then he stopped lending them out, forcing the short sellers to buy bonds to cover their shorts. But there were no bonds to be bought, since he owned them all (and more). At some point an executive from the “Wall Street firm” called up Falcone to talk about the situation, and even in the SEC’s dry language you can tell that it was one of the greatest conversations in all of Wall Street history:

At some point, the conversation turned to the trading in the MAAX bonds. The senior officer asked Falcone how the Wall Street firm might satisfy its obligation to Harbinger. Falcone stated that the Wall Street firm should just keep bidding for the bonds. Falcone acknowledged that the Wall Street firm would suffer some losses doing so, but told the senior officer and the others that sometimes you are just on the wrong side of a trade.

In the course of this discussion, Falcone stated that he knew that the short position in the MAAX zips had created a “long” position in excess of the issue size. When the senior officer asked how he could possibly know this, Falcone stated that he was working the position himself and that he (i.e., Harbinger) had acquired approximately 190 million bonds. The senior officer and the other the Wall Street firm personnel were stunned.

“Just keep bidding for the bonds,” “sometimes you are just on the wrong side of a trade,” I love it so much.

Wouldn't some of the Redit posters requires licenses to promote stocks to the public? I guess you can say that about every poster here, so how does that work?

[ExGingi]

Wouldn't some of the Redit posters requires licenses to promote stocks to the public? I guess you can say that about every poster here, so how does that work?

A. Anonymously.
B. On the contrary, having a license subjects you to more restrictions.

[PlatinumGuy]

A. Anonymously.
B. On the contrary, having a license subjects you to more restrictions.

How does appearing to be anonymous help?

[VacationLover]

Unbelievable. up close to 100% today!!

and another 40% after hours 🤔

[ExGingi]

How does appearing to be anonymous help?

Who would they go after?

[PlatinumGuy]

Who would they go after?

Subpoena reddit for the real identification? It usually ain't difficult.

[ExGingi]

Subpoena reddit for the real identification? It usually ain't difficult.

And why would you think reddit would have real identification? An under what pretense would they subpoena? What's the alleged crime?

[PlatinumGuy]

And why would you think reddit would have real identification? An under what pretense would they subpoena? What's the alleged crime?

I asked how it's legal and you answered that it's anonymous, so I'm questioning how that matters since if it's illegal they can just track them down - for example by subpoenaing the IP address and then searching the computer itself and cross referencing the suspected parties to the list of people who traded and profited from the stock.

[ExGingi]

I asked how it's legal and you answered that it's anonymous, so I'm questioning how that matters since if it's illegal they can just track them down - for example by subpoenaing the IP address and then searching the computer itself and cross referencing the suspected parties to the list of people who traded and profited from the stock.

The only issue would be if someone that's licensed and regulated would do something like this, which is where the anonymity comes into play. But if it's posted as an opinion rather than a recommendation, it might not even be worth the effort on the chance that it might be a licensed person.

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/stoolpresidente/status/1354190355013521412

[zh cohen]

The only issue would be if someone that's licensed and regulated would do something like this, which is where the anonymity comes into play.

I think @PlatinumGuy is asking if it is illegal for someone who is not licensed to be giving investment advice.

I would imagine that it would only be an issue if they would be charging for the advice, or presenting themselves as financial advisors.

[PlatinumGuy]

I think @PlatinumGuy is asking if it is illegal for someone who is not licensed to be giving investment advice.

I would imagine that it would only be an issue if they would be charging for the advice, or presenting themselves as financial advisors.

Thank you. I thought giving advice publicly is different

[yos9694]

I think @PlatinumGuy is asking if it is illegal for someone who is not licensed to be giving investment advice.

I would imagine that it would only be an issue if they would be charging for the advice, or presenting themselves as financial advisors.

Pump and dump schemes gets the SEC very angry, doesn't matter if you are licensed and regulated or not. But I think they just like the stock