I appluade you for telling the truth about melving covering thier positions on GME but I expect a lot off redditors will get mad at you since that dose not fit with thier narrative
Part of me wishes that this could see its way to court, only to hear someone who spent god knows how many years slaving away at law school have to actually say phrases like, "Meme stocks," and, "For the lols," in front of a judge. You know, for the lols and all that. But this video will have to do.
Well, you can always take confort in the knowledge hear someone who spent god knows how many years slaving away at law school had to actually say phrases like "omegaverse" and explain the concept of fanfiction to a judge.
I had a brother in law that was a defense attorney who would drop rap rhymes in the courtroom. Most lawyers know they've sold their soul, but are chill and relaxed about it. Who knows when you might appreciate them getting you out of community service.
I wouldn't be surprised if either have already appeared on the record somewhere. A Magistrate Judge from C.D. Cal. once issued a recommendation with Taylor Swift lyrics that included a footnote describing what a "meme" is.
“Your honor, it would seem that the intentions of users of Wall Street bets such as u/THICC_CHICS_DM_ME were ‘rocket emoji to the moon,’ ‘we like the stock,’ and often they demonstrate a motivation to demonstrate ‘diamond hands.’”
What I learned from this: 1) Everything is market manipulation. 2) You have to prove intent for it to be illegal - good luck. 3) The brokers are above the law because they write their own laws.
Number 1 and number 3 are very true. It's funny how laws are put in place under the guise of regulation and balance and yet the scales are always tipped by the people with all the money
For 3, I would ask if they really are, because in many Western countries, contracts or agreements that contain illegal acts are illegal, and thus anyone signing that is essentially signing a contract saying "this is not a real contract". In other words, if the contract itself is illegal, it has no meaning in court. [This isn't legal advice.]
For number 3, it's more that they're above the law because of the limitations of the SEC, they can only fine you so much, so if you have more money than that, it's just the cost to do that thing.
And whether or not they literally write their laws, they can still preserve their hegemony over market trading because their actions are considered socially "legitimate" by virtue of establishment
That's why anyone who supposed to know stuff or like business themself there supposed to have prewritten stock trading at sertin times. Now whether they actually fallow that I dont know
Hi, fellow attorney here. You failed to address one of the fundamental problems with barring class action lawsuits via arbitration agreements - Without the ability to join plaintiffs as a class, it is possible for malefactors of great wealth to defraud many (even millions) of people of very small individual amounts each. Steal $50 from a million people and you have made $50 million dollars, yet no single one of those people has an amount at issue that would provide any attorney with a potential recovery to attract their services. Without legal representation, plaintiffs are very unlikely to pursue or obtain recovery given the costs, time commitment, and complexity of arbitration, particularly in matters as complex as financial regulation. Sincerely, a guy who has represented plaintiffs in FINRA arbitration.
The entire market is nothing but manipulation. Talk to any stock trader and they'll tell you whatever they stand to gain from you believing, actively deceiving you as part of the ordinary course of their business. Any supply and demand mechanics that may once have guided an economy become secondary to the eternal rat race of a liars' battle royale.
The majority of US dollars in circulation were produced in the year 2020, if we didn't see money suddenly start going crazy right off the bat something'd be fundamentally wrong with economics as we know it.
Objection: Those who used other platforms than Robinhood could file a class action lawsuit. They did not sign any user agreements, but the Robinhood restriction directly effected Gamestop prices.
“It’s like giving dynamite to children: it might cause a huge amount of damage but it’s definitely going to be fun to watch.” I don’t care that Devin is a successful lawyer I am SO stealing this.
@@anastasiab8173 Robinhood CEO got a 3am call to deposit $3Bn to cover deposits on trades. I daresay he shit himself more than just a little - that was a bigger bill than Robinhood's *entire* capitalization. Yes, he managed to get that talked down by half, but that's still a scary-ass (literal) wake-up call. I can see why he panicked.
Those "forced" arbitration clauses should be against the law. The concept that in order to use the service a company has you can not sue them. The company after all picks the arbiter so you can see where this goes.
There have been bills entered in Congress to that effect following the Epic Systems SCROTUS decision but they all died because the banks own the Republicans.
I don't necessarily have an issue with the arbitration clause, arbitration is generally a cheaper alternative and quicker alternative to actual court. its more of the "no class actions allowed" rule/stipulation that i believe is much more nefarious
USA: OK, 2021, we're still dealing with the 'rona, you gave us an attempted coup, and now trolls causing chaos on Wall Street. I think that's enough sh*ts and giggles.
Even a tiny mom and pop shop that earns the couple $30,000 a year will regularly do over a million a year in business. Having a few billions in working money isn't that much. Working money is very different than profit.
Hedge funds usually charge (steriotypically) 2 and 20. 2% on the assets controlled + 20% on profits earned. This varies widely, typically depending on how good the hedge fund is. So, if they manage to match the average market growth (7%), they'd make an average profit (assuming their fees are 2 and 20) of $408m annually. The exact fees for them, i'm not certain. this year though, they're not making much money :P
Food for thought: people who held GME and AMC stock at the time when Robinhood restricted trading lost money due to Robinhood's actions. Not all of these people were Robinhood customers, and did not sign the Robinhood's EULA. That means they have a better chance of getting their cases into a court.
What would their argument be? "This company that allowed the stock to skyrocket it the way it did, prevented its users from trading during a volatile time, so I lost money?" Don't think that will fly.
@@goldfishprime my Nokia position that I had been building since Nov lost 25% because it had been placed on the naughty stock list. For what reason? It's not a terribly volatile stock, is it because it happened to also be popular on that subreddit?
@@michaelbarbarich3965 One would have to look at the numbers and changes during that frenzy period. Did Nokia's value increase suddenly like with GME? Was Nokia being shorted? And you said subreddit, so was it popular with the group that was trying to ride the gravy train? Are you blaming them or Robinhood?
@@goldfishprime "The company that allowed the stock to skyrocket'" I don't think you have any idea what ur talking about. Brokers shouldn't have any influence on a stock's price. That would be market manipulation.
A lot of people also just like making money. At least the OG /r/wsb members did before the subreddit got overtaken by what is now basically a financial suicide cult.
This makes sense if you can sue “reddit” or “r/wallstreetbets” but each individual redditor did not have the power to influence the price substantially enough to meet part (1) of the market manipulation test.
Yeah, I kind of agree. The real challenge here would genuinely be figuring out who in god's name to sue. Individually they didn't have the power to do shit, and they all had their own reasons for acting as they did. Maybe one person wanted to manipulate the market, but that doesn't mean the other 8000 guys did, and without those other 8000 guys, it wouldn't have happened, and can you really make the argument that one random guy saying "hell yeah, stonks" is powerful enough to manipulate the market. It becomes a messy circle that you could argue around in circles forever in. Unfortunately, a lot of times what lawsuits actually mean is "the guy who can afford court wins," which means regardless of if reddit user boobs69 actually committed a crime, just being charged with something could ruin his life.
And how on earth do you differentiate between people who bought GameStop to "screw the hedge funds" and people who said, "oh, shoot, looks like there's a conspiracy to artificially inflate the price of this stock and I think I can make me some money off this."
@@andrew_ray You can differentiate for instance by reading what those people write online. Those that use language carefully don't have anything to fear. But those that make careless statements may have a problem. Probably still not, but theoretically could. As to the influence that a single person has. Again, if there was a careless post that had very many reactions and that clearly was read many times, this could serve as an argument. The fact that there were many thousands posting certainly is not a defence in itself. Otherwise, it would be possible to engage in any kind of market manipulation using a large group because each person individually wouldn't matter.
@@andrew_ray That's gonna set a terrifying standard for plausible deniability, though. Imagine if all you had to do to get away with most crimes was organically spread out culpability for the effects across enough people.
@@neolexiousneolexian6079 What's the difference between "plausible deniability" and "reasonable doubt?" Honestly, I'd be more concerned by the contrary precedent whereby anyone who can be connected to a crime is automatically considered guilty. I think if the hedge funds sue anyone, it's just going to be a handful of prominent Redditors who made the initial posts who set things in motion rather than try the individual guilt (and therefore the specific _intent_) of each person who purchased GameStop stock.
It's hard to take the crying of the hedge funds seriously when you realize they have so many golden parachutes stacked up that no amount of short squeezing will ever really ruin them. They're literally too rich to become poor.
I also doesn’t help their cases when a lot of them took out short positions before the 2008 recession and were celebrating their financial windfall as hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs and homes. You don’t exactly win sympathy for that
The argument that I feel could be made with the RobinHood legality debacle could be made is that they actively manipulated the stock even if unintentionally. The company as a whole did not allow people to buy stocks in select companies BUT did however allow (or in some alleged cases forced) people to sell their stakes in the company which will only permit the value of the stock to go down.
I think the SEC needs to rethink the freedom they give to these brokerages to manipulate stock prices at their own discretion. Imagine a major stock exchange telling a hedge fund that the stock is too volatile so they can only sell their positions. The whole thing is crazy.
They violated rule 5310. They were already fined for another set of violations of this rule so it's likely happening again. The SEC had every reason to initiate a trading halt since the market was clearly impacted by at least one of not two brokerage firms liquidity crises. They chose not to for whatever reason but that is the proximate cause of the problem. The SEC failed to act when it should have and thus we have this debacle
@@xtampa9236 You can think all you like. But unless you're willing to spend more cash on securities laws than robinhood's hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, the SEC will continue to work for them, not us.
Clearly you've never been to /r/web. They call each other a lot worse than degenerates. In many ways, it is the unholy spawn of a Wall Street market analysis room and 4chan, with all the crude humor and childish excess of each.
Seems like he has a vested interest in this affair so I can't really tell if this is accurate, especially since robbinhood have been making doubious statements and have shown negligence through their actions.
He's actually a liar. What he didn't tell you was that Robinhood didn't stop trading for GME. They only stopped your ability to buy it while still allowing you to sell it.
@@Elluem It was brief, but he actually mentioned that at about the 8 minute mark. fwiw I think he is *mostly* correct here, but omitting some very important details that ppl should know about if they have any desire to prevent something like this from ever happening again.
@@sdaniaal counsel, would you kindly explain what is it that seems, exactly? Don't just cast aspersions or innuendo. By the way, what is that climbin' out yer window?
Legal Eagle: Professional legal analysis Also Legal Eagle: *S T O N K S* Edit: Oh wow I didn't expect to come back to nearly 600 likes. Since this is popular please drink some water and get some sleep.
When they short a stock they dont just hope it goes down, they launch a media campaign to talk down the stock. See Jim Cramer. They also launch ladder attacks to simulate a drop to cause a panic sell off.
What about all the media saying Reddit is now "targeting silver?" Even though there wasn't a single upvoted post about silver on the forum. This is false information used specifically with the intent of manipulating investors. Melvin has big long positions on silver, directly profiting from it. Also, Citidel a major person in a short position on game stop, is a major investor in robinhood.... pretty convenient. Seems like a lot of manipulation to me.
The qanon types have been hyping silver. Of course you wouldn't hear about it because it's entirely different circles.I only know because of moles on Gab that relay the dumb things they say.
To me this is the most striking example of market manipulation in this whole affair The ability to influence the market is clear for media, and they are supposed to be subject to fact checking which they apparently forgone during this affair It's either diffamatory to say that r/waalstreetbets is buying silver or it's market manipulation I bet they won't even be taken up on it though
The hedge funds announcing intention to short, is just as manipulative as redditors announcing their intention to buy. Both actions are an attempt at influence. If short positions were secret, then a moral high ground might exist. But it doesn't. Short sellers blatantly and intentionally execute their actions in direct attempt to tank a company's stock to make money.
There is no way to prove that. Since they do not explicitly announce what they hope to achieve with these announcements. MEANWHILE, r/WSB proudly announces that its intention is to manipulate the market.
Which is why I see short selling as inherently unethical imo. Then again, a lot of shit these guys do in finance often are. But there is nothing unethical about the simple act of buying stock hoping it goes up in price.
I mean, Robinhood had to. They were tapping their credit lines just to keep the platform running. They didn't have enough capital to keep going with all this high volume. Stocks don't just come out of nowhere.
@@blindeagleace3629 If people buy stock they give Robinhood money. If people sell stock they take money out of Robinhood. If Robinhood was having capital problems then why did they forbid people from buying, but allowed selling? It would make sense to halt all selling AND buying, or to halt selling, but to halt _only_ buying while claiming not to have enough cash sounds disingenuous.
@@bobross4729 Not unless they are on margin, and even if people used their own cash it would still take two to four days for the order to be completed from the clearing house. And Robinhood would still have to put up collateral to hold the order. It's a horrible idea for Robinhood to stop Buying and Selling because that would only affect Robinhood users. Robinhood is just one broker site. Meaning if they halt all trading then that wouldn't stop users from say WeBull or Sofi from trading. If a Robinhood user brought GME at 300 and Robinhood halted trading and the price went down then Robinhood users would have been destroyed. Again, Robinhood didn't have enough capital to keep up with all the trading going on. They had to take 700 million dollars from their credit line to continue trading on the site. I know it's not popular to say but Robinhood did the right thing by restricting trading on those "meme" stocks.
Question. How is short selling stocks as a large hedge fund in large quantities not market manipulation or violate antitrust? By mass selling they are lowering the prices as well. So what is wrong with people mass buying?
@@notatrollll there's nothing wrong with mass buying or mass selling. What's illegal is buying or selling purely for the purpose of convincing others to buy or sell. In these situations trades are analogous to the calls dispensing fraudulent information.
Why is it not market manipulation when Jim Cramer and a bunch of talking heads on CNBC talk up a stock or insist it be held that they have a financial stake in increasing
The well practised avoidance of key phrases and the inclusion of key info. In 2020 many on WSB were sticking to the same guidelines, or going comedicly the other way as to claim jest. Many of the unwashed masses who started arrive late 202 and in 2021 are new to trading and unaware or uncaring of any possible issues or liabilities tied to statements they make or guidance they give.
I'm starting to think that a lot of the people who spread anti-capitalistic rhetoric aren't even against capitalism necessarily. They're against modern-day capitalism which has been twisted and corrupted to instead be a way for the rich to pocket most of the wealth while telling the rest of the population that it's entirely fair they own everything.
@@filipwolffs capitalism has plenty of issues even in theory (as do all economic systems) but you're right that a lot of anti-capitalists are moreso rejecting late-stage crony-capitalism and plutocracy rather than pure free-market capitalism.
They're crying because a lot of them used the VERY DANGEROUS uncovered call on what they thought was a safe bet and sunk quite a bit into it. Then, when they got, "You fool"-ed it ended up costing them a lot. So, they cry.
they got outplayed at their own game and got a bitter taste of what they do the smaller traders. basically the " everyone should trade....wait not like that?!"
I can see the argument for Robinhood removing GameStop Stock from margin Trading . I cannot see the argument for removing GameStop stock from long Non margin Trading.
My immediate thought too. But it appears all purchases by a broker are, in effect, a margin purchase since the broker is not allowed, by SEC rules, to use customer's money. Only once the buy clears after a couple of days can the broker debit the customer's account. It seems Robinhood didn't have the cash to continue doing any more purchases of Gamestop (this could actually be the liquidity issue denied by the CEO). But Robinhood could continue to issue sell orders. I find it quite interesting sitting here in the grandstands at the 50 yard line.
I hope someone gets to court, just to see what was really going on behind the scenes, what actions were truly necessary due to SEC or other requirements, and if this then leads to meaningful changes in those requirements.
@@willdejong7763 They'd just make those involved sign some sort of NDA prohibiting them from divulging any meaningful information as part of a settlement. We'd still never get a peek behind the curtain, unfortunately...
@@d_shepperd Wait so does that mean the market just freaks out even before orders are cleared? Also are the people selling only the non-margin traders and the early clears from the squeeze? Or can you effectively send in a sell order to counteract a buy order that hasn't even cleared yet?
@@nfzeta128 _can you effectively send in a sell order to counteract a buy order that hasn't even cleared yet?_ You _could_in theory, but only if the broker allows it (if you start with 0 shares, probably not). If you do this enough times, fast, with a large number of shares, it's considered "churning", which is a form of market manipulation. Basically what this does is drum up phony activity on the stock to get other investors to buy in. I'm pretty sure brokers have ways to limit this sort of thing.
The sad part is that when the big guys purposefully screw over the little guy through increased mortgage costs, which, and correct me if I'm wrong, led to the housing crisis, they receive massive bailouts. Yet, when the little guy does the same exact thing, it is suddenly very bad.
And all of the people who bought late last week. It's fun to imagine that only the rich will get hurt by this, but a LOT of small investors are going down with them. The worst part about it all is that the rich will get bailed out.
@@Lowmanification Maybe if this process repeats itself a couple of times it will make it increasingly obvious to everyone that the system is rigged to protect the rich and that this whole idea of a fair free market where everyone has a fair chance is a lie propagated by the rich to protect their wealth and keep the public pacified.
Robin Hood is a thief. What do you expect form a Thief? And in the story Robin Hoof steals from the government (sheriff) to give back to those who created the wealth.
But if he admits the by-businesses-for-businesses "market" and "economy" things are actually just thinly-veiled scams against the public, he won't be able to go work for the finance industry after retiring from youtube! Gotta keep those options open!
@@TwoTreesStudio im guessing when he retires for youtube he wont need to since he already has all the money he needs from his practice which probably pays way more than youtube does
US financial markets are heavily regulated, even moreso after Dodd Frank, to the point that even companies worth hundreds of millions of dollars sometimes don't want to go public for fear of increased regulation.
More like it gets swept under the rug as long as the powerful make money. It’s not legal by any means but no one takes notice. And that doesn’t even have to be because they are bias to the rich, it could just be because for a poor person to make this level of impact on the stock they would need to group with tons of people
Some rich people are still making plenty of money out of this and they will have little sympathy for those on the losing side of the betting. GME is essentially arena fodder to make a bit of a spectacle.
So everyone in my family myself included (I'm 30 with full time job) are broke AF. Our retirementment plans are getting ruined by this, my 83yr old grandfather a retired truck driver is considering going back to work after all he has lost. Rich people are going to be just fine after all this gamestop crap. Poor people gonna end up cold and hungry becuase of it. People who don't make enough money but have carefully invested for years to survive into old age( he makes more in retirement due to investments than he ever did driving cross country) have lost more where it counts. Like I hate gamestop very much, but its horrifying seeing whats happening becuase of it
Yo Legal Eagle! It's been a year since this video. Have you seen the information released by the congressional finance committee formed to investigate this saga? Ken Griffin of Citadel told this committee he "absolutely [did] not" communicate with Robinhood other brokers that turned off GME. The committee later released a report showing Citadel definitely talked to Robinhood. Did he lie under oath? Why isn't he arrested?
@@arturoaguilar6002unfortunately you’re correct, congressional committees don’t operate with the level of authority or structure of a court of law, much like how impeachment proceedings operate. 😅
Leaving aside everything else, if we believe everything Robinhood has said up to this point then: The CEO lied on national television, misrepresenting their product in an extremely impactful way. If I was joining a broker, I'd be very interested in what liquidity they have. The CEO said they had no liquidity issue, which we know to be objectively false. Isn't this not very different than a food product stating it is 'calorie free' when it actually is not? Or a car company saying their car gets 25 MPG highway when it actually only gets 13 MPG highway?
Now that T-rump is gone, its actually becoming fun to see you take on these whimsical events, instead of dedicating 4 videos in a week to some add-to-the-pile crazy stuff. I liked this!
Or maybe it's that LegalEagle, like everyone else, has a political Bias. Biden has signed 43, yes, 43 Executive orders in just his first Two weeks in office. It took Trump months to get to that level. If Devin wanted to, he could talk about the Legality of ending the Keystone XL pipeline through an executive order (thereby laying off thousands of well paying Union jobs) or allowing boys to play in girls Sports. But guess what? He's not gonna cover that stuff, Because that doesn't fit his narrative. I hate both presidents. I just sincerely doubt Devin is gonna look into any of Biden's shenanagians. I would love to be proven wrong here.
*2040s teacher:* In the '20's, stock traders buying on margin triggered an economic collapse due to being unable to pay their debts en masse. *2040s student:* Which '20's? *2040s teacher:* Yes.
The Game Stop traders weren't primarily buying on margin. They were given government funny money and they turned it into a handful of shares of Game Stop. Most people weren't buying tens of thousands of dollars worth of $GME, on margin or off, there were just a million of the beautiful bastards
@@draugur345 government funny money.... Some of the bigger investers from reddit put in 6 figure sums as an individual. Specifically it was over $700,000 that they turned into 13.8 million. Considering the US has given people 1800 total over ten months. Compare that to about anywhere else nearly as industrialized as the US has given that amount to people monthly on a recurring basis.
@@tacokoneko Gold and Bitcoin aren't comparable. Gold has natural supply increases of something like 2% a year from mining, while Bitcoin already crossed below that and will continue to decline in added supply. Further supply losses just from people losing their keys makes them different animals entirely. One can argue the merits and pitfalls of both, but what isn't arguable: People are far more motivated to hoard Bitcoin than gold, and hoarding weakens something's viability as a currency.
After watching many of these I'm still surprised by US law. In Australia you can't sign away your consumer rights. And our consumer rights are extensive. So things like forcing arbitration would be deemed an illegal practice and be ignored in any legal proceedings. I can't tell if the US has poor consumer rights or they are just can be easily superceded.
Imo moreso easily superceded. I feel like we have good protections so long as you don't sign those 'you can't sue us' things... but they're everywhere, with almost anything you use. I'm not sure how one would be able to eat, drink, or sleep anywhere without signing one.
Best comment. With all due respect I watch all this with popcorn. They can't proof anything, they can't sue anyone and even when this was a one time situation, the slap was huge.
in my opinion, poor ppl here did not just invest in the stock like they normally do, they found the weak point to breach the hedge fund's finance which squeezes money off them. if you normally invest you would not make the money most people made in this case.
Are you making craptastic reposts of other social media comments for updoots on TH-cam? These up arrows aren't even cumulative bruh. It's the LEAST meaningful social influence you could have outside of commenting on local news paper websites.
The rules were the same for everyone lol This is just a bunch of people throwing money at a stock because of memes and then blaming everyone but themselves when they lose money. You lost money because you invested in something that already rose many thousand percent.
@@ajw5138 The platform that allowed them to access the "free" market locked them out thus forcing them to lose money. This isn't a lost bet. This is a rigging the system to screw over retail investors. Plain and simple. Robinhood should burn in hell for it.
@@Kilo_Alpha_Delta Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it rigged. Brokers/entire stock exchanges limit trading during times of extreme volatility all the time. Robinhood still allowed them to sell if they wanted and them limiting buying because of liquidity issues is in no way manipulation. People bought the top of a bubble and are now crying and trying to blame everyone but themselves.
@@truneighborhoodwatchtnw2127 i am just going to assume you are going to talk about the slap stick car rebuilder and not look at it as sad onlook at the strict class structure that seems to always find its way to rebuild it's self in our society
Let's be clear. While rich people do invest in hedge funds, the vast majority of assets under management comes from endowments, pension funds, etc. So, congratulations, you just screwed some teachers out of a pension.
I’d argue that the cultural value of Game Stop is a factor in it’s stock price. A company that fostered a loyal clientbase, a clientbase that has just reached the age to possibly have surplus income. These ties to videogame culture are a part of value as much as older banks having more renown - and thus trust put in them.
In the world of Hedgefunds, it is probably really "only" 12 billions, that other hedgefunds are way richer. Hence other, bigger hedgefunds could aford to just give some billions away to protect Melvin Capital.
To be fair, dynamite is actually remarkably hard to accidentally set off. That's part of the reason it became such a succesful explosive; it was much safer than the alternatives available at the time.
Especially if “non-professionals” do it. Cop kills in rightful self-defense? Perfectly fine, immune to any lawsuits brought. Civilian kills in self defense? If not found guilty of murder, they’ll get sued for everything they have. Same for Wall Street, the “non-professionals” bought stock and disrupted the hedge’s strategy, so it’s illegal.
Hedge funds: immorally manipulate stocks and loose money, government bails them out Peasants: in good faith buy stock and make money, government banes them
@@RabblesTheBinx hey, they liked the stock. How can you tell the difference between the people who wanted to bust a hedge fund and the ones who like the stock?
What good faith? Let's not pretend they bought it just for investment (and not with the intent of causing a short squeeze). Besides, the goverment didn't ban them; the private stock broker firm (Robinhood) suspended all buy GME orders (it's common practice for stock broker firms to suspend orders when, for example, a market is crashing all stock sale orders need to be suspended).
Frankly I’m just pissed at the reaction of all these hedge funds trying to force out the average person from the market after years of talking down to us telling us to invest
I'm with the hedge funders but only on a technicality. Investing is like war. I can't make you do it the way I think is better but I still believe it will hurt everyone entirely if you're too reckless. #FrenchRevolution But if there's a reason for something radical and new to be risked it might be the only way to learn. Just try not to repeat any old already established mistakes.
@@KylePoni23 It isn't poor people investing though, is it? Poor people have their hands full buying food and paying rent. It's middle-class people with enough comforts to their life, enough time in their hands and enough dough in their pockets that can buy this shit and act all self-righteous talking down the hedge funds while hoping to sell this crap at a margin. You don't get to fix a broken unjust system by engaging with it by its rules.
@@moscanaveia This is what I'm worried about. Seeing people say things like "I can survive the loss of $1k so it's worth it to keep this thing going"... well not everybody can, and ultimately we're talking about thousands of individual actors. Many will simply be looking for a quick buck
OBJECTION: I think the biggest thing that wasn't mentioned in the video was short laddering. While robinhood prevented people from buying stock (even stock that was not on margin) hedge funds allegedly bid back and forth on the stock using bots at lower and lower prices causing the stock price to plummet. Robinhood and many other brokerage users could only sit there and watch as the stock price plummeted. The largest alleged short ladder attack was today where the stock opened at $130 and closed at $80 ish. Short laddering is technically illegal and is blatant market manipulation there is even evidence of these bots making these trades as with some brokerages you can see recent trade prices and many of them go into fractions of cents (like $90.56768) things that retail investors obviously cannot do. This is really where the anger on WSB is coming from. Essentially the retail investor was left high and dry while hedge fund managers could continue to trade and allegedly used short ladder attacks to artificially drive down the stock price.
Except RobinHood only suspended buys on Jan 28, GME shot back up the next day. "The largest alleged short ladder attack was today", Feb 2, then it is not related to "While robinhood prevented people from buying stock"
@@TealJosh The comment claims that Robin Hood's decision left its investors powerless while hedge funds dropped the price using an illegal short ladder. I don't know if there's any truth to that, but that's what it says.
@JmacSD Yeah even after they fully restricted buys they only allowed "limited Buys" which meant you could only buy a certain amount and they changed that amount throughout the day. Lowering it fromm 5 to 1.
It was paid for my a redditor who invested about $1 Million when the stock was down around $5 per and sold about 20% of his holdings when it had hit like 300. (What I've heard on it at least)
Im so happy you let people know that in MOST small claims cases, arbitration is definitely in the users favor. Ive seen arbitration clauses that say every expense after the 200$ initiation fee is borne out by the defendant, win or lose. For most issues for 2000$ or less, threaten to initiate arbitration and a company will fold like a cheap suit.
OK, here’s the problem I have with how this has been covered: retail traders did not inflate the price of GME; it was already more valuable than what it was trading at because 140% of available stock had been shorted. It’s not market manipulation; it’s simple supply and demand: a guaranteed large demand relative to the available supply. Once considerably more than 100% of available stock has been shorted, the stock is valuable because of the amount of shorting and nothing more; the rational action for a shareholder is to hold the stock until the market reflects its true value. What normally happens is that a significant portion of shareholders are either unaware of the extent to which the stock has been shorted, or oblivious as to the impact that fact has on the true value of the stock, so they sell the stock at well below its true value due to unequal information. What WSB did in this instance was remove the barrier of unequal information so that the true value of the stock, based on legitimate supply and demand, was realized. Once the amount of available stock that is shorted (aka demand) drops below a certain threshold, the value of the stock is much less dependent on the amount of shorting and much more dependent on the health of the company being traded, so the true value of the stock will collapse. However, it is crucial to realize that this volatility is caused by shorting well above 100% of the available stock, and this root cause is what future regulations must address. Focusing on the symptom (investors buying at below true value and holding on to heavily shorted stocks until the true value is reflected in the market) instead of this root cause will not solve the issue. We need to place restrictions on the extent of available stock which can be shorted to protect individuals and institutions alike from (stupidly) raising the true value of a stock sharply by the very action of betting that the stock will decrease in value.
On a side note, legaleagle said that shorting more than 100% of the stock float is not illegal. Could anyone explain why this is not illegal, and why it shouldn't be made illegal? Because if it hasn't been illegal for this long, there must be a good reason over shorting exists (or is it called naked shorting?) or this system is rigged.
@@Tortillin0077 It depends on how it was shorted. If a legitimate stock was found for the lend it is allowed, even if that stock itself was previously shorted. It becomes "Naked Shorting" when you do not actually locate a stock to borrow before you sell. In tat case you are selling a stock which does not exist and attempting to find a replacement later to make it look legitimate. Here is an SEC case from 2011 perfectly showing this: www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-264.htm
"maybe gambling money that doesn't exist on corporate success or failure based on rules that it's illegal to know but also relies on everyone acting in good faith isn't a great way to structure an economic system?" "Too late, we already put everyone's pensions on it."
@@hostiletoxictomdowneyburne6469 WHAT RICH MEANS IS THAT YOU INVEST WE SHORT AND LEAVE YOU HOLDING THE BAG , REPEAT THE CYCLE AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR A BILLIONAIRE TO BE A TRILLIONAIRE
Most eula's already have that. "You agree that "whatever corp" has the right to cease services for whatever reason we or our partners decide." That is in most eula in some form or another
@Unfiltered Reality what are you on about? Are you angry because your little mind can only understand Robinhood’s ultra-simplistic UI? TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, Etrade.
@Unfiltered Reality You hit the jackpot! Trading on margin is literally taking out a loan for gambles! Wow you’re less stupid than I thought! The fact of the matter is, Brokers are independent companies and they can do whatever they please, that’s what the TOS is for, I know a lot of other companies do a bunch of shady shit like steal my data for advertisers but that doesn’t delete the fact that people still cooperate with those businesses to get something in return. Maybe you should actually idk, look up stock market strategies and try to invest instead of gambling like these mainstream retail traders that get their leads from Twitter.
Never underestimate how stupid people on the internet can be when something trendy hits the mainstream. 5 million+ new members joined in the span of a couple weeks. Hundreds of thousands are following the wrong robin hood twitter account as well. Do you feel insulted when you read the label of a clorox bottle and it tells you not to ingest and to call poison control?
You're playing blackjack. You have seen a total of ten cards with a value of 10 (10s, Jacks, Queens, Kings) in the last two rounds and you have 12 while the dealer has a 6. They have not been shuffling. Do you hit or stand? Given what you know, the odds of having another high value card appear so soon (assuming the deck only has 16 in it) is low since so many are now buried at the bottom of the deck. The odds of getting a 9 or lower are pretty substantial and gives you much better odds of winning... Being informed doesn't change the fact that it's gambling. You have no way of knowing if the next card will or won't be a queen that will break you. A hedgefund hit on 12 cause they thought all the high cards were buried, but they drew a queen. WallstreetBets hit on 12, but the dealer asked them to leave.
@@inigo8740 you can also see the name as sort of ironic and a "meme" on how idiotic that this is a financial system based around betting and that's what the name is making fun of and referring too. I don't personally know just think it's another way you can view it's naming.
Except for now when the poor screwed the rich then suddenly its a Big deal. This is a case Where. The only moral response is also an illegal one. To make a reference to a certain investing platforms Namesake. When justice is outlawed, The just must become outlaws.
No way at all to prove it, and I doubt the SEC would care. But I don't think they had access to all the shares they shorted in Dec/Jan. Over 100% short interest plus a huge outlier in failures to deliver for GME is sus. That would be naked shorting, which is in fact illegal.
Well, it sometimes makes things legal; at least, if the rich and powerful of yesteryear decided they wanted to be able to do something and get away with it. Right, on the other hand, is another matter - many things are legal that are not right, and many things would be right but are not permitted by law. Law should be based on the desire for a fair and just society, but a lot of laws are sadly instead created to protect privilege and facilitate oppression, through force or information control or whatever means the powerful find most appealing. That said? There are also things that people assume are laws, but aren't, but people still live by these presumed laws due to tradition, habit, a flawed perception of reality, etc. So you're not really wrong on either count.^^
@@hazukichanx408 I can't and won't argue against that ^^. *Off-topic warning* Here is a fun little story: In 2016 a German late night host, Jan Böhmermann, in his show read a poem in which President Erdogan of Turkey was called “Ziegenf...er” (goat f...er). So Monsieur Erdogan, being himself, could not just ignore this and decided this needs to be brought to a German courtroom. But he had a problem, while there exists a German civil law against insulting other people publicly, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Supreme Court) already ruled in other cases that a) public figures are not protected to the same degree as “normal” people under this law and b) satire as an art form benefits from constitutional protection against most lawsuits regarding this. Plus in Germany free speech is protected by the constitution and in any lawsuit regarding insults the §1.1 of our constitution “Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar...” (Human dignity shall be inviolable...) must outweigh the protection of the free speech. So Erdogans legal team found a German law dating back to 1871, last updated in 1968, that nobody brought to court since 1977 that forbids to insult parts of a foreign government, since Böhmermann accepted a fine (and to not repeat said poem) after the ruling in first instance, this is the end* of the story ;). Why did I bring this up? Well, insulting foreign leaders is something satire did for a long time, but as it turns out, it is illegal here in Germany, even though everybody forgot 'til 2016. *For those interested, a little further into this story:* The German Supreme Court did rule in 2006 that said law is in principle not unconstitutional as long as it regards only the form of whats said and not the thought content. In 2020 the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled pretty much that said law is incompatible with the principle of free speech. After that it is likely that the German Parliament will remove said law in the near future, but right now it's naturally not a priority.
@@luci2k1 I vaguely recall the story. But never heard how it ended. Interesting indeed. Thank you. I found the joke even more hilarious at the time, since Erdoğan made it an international story, by sueing. Greetings from Denmark
OBJECTION: I always wondered if the "forced arbitration" clauses were actually enforceable. It seems to me that *every* contract and agreement has that provision, which to me, means that it really wasn't negotiated.
I'm not American, so obviously American law does not apply to me, but this has to be one of the most fascinating channels on TH-cam. A witty, intelligent and engaging presenter/lawyer possessing excellent communication skills and the ability to simplify the often bewildering world of law is the main reason for watching, but it's also the diverse range of subjects. A brilliant channel.
"I'm not American...so why would I care about the 2008 housing bubble?" Because....these people are not playing with their own money They are borrowing from the bank and going to Vegas And so your pension, insurance and municipal bonds are all in play The analogy I'd offer is that, as a culture, Americans all want to hit that Grand Slam home run....so they swing for the fence when they could go for the base hit Most other western cultures try to build and retain wealth over generations...incrementally....patiently So they "invest"...put available cash into well-run companies that should increase in value over time Americans prefer to "speculate"...they want to be Elon Musk...or Bill Gates....Mark Zuckerman And when they strike out....and the odds say they will....they can take the whole team...sometimes the whole league...down with them
"of course the market is regulated" ... Wow, just wow I really lost a lot of respect for him on that one. That's the kind of wide-eyed optimism and belief in the marketplace that should have died off in 2008
@@robby2867 it’s not that shorting itself was manipulation IMO, but shorting over 140% is essentially saying “We’re trying to destroy your business” because nothing less than the company going belly up would satisfy shorting to that magnitude.
To summize: "You're not allowed to manipulate the stock market, only we're allowed to manipulate the stock market", and all across the country lawyers are counting up their billables.
Pretty much it honestly. The caveats he gave for stock shorting and squeezing was basically that they'd been done forever and that businesses have a lot of expenses or clauses they can use to justify manipulating the market without overtly breaking the law.
Quite, however that argument can be used to justify almost any crime and doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny. Either it's ok for everyone or no one, otherwise we literally have individuals above the law. The ageless hypocrisy of wall street was the reason many chose to jump on this trade. Now they're crying in their milk because they got caught with their balls in the cookie jar, some folks were tired of legislators doing nothing, and others saw a great opportunity to make a substantial profit so they slammed the lid. But honestly I'm under zero illusions this will change anything, Citadel bailed Melvin out at the tune of $2 billion and only took a 1% loss for January. There are big fish, then there are BIG fish. Maybe in the short run we'll see some sort of toothless legislation come from it but meh, I ain't holding my breath, it'll be business as usual in two weeks.
@@Gr_ywind I think the opposite in that the short term legislation will have some teeth, it's just the teeth won't be aimed at the stock market as it was. Just like the whole 'market manipulation' refresh after 2008. A vague law with a lot of caveats and over dependence on mens rea so certain people can still 'break' it.
Eh we know from past experience it'll be toothless, history repeats itself when dealing with this level of dinero. Once special interests gets in on the action I'll be surprised any legislation targets anything in the correct hemisphere.
Let’s not confuse consumer arbitration (meant to avoid class actions) with “arbitration” as a whole. Lots of large companies choose to arbitrate disputes (and particularly international ones) instead of submitting them to a court.
@@bigcoryjones2126 "How come Kenny's family eats frozen waffles for dinner and has rats on the floor, and we have a big house and lots of food?" "Well, because Kenny's family doesn't have as much money as we do." "But why? If they're hungry and poor, why don't we just always give them half of our food?" "Ha ha ha ha ha! Ooh-ho boy, have you got a lot to learn! Sit down, son." "You see, Kyle, we humans work as a society, and in order for a society to thrive, we need gods, and clods." "Gods and clods?" "Yes. You see, I spent a lot of time going to law school, and I was able to go because I have a slightly higher intellect than others. But I still need people to pump my gas, and make my French fries, and fix my laundry machine when it breaks down." "Oooohh, I see. Gods and clods!" "That's right. So Kenny's family is happy just the way they are, and we're all a functioning part of America."
What the Wall Street bets people did isn’t any different than someone going on CNBC talking about how they are shorting stocks with the intent to drive down the price.
Trades are public knowledge. Anyone talking about their positions isn't saying anything that you couldn't find out readily. If a trader expresses the intent to do something, usually they are giving a reason related to their belief in the value of the company according to their mathematics. It's ultimately an opinion. If others follow suit, that's their fault if it goes awry. I do think there is something to be said about those who call each other up and have private conversations to the effect so they can get the desired result. That's not great, but publicly expressing your opinion on the direction isn't manipulation, since any individual may accept or reject the opinion based upon their own judgment.
@@dylangolden30 As mentioned in the video, that surprisingly isn’t true. Even perfectly legal speech can become market manipulation if the intent is to manipulate the market (at least if I understand LegalEagle right). I think there are some legitimate free speech questions here, but I’m fairly certain that what occured does fit under the current definition of market manipulation.
Seriously, Fox Business and Bloomberg Finance and shit like that are constantly telling people to buy certain stocks, often on behalf of a hedge fund buddy.
📉 GameStop stock is plummeting. HODL?
☎️ Get $25 off of your first month with Ting Mobile legaleagle.link/ting
On Nebula, I went on an extended rant about how the stock was surely going to plummet. And then on release day, it did!
@@LegalEagle you are clearly a profit and I will start a religion around you
@@nolansmith5184 obviously, that's how people stay alive
@@LegalEagle Is the video on Nebula? I haven't been able to find it.
I appluade you for telling the truth about melving covering thier positions on GME but I expect a lot off redditors will get mad at you since that dose not fit with thier narrative
Part of me wishes that this could see its way to court, only to hear someone who spent god knows how many years slaving away at law school have to actually say phrases like, "Meme stocks," and, "For the lols," in front of a judge. You know, for the lols and all that.
But this video will have to do.
Well, you can always take confort in the knowledge hear someone who spent god knows how many years slaving away at law school had to actually say phrases like "omegaverse" and explain the concept of fanfiction to a judge.
I had a brother in law that was a defense attorney who would drop rap rhymes in the courtroom. Most lawyers know they've sold their soul, but are chill and relaxed about it. Who knows when you might appreciate them getting you out of community service.
I wouldn't be surprised if either have already appeared on the record somewhere. A Magistrate Judge from C.D. Cal. once issued a recommendation with Taylor Swift lyrics that included a footnote describing what a "meme" is.
I also wish to win the lottery.
“Your honor, it would seem that the intentions of users of Wall Street bets such as u/THICC_CHICS_DM_ME were ‘rocket emoji to the moon,’ ‘we like the stock,’ and often they demonstrate a motivation to demonstrate ‘diamond hands.’”
What I learned from this:
1) Everything is market manipulation.
2) You have to prove intent for it to be illegal - good luck.
3) The brokers are above the law because they write their own laws.
This needs more thumbs up.
Number 1 and number 3 are very true. It's funny how laws are put in place under the guise of regulation and balance and yet the scales are always tipped by the people with all the money
For 3, I would ask if they really are, because in many Western countries, contracts or agreements that contain illegal acts are illegal, and thus anyone signing that is essentially signing a contract saying "this is not a real contract".
In other words, if the contract itself is illegal, it has no meaning in court.
[This isn't legal advice.]
For number 3, it's more that they're above the law because of the limitations of the SEC, they can only fine you so much, so if you have more money than that, it's just the cost to do that thing.
And whether or not they literally write their laws, they can still preserve their hegemony over market trading because their actions are considered socially "legitimate" by virtue of establishment
If Senators can dump airline stock a couple days before announcing a Covid travel ban,
we're all good here.
Literally...
Haha THEY'RE all good maybe, doesn't mean the same applies to you and me
The action is illegal. Senators however have their stonewalls and people in place.
That's why anyone who supposed to know stuff or like business themself there supposed to have prewritten stock trading at sertin times. Now whether they actually fallow that I dont know
@Karl Marx *SOVIET ATHEM PLAYS*
My favourite thing from all this is
"Use the free market to get rich!"
"But not like that!!"
His ability to not hit that lamp with his hands is astounding.
My heart race with ever hand wave.
Never noticed before, can't stop looking now.
😂😂👏🏼
Is he that close to that lamp or is it perspective?
Comes from years of legal school
“Well, that’s day one of law school done - what have you learnt?”
“Well, it depends.”
“Congratulations - here’s your law degree.”
It's a paradox.
The law degree depends on whether or not you have a law degree.
this also make you a age of empires 2 pro
You left out the part about who has the stronger argument
But what about the lawsuits against Robin Hood for stopping people from buying GME & AMC?
@@Aya_Brea1998 well they will argue self preservation to not go bancrupt, people nearly bancrupted robin hood with this.
"Do you take this woman, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health?"
"It depends."
"Does she prefer a deep pan pizza over a thin crust?"
A lawyer's wedding vow
In sickness* and in health?
*sickness does not include any venereal diseases that were not pre-existing at the time of the wedding.
"Better, richer and health, please, thanks for giving me those options"
@@krh6239 An economist's wedding vow.
Hi, fellow attorney here. You failed to address one of the fundamental problems with barring class action lawsuits via arbitration agreements - Without the ability to join plaintiffs as a class, it is possible for malefactors of great wealth to defraud many (even millions) of people of very small individual amounts each. Steal $50 from a million people and you have made $50 million dollars, yet no single one of those people has an amount at issue that would provide any attorney with a potential recovery to attract their services.
Without legal representation, plaintiffs are very unlikely to pursue or obtain recovery given the costs, time commitment, and complexity of arbitration, particularly in matters as complex as financial regulation.
Sincerely, a guy who has represented plaintiffs in FINRA arbitration.
Schrödinger's Stock Market (n) *definition:* every trade and participant is engaging in legal and illegal actions at the same time
And the very act of interacting with the stock market collapses the wave function and the stock goes up or down.
The entire market is nothing but manipulation. Talk to any stock trader and they'll tell you whatever they stand to gain from you believing, actively deceiving you as part of the ordinary course of their business. Any supply and demand mechanics that may once have guided an economy become secondary to the eternal rat race of a liars' battle royale.
Which is a sign that the entire thing needs an overhaul lol
Cute but no, it is the hedge funds and brokers who are engaging in fraud and dismissing that reality is enabling them.
It's also engaging in just legal, or just illegal, or neither legal or illegal actions at the same time.
2020 was crazy, hope 2021 comes to heal everything...
2021: MONEY IS AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT AND HAS NO MEANING!!!!
The majority of US dollars in circulation were produced in the year 2020, if we didn't see money suddenly start going crazy right off the bat something'd be fundamentally wrong with economics as we know it.
money only exist because we believe it does.
Soviet theme starts playing
Lenin Stalin Mao and Karl begin to rise from their graves
The Revolution has come
So what you're saying is, your dreams came true and 2021 is here to heal everything.
@@reddawn1873 Marx based, leave the rest in their graves
Objection: Those who used other platforms than Robinhood could file a class action lawsuit. They did not sign any user agreements, but the Robinhood restriction directly effected Gamestop prices.
Oh damn that's a very interesting position and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter
@@marcoscolon5348 no he's saying that users of other platforms can sue Robinhood for market manipulation
Not really: by that logic an investor in GameStop should be able to sue Valve Software.
@@genth3575 an investor in GameStop can sue Valve. Not really sure what you meant by that, the logic of your statement actually supports what he said.
@@TheSmiddy oh ok. Sorry.
2020: The economy is falling apart!!! :'(
2021: The economy is falling apart!!! :'D
Weeb, go back to play Nobushi
2020: The economy is dying and we need to help it
2021: The economy is dying and we are causing it
@@Xeraghusta Dying *
@@mustachio2 thanks, problem fixed
Shut up clan kid
Every time he says Game Stop stock you can feel the urge to just say Gamestonk
I do a bong hit every time he says it
@@williamjohnson9599 enjoy your trip! Lol
I kind of hope they would rebrand their name to Game Stonk just to usher in their new era of e-commerce.
@@cupofcait hes gonna get so high he'll reach the moon before gamestonk
Game stonks
Warren Buffett: only invest in what you understand
Gamers in reddit: understandable , have a nice day
They just like the stock.
@@johnspencer5820 stong go ZOOOOOOMMM
Yap just like the stock.... bunch of crazy Gorillas with diamond 💎 hands 🙌🏻
It's a "FREE" market, the reason why stock increase or decrease in most companies because people either LIKE or HATE the stock, nothing more to it.
Your honor, I understand 2 things. Tendies are the best, and GME go brrrrr
“It’s like giving dynamite to children: it might cause a huge amount of damage but it’s definitely going to be fun to watch.”
I don’t care that Devin is a successful lawyer I am SO stealing this.
it worked for the Adams family.
Fiscal chaos for fun and profit!
(i.e. business as usual, with new players)
Such stupidity. A parent wouldn't give dynamite to kids, so why didn't Robinhood adjust their margins instead of stopping buying.
@Karl Marx Chill bro
@@anastasiab8173 Robinhood CEO got a 3am call to deposit $3Bn to cover deposits on trades. I daresay he shit himself more than just a little - that was a bigger bill than Robinhood's *entire* capitalization.
Yes, he managed to get that talked down by half, but that's still a scary-ass (literal) wake-up call. I can see why he panicked.
Those "forced" arbitration clauses should be against the law. The concept that in order to use the service a company has you can not sue them. The company after all picks the arbiter so you can see where this goes.
There have been bills entered in Congress to that effect following the Epic Systems SCROTUS decision but they all died because the banks own the Republicans.
I don't necessarily have an issue with the arbitration clause, arbitration is generally a cheaper alternative and quicker alternative to actual court.
its more of the "no class actions allowed" rule/stipulation that i believe is much more nefarious
2020: I'm a bizarre and terrible year.
2021: Hold my stonk.
💎🤲
Concentrated bombardment?
USA: OK, 2021, we're still dealing with the 'rona, you gave us an attempted coup, and now trolls causing chaos on Wall Street. I think that's enough sh*ts and giggles.
you damn right
"Melvin Capital ONLY has 12 billion dollars" that statement makes me tired and sad
Even a tiny mom and pop shop that earns the couple $30,000 a year will regularly do over a million a year in business. Having a few billions in working money isn't that much. Working money is very different than profit.
Hedge funds usually charge (steriotypically) 2 and 20. 2% on the assets controlled + 20% on profits earned. This varies widely, typically depending on how good the hedge fund is.
So, if they manage to match the average market growth (7%), they'd make an average profit (assuming their fees are 2 and 20) of $408m annually.
The exact fees for them, i'm not certain. this year though, they're not making much money :P
eveythings relative
They lost 3.5 billion in January though, so maybe that will make you feel better?
The number of billions is of no concern to my guillotine. Please sir, my poor guillotine, it is thirsty.
Food for thought: people who held GME and AMC stock at the time when Robinhood restricted trading lost money due to Robinhood's actions. Not all of these people were Robinhood customers, and did not sign the Robinhood's EULA. That means they have a better chance of getting their cases into a court.
What would their argument be? "This company that allowed the stock to skyrocket it the way it did, prevented its users from trading during a volatile time, so I lost money?" Don't think that will fly.
@@goldfishprime yeah it's way too indirect. neither was the intent to stop anyone else from making money.
@@goldfishprime my Nokia position that I had been building since Nov lost 25% because it had been placed on the naughty stock list. For what reason? It's not a terribly volatile stock, is it because it happened to also be popular on that subreddit?
@@michaelbarbarich3965 One would have to look at the numbers and changes during that frenzy period. Did Nokia's value increase suddenly like with GME? Was Nokia being shorted?
And you said subreddit, so was it popular with the group that was trying to ride the gravy train? Are you blaming them or Robinhood?
@@goldfishprime "The company that allowed the stock to skyrocket'" I don't think you have any idea what ur talking about. Brokers shouldn't have any influence on a stock's price. That would be market manipulation.
"A lot of people on Reddit really like Gamestop as a company." I never thought Id hear someone say those words.
A lot of people also just like making money. At least the OG /r/wsb members did before the subreddit got overtaken by what is now basically a financial suicide cult.
not as a company but gamers would be lying if at one point they looked at the store
Definitely old school. My boys are 80s babies and they are huge fans.
no no one likes them, gamesstop was just the best target
It would otherwise be strange for people to say they like to keep the stocks of a company they do not actually like.
This makes sense if you can sue “reddit” or “r/wallstreetbets” but each individual redditor did not have the power to influence the price substantially enough to meet part (1) of the market manipulation test.
Yeah, I kind of agree. The real challenge here would genuinely be figuring out who in god's name to sue. Individually they didn't have the power to do shit, and they all had their own reasons for acting as they did. Maybe one person wanted to manipulate the market, but that doesn't mean the other 8000 guys did, and without those other 8000 guys, it wouldn't have happened, and can you really make the argument that one random guy saying "hell yeah, stonks" is powerful enough to manipulate the market. It becomes a messy circle that you could argue around in circles forever in. Unfortunately, a lot of times what lawsuits actually mean is "the guy who can afford court wins," which means regardless of if reddit user boobs69 actually committed a crime, just being charged with something could ruin his life.
And how on earth do you differentiate between people who bought GameStop to "screw the hedge funds" and people who said, "oh, shoot, looks like there's a conspiracy to artificially inflate the price of this stock and I think I can make me some money off this."
@@andrew_ray You can differentiate for instance by reading what those people write online. Those that use language carefully don't have anything to fear. But those that make careless statements may have a problem. Probably still not, but theoretically could. As to the influence that a single person has. Again, if there was a careless post that had very many reactions and that clearly was read many times, this could serve as an argument. The fact that there were many thousands posting certainly is not a defence in itself. Otherwise, it would be possible to engage in any kind of market manipulation using a large group because each person individually wouldn't matter.
@@andrew_ray That's gonna set a terrifying standard for plausible deniability, though. Imagine if all you had to do to get away with most crimes was organically spread out culpability for the effects across enough people.
@@neolexiousneolexian6079 What's the difference between "plausible deniability" and "reasonable doubt?" Honestly, I'd be more concerned by the contrary precedent whereby anyone who can be connected to a crime is automatically considered guilty. I think if the hedge funds sue anyone, it's just going to be a handful of prominent Redditors who made the initial posts who set things in motion rather than try the individual guilt (and therefore the specific _intent_) of each person who purchased GameStop stock.
It's hard to take the crying of the hedge funds seriously when you realize they have so many golden parachutes stacked up that no amount of short squeezing will ever really ruin them. They're literally too rich to become poor.
I also doesn’t help their cases when a lot of them took out short positions before the 2008 recession and were celebrating their financial windfall as hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs and homes.
You don’t exactly win sympathy for that
Are you actually so naive as to believe that the people who benefited the most out of this were regular people and not just other hedge funds ?
@@Jame5man correction.. millions...
@@MeesyIce Well, damn! I wish the other HFs would help squeeze the shorts!
Not quite. There are winners and losers always, and especially so in a Big Squeeze
"Stonks" has destroyed my temporal lobe; all I could hear was GameStomp and Blonkbuster.
Gamedomp
Bonkbuster
26:00 He said Meme Stonks. It wasn't my hearing.
Thank you for making me laugh
Goin greenk with alternatul fuels
The argument that I feel could be made with the RobinHood legality debacle could be made is that they actively manipulated the stock even if unintentionally. The company as a whole did not allow people to buy stocks in select companies BUT did however allow (or in some alleged cases forced) people to sell their stakes in the company which will only permit the value of the stock to go down.
I think the SEC needs to rethink the freedom they give to these brokerages to manipulate stock prices at their own discretion. Imagine a major stock exchange telling a hedge fund that the stock is too volatile so they can only sell their positions. The whole thing is crazy.
They violated rule 5310. They were already fined for another set of violations of this rule so it's likely happening again. The SEC had every reason to initiate a trading halt since the market was clearly impacted by at least one of not two brokerage firms liquidity crises. They chose not to for whatever reason but that is the proximate cause of the problem. The SEC failed to act when it should have and thus we have this debacle
As a matter of legal fact, you can't unintentionally manipulate the market.
@@xtampa9236 You can think all you like. But unless you're willing to spend more cash on securities laws than robinhood's hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, the SEC will continue to work for them, not us.
@Aleksa Kole I'm pretty sure any EULA is gone over by legal entities to make sure no laws are broken.
I choked on water when he said "members" and the screen highlighted "degenerates" for the subreddit member count lmao
Smooth brains
Apparently it's what they call themselves, so...
Names can be apes, retards, and smooth brains
Clearly you've never been to /r/web. They call each other a lot worse than degenerates. In many ways, it is the unholy spawn of a Wall Street market analysis room and 4chan, with all the crude humor and childish excess of each.
"if 4chan found a Bloomberg terminal" what do u expect 😭😭😅😅
Legal Eagle: "It depends."
Me: "Oh yeah! Talk nuance to me."
Seems like he has a vested interest in this affair so I can't really tell if this is accurate, especially since robbinhood have been making doubious statements and have shown negligence through their actions.
He's actually a liar. What he didn't tell you was that Robinhood didn't stop trading for GME. They only stopped your ability to buy it while still allowing you to sell it.
@@Elluem It was brief, but he actually mentioned that at about the 8 minute mark. fwiw I think he is *mostly* correct here, but omitting some very important details that ppl should know about if they have any desire to prevent something like this from ever happening again.
@@sdaniaal counsel, would you kindly explain what is it that seems, exactly? Don't just cast aspersions or innuendo. By the way, what is that climbin' out yer window?
Legal Eagle: Professional legal analysis
Also Legal Eagle: *S T O N K S*
Edit: Oh wow I didn't expect to come back to nearly 600 likes. Since this is popular please drink some water and get some sleep.
I see this as an absolute win
The duality of man
I'm so glad he made this.
$GME Bid: 91.10 Ask: 92.00 Last: 91.50
$GME Bid: 89.51 Ask: 89.87 Last: 89.80
When they short a stock they dont just hope it goes down, they launch a media campaign to talk down the stock. See Jim Cramer. They also launch ladder attacks to simulate a drop to cause a panic sell off.
I wish I was this early at buying GameStop stock.
Right!
kdksksks SAME
A friend of mine found out he had actually been following DFV on TH-cam for months and never realized he was trying to hype up Gamestop
I had an order to buy 65 shares at $20, ended up putting the money elsewhere. Not my best investment choice.
I wish I was this early buying Bitcoin
What about all the media saying Reddit is now "targeting silver?" Even though there wasn't a single upvoted post about silver on the forum. This is false information used specifically with the intent of manipulating investors. Melvin has big long positions on silver, directly profiting from it. Also, Citidel a major person in a short position on game stop, is a major investor in robinhood.... pretty convenient. Seems like a lot of manipulation to me.
The qanon types have been hyping silver. Of course you wouldn't hear about it because it's entirely different circles.I only know because of moles on Gab that relay the dumb things they say.
To me this is the most striking example of market manipulation in this whole affair
The ability to influence the market is clear for media, and they are supposed to be subject to fact checking which they apparently forgone during this affair
It's either diffamatory to say that r/waalstreetbets is buying silver or it's market manipulation
I bet they won't even be taken up on it though
@@Monjipour do not fall for the silver bs, that is bad and an attempt to draw away attention from the whole Gamestonks thing
@Phi6er this is why net Neutrality is important.
@Phi6er that's tor/the darknet. It exists
The hedge funds announcing intention to short, is just as manipulative as redditors announcing their intention to buy. Both actions are an attempt at influence. If short positions were secret, then a moral high ground might exist. But it doesn't.
Short sellers blatantly and intentionally execute their actions in direct attempt to tank a company's stock to make money.
You do know there are even bigger hedge funds that are long on GME right?
There is no way to prove that. Since they do not explicitly announce what they hope to achieve with these announcements. MEANWHILE, r/WSB proudly announces that its intention is to manipulate the market.
Which is why I see short selling as inherently unethical imo. Then again, a lot of shit these guys do in finance often are. But there is nothing unethical about the simple act of buying stock hoping it goes up in price.
@@Reydriel Thoughts and hopes are never 'unethical'
@@Reydriel nothing unethical about seeing a weak stock you think is gonna go down in price and betting on that
They didn’t stop all trading they stopped all BUYING
and also said it wasnt as a result of liquidity issues
Oh, so just market manipulation.
I mean, Robinhood had to. They were tapping their credit lines just to keep the platform running. They didn't have enough capital to keep going with all this high volume. Stocks don't just come out of nowhere.
@@blindeagleace3629 If people buy stock they give Robinhood money. If people sell stock they take money out of Robinhood. If Robinhood was having capital problems then why did they forbid people from buying, but allowed selling? It would make sense to halt all selling AND buying, or to halt selling, but to halt _only_ buying while claiming not to have enough cash sounds disingenuous.
@@bobross4729
Not unless they are on margin, and even if people used their own cash it would still take two to four days for the order to be completed from the clearing house. And Robinhood would still have to put up collateral to hold the order.
It's a horrible idea for Robinhood to stop Buying and Selling because that would only affect Robinhood users. Robinhood is just one broker site. Meaning if they halt all trading then that wouldn't stop users from say WeBull or Sofi from trading. If a Robinhood user brought GME at 300 and Robinhood halted trading and the price went down then Robinhood users would have been destroyed.
Again, Robinhood didn't have enough capital to keep up with all the trading going on. They had to take 700 million dollars from their credit line to continue trading on the site.
I know it's not popular to say but Robinhood did the right thing by restricting trading on those "meme" stocks.
"If you can't take a beating, don't short stocks" -Someone somewhere
i believe Warren Buffet said something along those lines
_something has a potential for literally unlimited losses far exceeding anything you've actually invested_
hedge funds: i see no downsides here
Question. How is short selling stocks as a large hedge fund in large quantities not market manipulation or violate antitrust? By mass selling they are lowering the prices as well. So what is wrong with people mass buying?
If I could, I'd give you 100 likes for that comment.
@@notatrollll there's nothing wrong with mass buying or mass selling. What's illegal is buying or selling purely for the purpose of convincing others to buy or sell. In these situations trades are analogous to the calls dispensing fraudulent information.
Why is it not market manipulation when Jim Cramer and a bunch of talking heads on CNBC talk up a stock or insist it be held that they have a financial stake in increasing
The well practised avoidance of key phrases and the inclusion of key info. In 2020 many on WSB were sticking to the same guidelines, or going comedicly the other way as to claim jest. Many of the unwashed masses who started arrive late 202 and in 2021 are new to trading and unaware or uncaring of any possible issues or liabilities tied to statements they make or guidance they give.
A lot of those guys refrain or are forbidden from trading in the market for that reason
They “play by the rules,” that they wrote, that enable them to benefit without it looking immoral :)
Privilege
@@dylangolden30 wait hang on..this is new info to me
so if you dont actually trade or buy or own yourself.....what rules are you exempt form here?
Capitalists trying to stop capitalists from using capitalism to build capital... I'm investing in popcorn futures
I'm starting to think that a lot of the people who spread anti-capitalistic rhetoric aren't even against capitalism necessarily. They're against modern-day capitalism which has been twisted and corrupted to instead be a way for the rich to pocket most of the wealth while telling the rest of the population that it's entirely fair they own everything.
WSB got you covered with AMC; top 5 cooked popcorn distributor!
@@filipwolffs capitalism has plenty of issues even in theory (as do all economic systems) but you're right that a lot of anti-capitalists are moreso rejecting late-stage crony-capitalism and plutocracy rather than pure free-market capitalism.
You sir, are the real genius.
@@filipwolffs The problem is that capitalism will always tend towards that state since it maximizes the generation of profit.
Hedge fund have always been manipulating the market so why are they now crying?
They want themselves and only themselves to be rich.
They're crying because a lot of them used the VERY DANGEROUS uncovered call on what they thought was a safe bet and sunk quite a bit into it. Then, when they got, "You fool"-ed it ended up costing them a lot. So, they cry.
hedge fund and people who do it are holding humanity back
they got outplayed at their own game and got a bitter taste of what they do the smaller traders.
basically the " everyone should trade....wait not like that?!"
A large amount of serotonin entered my brain when I read “the stonkening”
"Your honor, it was just for shits and giggles"
WE JUST LIKE THE STOCK
for shidding and gigging
It was just a prank bro.
@@spartan8705 👐💎🚀
"Your honour, mario will never be ballin'"
I can see the argument for Robinhood removing GameStop Stock from margin Trading . I cannot see the argument for removing GameStop stock from long Non margin Trading.
My immediate thought too. But it appears all purchases by a broker are, in effect, a margin purchase since the broker is not allowed, by SEC rules, to use customer's money. Only once the buy clears after a couple of days can the broker debit the customer's account. It seems Robinhood didn't have the cash to continue doing any more purchases of Gamestop (this could actually be the liquidity issue denied by the CEO). But Robinhood could continue to issue sell orders. I find it quite interesting sitting here in the grandstands at the 50 yard line.
I hope someone gets to court, just to see what was really going on behind the scenes, what actions were truly necessary due to SEC or other requirements, and if this then leads to meaningful changes in those requirements.
@@willdejong7763 They'd just make those involved sign some sort of NDA prohibiting them from divulging any meaningful information as part of a settlement. We'd still never get a peek behind the curtain, unfortunately...
@@d_shepperd Wait so does that mean the market just freaks out even before orders are cleared? Also are the people selling only the non-margin traders and the early clears from the squeeze? Or can you effectively send in a sell order to counteract a buy order that hasn't even cleared yet?
@@nfzeta128
_can you effectively send in a sell order to counteract a buy order that hasn't even cleared yet?_
You _could_in theory, but only if the broker allows it (if you start with 0 shares, probably not).
If you do this enough times, fast, with a large number of shares, it's considered "churning", which is a form of market manipulation. Basically what this does is drum up phony activity on the stock to get other investors to buy in. I'm pretty sure brokers have ways to limit this sort of thing.
The sad part is that when the big guys purposefully screw over the little guy through increased mortgage costs, which, and correct me if I'm wrong, led to the housing crisis, they receive massive bailouts. Yet, when the little guy does the same exact thing, it is suddenly very bad.
This whole situation is hilarious. Somewhere there’s the saddest song playing on the world’s smallest violin for the hedge funds.
Jig or a Reel?
And all of the people who bought late last week. It's fun to imagine that only the rich will get hurt by this, but a LOT of small investors are going down with them. The worst part about it all is that the rich will get bailed out.
...and for universities, and credit unions, and for people who live off of pensions (I.E. veterans, etc.)
@@Lowmanification Maybe if this process repeats itself a couple of times it will make it increasingly obvious to everyone that the system is rigged to protect the rich and that this whole idea of a fair free market where everyone has a fair chance is a lie propagated by the rich to protect their wealth and keep the public pacified.
@@andreicecold4379 yeah, catch me not caring. Shout out to oil stock prices and thanks for keeping it low. Nothing else.
"Giving dynamite to children is fun to watch." -LegalEagle
I mean, the analogy isn’t far off... though I do agree the result is immensely fun to watch.
I speak truth to power.
@@LegalEagle the absolute madlad
@@LegalEagle yes
@@LegalEagle In this case, the power is a violent exothermic reaction
Can the name “Robin Hood” get any more ironic?
No-thingham
Robin Hood is a thief. What do you expect form a Thief? And in the story Robin Hoof steals from the government (sheriff) to give back to those who created the wealth.
@@rvanzo925 Robbing The Hood*
@@rvanzo925 seems like reddit was using the app as intended then :^)
Taking from the rich, giving to the poor. When GME price increased, Redditors became rich and hedge funds poor. I think it is an apt name then :)
"This might lead some people to believe the market is rigged and unfair because..." lemme finish that for you in the correct way..because it is..
But if he admits the by-businesses-for-businesses "market" and "economy" things are actually just thinly-veiled scams against the public, he won't be able to go work for the finance industry after retiring from youtube! Gotta keep those options open!
@@TwoTreesStudio im guessing when he retires for youtube he wont need to since he already has all the money he needs from his practice which probably pays way more than youtube does
US financial markets are heavily regulated, even moreso after Dodd Frank, to the point that even companies worth hundreds of millions of dollars sometimes don't want to go public for fear of increased regulation.
your honour, as i’ve shown,
my client was clearly “jus playing fam”. i rest my case
*honor
@@dildojizzbaggins6969 we spell it with a u in Canada
It's all perfectly fine and legal until rich people start losing money.
More like it gets swept under the rug as long as the powerful make money. It’s not legal by any means but no one takes notice. And that doesn’t even have to be because they are bias to the rich, it could just be because for a poor person to make this level of impact on the stock they would need to group with tons of people
you do realize how that is?
the rich are the rich because they make the rules
Some rich people are still making plenty of money out of this and they will have little sympathy for those on the losing side of the betting. GME is essentially arena fodder to make a bit of a spectacle.
You've summed up the great short squeeze in one sentence 👍
So everyone in my family myself included (I'm 30 with full time job) are broke AF. Our retirementment plans are getting ruined by this, my 83yr old grandfather a retired truck driver is considering going back to work after all he has lost.
Rich people are going to be just fine after all this gamestop crap. Poor people gonna end up cold and hungry becuase of it. People who don't make enough money but have carefully invested for years to survive into old age( he makes more in retirement due to investments than he ever did driving cross country) have lost more where it counts.
Like I hate gamestop very much, but its horrifying seeing whats happening becuase of it
Finance & market manipulation in media: **hackerman**
Finance & market ”manipulation” IRL: **internet going YOLO**
Sant
dogecoin set for another pump
Yo Legal Eagle! It's been a year since this video. Have you seen the information released by the congressional finance committee formed to investigate this saga? Ken Griffin of Citadel told this committee he "absolutely [did] not" communicate with Robinhood other brokers that turned off GME. The committee later released a report showing Citadel definitely talked to Robinhood.
Did he lie under oath? Why isn't he arrested?
I wish this comment was getting more attention
Imma do my part to pump the marke-.....algorithm.
I don't think one is under oath when talking to the committee.
TH-cam algorithm bot post... update and follow please
@@arturoaguilar6002unfortunately you’re correct, congressional committees don’t operate with the level of authority or structure of a court of law, much like how impeachment proceedings operate. 😅
Leaving aside everything else, if we believe everything Robinhood has said up to this point then:
The CEO lied on national television, misrepresenting their product in an extremely impactful way. If I was joining a broker, I'd be very interested in what liquidity they have. The CEO said they had no liquidity issue, which we know to be objectively false. Isn't this not very different than a food product stating it is 'calorie free' when it actually is not? Or a car company saying their car gets 25 MPG highway when it actually only gets 13 MPG highway?
Yea I was surprised that wasn't mentioned. "There was no liquidity problem" is not ambiguous.
Now that T-rump is gone, its actually becoming fun to see you take on these whimsical events, instead of dedicating 4 videos in a week to some add-to-the-pile crazy stuff. I liked this!
As important as those videos were, it got very tiresome very quickly through no fault of his own.
@@meowtherainbowx4163 it's refreshing to not have to think "oh god, what's going to happen this week?"
@@stevenn1940 Now we have to think "Oh God, what's going to happen this week?" but with other things
Or maybe it's that LegalEagle, like everyone else, has a political Bias.
Biden has signed 43, yes, 43 Executive orders in just his first Two weeks in office. It took Trump months to get to that level. If Devin wanted to, he could talk about the Legality of ending the Keystone XL pipeline through an executive order (thereby laying off thousands of well paying Union jobs) or allowing boys to play in girls Sports. But guess what? He's not gonna cover that stuff, Because that doesn't fit his narrative.
I hate both presidents. I just sincerely doubt Devin is gonna look into any of Biden's shenanagians. I would love to be proven wrong here.
@@Dylan-hb5zr It seems like you're complaining about literally nothing. Maybe try turning your brain on and off again to make the problem go away.
*2040s teacher:* In the '20's, stock traders buying on margin triggered an economic collapse due to being unable to pay their debts en masse.
*2040s student:* Which '20's?
*2040s teacher:* Yes.
So true
The Game Stop traders weren't primarily buying on margin. They were given government funny money and they turned it into a handful of shares of Game Stop. Most people weren't buying tens of thousands of dollars worth of $GME, on margin or off, there were just a million of the beautiful bastards
@@draugur345 government funny money.... Some of the bigger investers from reddit put in 6 figure sums as an individual. Specifically it was over $700,000 that they turned into 13.8 million.
Considering the US has given people 1800 total over ten months. Compare that to about anywhere else nearly as industrialized as the US has given that amount to people monthly on a recurring basis.
all fiat money is government funny money, cryptocurrency with real scarcity like gold such as bitcoin is real money
@@tacokoneko Gold and Bitcoin aren't comparable. Gold has natural supply increases of something like 2% a year from mining, while Bitcoin already crossed below that and will continue to decline in added supply. Further supply losses just from people losing their keys makes them different animals entirely.
One can argue the merits and pitfalls of both, but what isn't arguable: People are far more motivated to hoard Bitcoin than gold, and hoarding weakens something's viability as a currency.
After watching many of these I'm still surprised by US law.
In Australia you can't sign away your consumer rights. And our consumer rights are extensive. So things like forcing arbitration would be deemed an illegal practice and be ignored in any legal proceedings.
I can't tell if the US has poor consumer rights or they are just can be easily superceded.
Imo moreso easily superceded. I feel like we have good protections so long as you don't sign those 'you can't sue us' things... but they're everywhere, with almost anything you use. I'm not sure how one would be able to eat, drink, or sleep anywhere without signing one.
At this point you should be selling merch with "It Depends" stamped on it
The adult diaper company would send a cease and desist letter :)
A mug with “milk or coffe? It depends!”
@cak01vej It's a joke.
Business people: Why don't the poor just invest their money?
reddit: lol ok
Business people: (losing money) No wait, stop that !
I like Twitter too.
Best comment. With all due respect I watch all this with popcorn. They can't proof anything, they can't sue anyone and even when this was a one time situation, the slap was huge.
I don't think most "business people" care at all. Pretty sure the real winners of this were the Hedge funds who jumped on the bandwagon
in my opinion, poor ppl here did not just invest in the stock like they normally do, they found the weak point to breach the hedge fund's finance which squeezes money off them. if you normally invest you would not make the money most people made in this case.
Are you making craptastic reposts of other social media comments for updoots on TH-cam? These up arrows aren't even cumulative bruh. It's the LEAST meaningful social influence you could have outside of commenting on local news paper websites.
"Everyone wants to sue each other"
Lawyers across the land: : D
"It's free real estate!"
@@guywithdacap4713 *stonks*
You get a lawyer, you get a lawyer, everyone gets a lawyer!!
"They think it's hedge funds that control the economy, mwahaha"
Legal fees only go up!
I don't know why the first "STONKS" sent me into a giggling fit
the Stonkening
Lol. I'm adding this to the title
@@LegalEagle :D
@@LegalEagle You madman you actually did it, you spent years in law school to title something the stonkening
@@LegalEagle incoming copyright claim from the UK's Hale & Pace, re 'Stonk' xD
💎👐
"Rules for Thee, But Not for Me"
Tim Pool?
The rules were the same for everyone lol
This is just a bunch of people throwing money at a stock because of memes and then blaming everyone but themselves when they lose money. You lost money because you invested in something that already rose many thousand percent.
@@ajw5138 The platform that allowed them to access the "free" market locked them out thus forcing them to lose money. This isn't a lost bet. This is a rigging the system to screw over retail investors. Plain and simple. Robinhood should burn in hell for it.
@@Kilo_Alpha_Delta Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it rigged. Brokers/entire stock exchanges limit trading during times of extreme volatility all the time. Robinhood still allowed them to sell if they wanted and them limiting buying because of liquidity issues is in no way manipulation. People bought the top of a bubble and are now crying and trying to blame everyone but themselves.
@@Kilo_Alpha_Delta they could have sold, so no, also ironically this would be true if they couldn't sell
*Rich people tell poor people and middle class people to invest in stocks*
*Poor and middle class people invest in stocks*
Rich people:
not stonks
Rich people: Wait, that's illegal.
@@foxymetroid "We can't have that! If you gain more money, that means we, gasp, have less money!"
Rich People: No, not like that.
@@truneighborhoodwatchtnw2127 i am just going to assume you are going to talk about the slap stick car rebuilder and not look at it as sad onlook at the strict class structure that seems to always find its way to rebuild it's self in our society
Let's be clear. While rich people do invest in hedge funds, the vast majority of assets under management comes from endowments, pension funds, etc. So, congratulations, you just screwed some teachers out of a pension.
I’d argue that the cultural value of Game Stop is a factor in it’s stock price. A company that fostered a loyal clientbase, a clientbase that has just reached the age to possibly have surplus income.
These ties to videogame culture are a part of value as much as older banks having more renown - and thus trust put in them.
Your catch phrase is, "I'll see you in court." but it should be, "Will I see you in court? Well, that depends."
"Melvin Capital only had 12 billion dollars to begin with" aw the poor, poor babies
I caught this too and thought: "ONLY!?"
The intention was probably to empathize that the 3 billion injection was a lot
Wish I had that problem.
In the world of Hedgefunds, it is probably really "only" 12 billions, that other hedgefunds are way richer. Hence other, bigger hedgefunds could aford to just give some billions away to protect Melvin Capital.
Bridgewater has like 100 billion
The real stonks were the memes we made along the way.
Like that sea shanty they came up with.
YAAAAARRRR!
Link?
@@arkesh110 look up the tendieman to the tune of the wellerman
@@arkesh110 th-cam.com/video/-3SvJvN0x9s/w-d-xo.html
“There once was a stock that put to sea
the name of the stock was $GME
The price blew up and the shorts dipped down
Hold my bully boys, hold”
@7:30 they didn't stop trading, just buying. You could still sell which is direct market manipulation
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
George orwell animal farm chapter 10
Ironically, that book was a commentary on communism.
@@bored_person it's convergent evolution...eventually all systems tend toward a rigged system of haves and have nots
@@insertcognomen that's an incredibly difficult claim to verify.
@@bored_person Not really, at least empirically. Just look up graphs of income inequality over time in a diverse sample of systems.
Is anyone else on the edge of their seat waiting for the fatal moment his gesticulating finally smacks that lamp across the room?
M.G.L. Hutton I keep trying to get a good look at his hands, because his voice is like the LockPickingLawyer's.
I was fascinated by how the light from the lamp was changing colors.
When MGL Hutton speaks... people listen.
I think he may be infront of a green screen so it may just be a photo
Ooh. NOW I am. 🤔
LegalEagle uses "giving dynamite to children" as a metaphor
Also LegalEagle "it's definitely going to be fun to watch"
Well...
Adult Children lmao
Fun for the whole family
You saying you wouldn't? Liar.
To be fair, dynamite is actually remarkably hard to accidentally set off. That's part of the reason it became such a succesful explosive; it was much safer than the alternatives available at the time.
@@rjfaber1991 unless it gets too old and starts sweating nitroglycerine. then all that is required to set it off is an impact.
Im starting to realize everything is illegal from the right point of view.
Law is a game of semantics to begin with
Especially if “non-professionals” do it. Cop kills in rightful self-defense? Perfectly fine, immune to any lawsuits brought. Civilian kills in self defense? If not found guilty of murder, they’ll get sued for everything they have.
Same for Wall Street, the “non-professionals” bought stock and disrupted the hedge’s strategy, so it’s illegal.
It’s illegal because the government and hedge funds don’t like it
Hedge funds: immorally manipulate stocks and loose money, government bails them out
Peasants: in good faith buy stock and make money, government banes them
It’s not just hedge funds, it’s the entire institution of Wall Street who follow the Vile Maxim: all for one and none for all.
You can't call it "good faith" when the intent was to manipulate the market specifically to harm hedge funds
@@RabblesTheBinx hey, they liked the stock. How can you tell the difference between the people who wanted to bust a hedge fund and the ones who like the stock?
What good faith? Let's not pretend they bought it just for investment (and not with the intent of causing a short squeeze). Besides, the goverment didn't ban them; the private stock broker firm (Robinhood) suspended all buy GME orders (it's common practice for stock broker firms to suspend orders when, for example, a market is crashing all stock sale orders need to be suspended).
@@RabblesTheBinx How is hurting hedge funds acting in bad faith?
Reminds me of an old rhyme from the wild and woolly days of Wall Street:
"He who sells what isn't his'n
Buys it back...or goes to prison."
That is exactly what my dad said about this.
Thank you for that wonderful turn of phrase
Ha ha. Rich people going to prison in the US. Good one!
Frankly I’m just pissed at the reaction of all these hedge funds trying to force out the average person from the market after years of talking down to us telling us to invest
You poor people should invest
No no, not like that!
I'm with the hedge funders but only on a technicality.
Investing is like war. I can't make you do it the way I think is better but I still believe it will hurt everyone entirely if you're too reckless.
#FrenchRevolution
But if there's a reason for something radical and new to be risked it might be the only way to learn.
Just try not to repeat any old already established mistakes.
@@KylePoni23 It isn't poor people investing though, is it? Poor people have their hands full buying food and paying rent. It's middle-class people with enough comforts to their life, enough time in their hands and enough dough in their pockets that can buy this shit and act all self-righteous talking down the hedge funds while hoping to sell this crap at a margin. You don't get to fix a broken unjust system by engaging with it by its rules.
@@moscanaveia This is what I'm worried about. Seeing people say things like "I can survive the loss of $1k so it's worth it to keep this thing going"... well not everybody can, and ultimately we're talking about thousands of individual actors. Many will simply be looking for a quick buck
If there's anything I’m learning from all of this mess is, I’m just learning more and more how stocks work and investing in general.
OBJECTION: I think the biggest thing that wasn't mentioned in the video was short laddering. While robinhood prevented people from buying stock (even stock that was not on margin) hedge funds allegedly bid back and forth on the stock using bots at lower and lower prices causing the stock price to plummet. Robinhood and many other brokerage users could only sit there and watch as the stock price plummeted. The largest alleged short ladder attack was today where the stock opened at $130 and closed at $80 ish. Short laddering is technically illegal and is blatant market manipulation there is even evidence of these bots making these trades as with some brokerages you can see recent trade prices and many of them go into fractions of cents (like $90.56768) things that retail investors obviously cannot do. This is really where the anger on WSB is coming from. Essentially the retail investor was left high and dry while hedge fund managers could continue to trade and allegedly used short ladder attacks to artificially drive down the stock price.
Except RobinHood only suspended buys on Jan 28, GME shot back up the next day.
"The largest alleged short ladder attack was today", Feb 2, then it is not related to "While robinhood prevented people from buying stock"
@@JMacSD what did robin hood have to do with the original comment?
@@TealJosh The comment claims that Robin Hood's decision left its investors powerless while hedge funds dropped the price using an illegal short ladder. I don't know if there's any truth to that, but that's what it says.
Thank you I was waiting for someone to mention this!
@JmacSD Yeah even after they fully restricted buys they only allowed "limited Buys" which meant you could only buy a certain amount and they changed that amount throughout the day. Lowering it fromm 5 to 1.
"Is it legal? It depends...on how much money you have."
Everything is legal as long as you have money.
Remember, always make a boat load of money with the first questionably legal thing you do so that you can justify everything that comes after.
$GME GO BRRR
POIDH
Saw that on the subreddit
@@markbenjamin1703 there's so many billboards
It was paid for my a redditor who invested about $1 Million when the stock was down around $5 per and sold about 20% of his holdings when it had hit like 300. (What I've heard on it at least)
Im so happy you let people know that in MOST small claims cases, arbitration is definitely in the users favor. Ive seen arbitration clauses that say every expense after the 200$ initiation fee is borne out by the defendant, win or lose. For most issues for 2000$ or less, threaten to initiate arbitration and a company will fold like a cheap suit.
OK, here’s the problem I have with how this has been covered: retail traders did not inflate the price of GME; it was already more valuable than what it was trading at because 140% of available stock had been shorted. It’s not market manipulation; it’s simple supply and demand: a guaranteed large demand relative to the available supply.
Once considerably more than 100% of available stock has been shorted, the stock is valuable because of the amount of shorting and nothing more; the rational action for a shareholder is to hold the stock until the market reflects its true value. What normally happens is that a significant portion of shareholders are either unaware of the extent to which the stock has been shorted, or oblivious as to the impact that fact has on the true value of the stock, so they sell the stock at well below its true value due to unequal information. What WSB did in this instance was remove the barrier of unequal information so that the true value of the stock, based on legitimate supply and demand, was realized.
Once the amount of available stock that is shorted (aka demand) drops below a certain threshold, the value of the stock is much less dependent on the amount of shorting and much more dependent on the health of the company being traded, so the true value of the stock will collapse. However, it is crucial to realize that this volatility is caused by shorting well above 100% of the available stock, and this root cause is what future regulations must address. Focusing on the symptom (investors buying at below true value and holding on to heavily shorted stocks until the true value is reflected in the market) instead of this root cause will not solve the issue. We need to place restrictions on the extent of available stock which can be shorted to protect individuals and institutions alike from (stupidly) raising the true value of a stock sharply by the very action of betting that the stock will decrease in value.
Also institutions held about as many shares as retail if not more.
On a side note, legaleagle said that shorting more than 100% of the stock float is not illegal. Could anyone explain why this is not illegal, and why it shouldn't be made illegal? Because if it hasn't been illegal for this long, there must be a good reason over shorting exists (or is it called naked shorting?) or this system is rigged.
@@Tortillin0077 It depends on how it was shorted. If a legitimate stock was found for the lend it is allowed, even if that stock itself was previously shorted. It becomes "Naked Shorting" when you do not actually locate a stock to borrow before you sell. In tat case you are selling a stock which does not exist and attempting to find a replacement later to make it look legitimate. Here is an SEC case from 2011 perfectly showing this: www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-264.htm
Lol we just like the stonk.
"they may have destroyed the financial market as we know it"
Oh, thank god.
Premature celebration much? You speak as if things can only get better.
Optimism is nice, and I'll support it
Still, valid concerns
"maybe gambling money that doesn't exist on corporate success or failure based on rules that it's illegal to know but also relies on everyone acting in good faith isn't a great way to structure an economic system?"
"Too late, we already put everyone's pensions on it."
About time!
@@rylog8 The pension-payers are quite literally human shields, and the only reason why they're so well-protected sadly
Rich People: If you want to grow you should invest.
-Redditors: Okay.
-Rich People: >:C
You were not supposed to listen to us!
@@hostiletoxictomdowneyburne6469 WHAT RICH MEANS IS THAT YOU INVEST WE SHORT AND LEAVE YOU HOLDING THE BAG , REPEAT THE CYCLE AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR A BILLIONAIRE TO BE A TRILLIONAIRE
@@arnoldshmitt4969 It’s exactly this. They want you to invest in things that will separate you from your “dumb money” as they put it.
Right? This sounds like a case of don't hate the player, hate the game
@@MrSkeltal268 That's not what dumb money means. Rich people can invest dumb money too.
Alright so, because I was bored and his was lamp fluctuating in intensity of light (don't know why I noticed it), I wrote down the timestamps of when Legal Eagles' lamp (somewhat) rapidly changed in intensity. Here's the timestamps ± 2 seconds: 0:13, 1:28, 2:13, 2:34, 2:38, 3:11, 3:39, 3:50, 4:09, 4:14, 4:21, 4:35, 5:07, 5:13, 5:15, 5:19, 5:24, 5:36, 5:56, 6:05, 6:12, 6:23, 7:42, 7:45, 8:05, 8:25, 8:34, 8:44, 8:46, 9:31, 9:35, 9:47, 10:03, 10:43, 11:34, 11:43, 12:15, 13:05, 14:05, 14:22, 14:36, 16:50, 23:37 (many slow fluctuations between the last two (2) listed timestamps), 25:09, 25:13, 25:16, 25:17, 25:33, 26:51.
I noticed and appreciate your effort
I appreciate this.
I appreciate this.
I can't believe I haven't heard it called The Stonkening yet. that's so clearly the right name for it
I've actually heard it called that already! I believe it was trending on Twitter at one point.
Eh, just wait for the inevitable Internet Historian video on it. It’ll likely be called that.
Gamestop company be like: "We really are just trying to survive here on our own..."
reddit gamers be like
"Were going to use your corpse as a weapon against the rich"
But Microsoft already sent em a care package to help them survive during the pandemic before this stonk rise
Can I just write a ToS that says "The user has no rights."?
Most eula's already have that.
"You agree that "whatever corp" has the right to cease services for whatever reason we or our partners decide."
That is in most eula in some form or another
that topic needs it's own video.
There are other brokers.............
@Unfiltered Reality what are you on about? Are you angry because your little mind can only understand Robinhood’s ultra-simplistic UI? TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, Etrade.
@Unfiltered Reality You hit the jackpot! Trading on margin is literally taking out a loan for gambles! Wow you’re less stupid than I thought! The fact of the matter is, Brokers are independent companies and they can do whatever they please, that’s what the TOS is for, I know a lot of other companies do a bunch of shady shit like steal my data for advertisers but that doesn’t delete the fact that people still cooperate with those businesses to get something in return. Maybe you should actually idk, look up stock market strategies and try to invest instead of gambling like these mainstream retail traders that get their leads from Twitter.
"It's not our economy. It never was." ~ Jim Stephanie Sterling.
Am I the only one who is insulted when people say "You know this basically gambling" to a group of people in a forum call "wallstreetBETS"
Never underestimate how stupid people on the internet can be when something trendy hits the mainstream. 5 million+ new members joined in the span of a couple weeks. Hundreds of thousands are following the wrong robin hood twitter account as well. Do you feel insulted when you read the label of a clorox bottle and it tells you not to ingest and to call poison control?
You're playing blackjack. You have seen a total of ten cards with a value of 10 (10s, Jacks, Queens, Kings) in the last two rounds and you have 12 while the dealer has a 6. They have not been shuffling. Do you hit or stand? Given what you know, the odds of having another high value card appear so soon (assuming the deck only has 16 in it) is low since so many are now buried at the bottom of the deck. The odds of getting a 9 or lower are pretty substantial and gives you much better odds of winning...
Being informed doesn't change the fact that it's gambling. You have no way of knowing if the next card will or won't be a queen that will break you. A hedgefund hit on 12 cause they thought all the high cards were buried, but they drew a queen. WallstreetBets hit on 12, but the dealer asked them to leave.
@@OtrTrash yes but it's still gambling, and it's called wall street bets for a reason
@@inigo8740 you can also see the name as sort of ironic and a "meme" on how idiotic that this is a financial system based around betting and that's what the name is making fun of and referring too. I don't personally know just think it's another way you can view it's naming.
@@OtrTrash I know, thats what I am saying. The community is literally called "BETS"
The SEC hasn't been enforcing market laws since Reagan.
Except for now when the poor screwed the rich then suddenly its a Big deal. This is a case Where. The only moral response is also an illegal one.
To make a reference to a certain investing platforms Namesake.
When justice is outlawed, The just must become outlaws.
🤣 pretty dumb statement
Brandon Porter the sec still hasn’t done much. It’s all the hedge funds getting mad. Not the sec.
They did from the last administration not Bush and under
@@ErikPT
Not really. Or what didnt you understand about the housing collapse and nobody on wall street going to jail for it?
Just a quick nitpick: something existing for a very long time makes it neither legal nor right.
Short sale of any product should i think be considered a dick move at the least and profit theft/embezzlement as a law.
No way at all to prove it, and I doubt the SEC would care. But I don't think they had access to all the shares they shorted in Dec/Jan. Over 100% short interest plus a huge outlier in failures to deliver for GME is sus.
That would be naked shorting, which is in fact illegal.
Well, it sometimes makes things legal; at least, if the rich and powerful of yesteryear decided they wanted to be able to do something and get away with it. Right, on the other hand, is another matter - many things are legal that are not right, and many things would be right but are not permitted by law. Law should be based on the desire for a fair and just society, but a lot of laws are sadly instead created to protect privilege and facilitate oppression, through force or information control or whatever means the powerful find most appealing.
That said? There are also things that people assume are laws, but aren't, but people still live by these presumed laws due to tradition, habit, a flawed perception of reality, etc. So you're not really wrong on either count.^^
@@hazukichanx408 I can't and won't argue against that ^^.
*Off-topic warning*
Here is a fun little story:
In 2016 a German late night host, Jan Böhmermann, in his show read a poem in which President Erdogan of Turkey was called “Ziegenf...er” (goat f...er). So Monsieur Erdogan, being himself, could not just ignore this and decided this needs to be brought to a German courtroom.
But he had a problem, while there exists a German civil law against insulting other people publicly, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Supreme Court) already ruled in other cases that a) public figures are not protected to the same degree as “normal” people under this law and b) satire as an art form benefits from constitutional protection against most lawsuits regarding this. Plus in Germany free speech is protected by the constitution and in any lawsuit regarding insults the §1.1 of our constitution “Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar...” (Human dignity shall be inviolable...) must outweigh the protection of the free speech.
So Erdogans legal team found a German law dating back to 1871, last updated in 1968, that nobody brought to court since 1977 that forbids to insult parts of a foreign government, since Böhmermann accepted a fine (and to not repeat said poem) after the ruling in first instance, this is the end* of the story ;).
Why did I bring this up? Well, insulting foreign leaders is something satire did for a long time, but as it turns out, it is illegal here in Germany, even though everybody forgot 'til 2016.
*For those interested, a little further into this story:*
The German Supreme Court did rule in 2006 that said law is in principle not unconstitutional as long as it regards only the form of whats said and not the thought content.
In 2020 the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled pretty much that said law is incompatible with the principle of free speech.
After that it is likely that the German Parliament will remove said law in the near future, but right now it's naturally not a priority.
@@luci2k1 I vaguely recall the story. But never heard how it ended. Interesting indeed. Thank you.
I found the joke even more hilarious at the time, since Erdoğan made it an international story, by sueing.
Greetings from Denmark
OBJECTION: I always wondered if the "forced arbitration" clauses were actually enforceable. It seems to me that *every* contract and agreement has that provision, which to me, means that it really wasn't negotiated.
Legal Eagle's favorite pastime: Watching kids blow themselves up.
You really do learn something new every day.
You think you know a guy
to be fair he could want to watch kids blow OTHER THINGS up :p
Legal Eagle: technically he is advocating for unmitigated play, at no time is he advocating explosive child dismemberment
I'd just like to say that I appreciate your use of "every day" instead of "everyday".
I'm not sure if you can still get it but an M80 was just an explosive sold as a firework. And kids definitely played with that
"Redditors were being thoughtful"
This is how you tell whether or not someone actually reads WSB.
reddit
@@lifotheparty6195 this is the way
@@lifotheparty6195 Monke Strong 2gethr
He says, in a youtube comment section.
@@KingBobXVI
It takes a cesspit to know a cesspit.
I'm not American, so obviously American law does not apply to me, but this has to be one of the most fascinating channels on TH-cam.
A witty, intelligent and engaging presenter/lawyer possessing excellent communication skills and the ability to simplify the often bewildering world of law is the main reason for watching, but it's also the diverse range of subjects.
A brilliant channel.
"I'm not American...so why would I care about the 2008 housing bubble?"
Because....these people are not playing with their own money
They are borrowing from the bank and going to Vegas
And so your pension, insurance and municipal bonds are all in play
The analogy I'd offer is that, as a culture, Americans all want to hit that Grand Slam home run....so they swing for the fence when they could go for the base hit
Most other western cultures try to build and retain wealth over generations...incrementally....patiently
So they "invest"...put available cash into well-run companies that should increase in value over time
Americans prefer to "speculate"...they want to be Elon Musk...or Bill Gates....Mark Zuckerman
And when they strike out....and the odds say they will....they can take the whole team...sometimes the whole league...down with them
@@notlikely4468 You appear to have responded to the wrong comment.
@@ianmacfarlane1241
American Law might not apply to you
But it can jump up and bite you
So...yes...it does effect you
@@notlikely4468 *affect.
And it's still the wrong comment.
I'm sure you'll eventually find it.
@@ianmacfarlane1241
Affect is "mood"
Effect is consequence
0:45 - Chapter 1 - Gamestop investors
4:40 - Chapter 2 - Shorting a stock
8:20 - Chapter 3 - Is this illegal ?
8:55 - Chapter 4 - Market manipulation
11:00 - Chapter 5 - Pump & dump
14:20 - Chapter 6 - Intent
16:15 - Chapter 7 - Who's manipulating who ?
18:00 - Chapter 8 - Collusion between hedge funds & robinhood
21:35 - Chapter 9 - Contracts 101
22:00 - Chapter 10 - Arbitration
23:55 - Chapter 11 - Restrictions on trading
26:05 - Mid roll ads
"It depends" need to be made into an Ancient Aliens style meme. The Meta potential is unlimited.
I just can't get over the fact that billion dollar hedge funds publicly shorted a stock isn't "market manipulation"
"of course the market is regulated" ... Wow, just wow I really lost a lot of respect for him on that one. That's the kind of wide-eyed optimism and belief in the marketplace that should have died off in 2008
this
@@robby2867 it’s not that shorting itself was manipulation IMO, but shorting over 140% is essentially saying “We’re trying to destroy your business” because nothing less than the company going belly up would satisfy shorting to that magnitude.
I didn't mean to put these under someone else's comment lol my bad
To summize: "You're not allowed to manipulate the stock market, only we're allowed to manipulate the stock market", and all across the country lawyers are counting up their billables.
Pretty much it honestly. The caveats he gave for stock shorting and squeezing was basically that they'd been done forever and that businesses have a lot of expenses or clauses they can use to justify manipulating the market without overtly breaking the law.
Quite, however that argument can be used to justify almost any crime and doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny. Either it's ok for everyone or no one, otherwise we literally have individuals above the law. The ageless hypocrisy of wall street was the reason many chose to jump on this trade. Now they're crying in their milk because they got caught with their balls in the cookie jar, some folks were tired of legislators doing nothing, and others saw a great opportunity to make a substantial profit so they slammed the lid.
But honestly I'm under zero illusions this will change anything, Citadel bailed Melvin out at the tune of $2 billion and only took a 1% loss for January. There are big fish, then there are BIG fish. Maybe in the short run we'll see some sort of toothless legislation come from it but meh, I ain't holding my breath, it'll be business as usual in two weeks.
@@Gr_ywind I think the opposite in that the short term legislation will have some teeth, it's just the teeth won't be aimed at the stock market as it was. Just like the whole 'market manipulation' refresh after 2008. A vague law with a lot of caveats and over dependence on mens rea so certain people can still 'break' it.
Eh we know from past experience it'll be toothless, history repeats itself when dealing with this level of dinero. Once special interests gets in on the action I'll be surprised any legislation targets anything in the correct hemisphere.
"x,y and z are illegal". Cool. Tell that to the hedge funds.
Let’s not confuse consumer arbitration (meant to avoid class actions) with “arbitration” as a whole. Lots of large companies choose to arbitrate disputes (and particularly international ones) instead of submitting them to a court.
"The little guys and gals are just trying to do what the wealthier people have been doing for years..." Ah, but they're not "too big to fail".
gotta love a good discount tho!!!
@@donkey7921 Neither do rich people, they just know that the government is built to keep them powerful
But who would clean the toilets and sweep the floors
@@bigcoryjones2126 "How come Kenny's family eats frozen waffles for dinner and has rats on the floor, and we have a big house and lots of food?"
"Well, because Kenny's family doesn't have as much money as we do."
"But why? If they're hungry and poor, why don't we just always give them half of our food?"
"Ha ha ha ha ha! Ooh-ho boy, have you got a lot to learn! Sit down, son."
"You see, Kyle, we humans work as a society, and in order for a society to thrive, we need gods, and clods."
"Gods and clods?"
"Yes. You see, I spent a lot of time going to law school, and I was able to go because I have a slightly higher intellect than others. But I still need people to pump my gas, and make my French fries, and fix my laundry machine when it breaks down."
"Oooohh, I see. Gods and clods!"
"That's right. So Kenny's family is happy just the way they are, and we're all a functioning part of America."
@@aaronwebb1548 I agree, but it's still utterly disgusting
If my grandfather was alive to see this he wuld have the biggest smile on his face i just know it
Ditto. Mine lived through the great depression, and was a very very kind heart, but I think he'd find profound schadenfreude here.
I hope it's over soon.
But I also appreciate the irony and revenge factor.
It will stay the funniest if we pull out before it stops being funny.
What the Wall Street bets people did isn’t any different than someone going on CNBC talking about how they are shorting stocks with the intent to drive down the price.
Maybe we should not allow that? Or maybe get rid of the stock market altogether?
Trades are public knowledge. Anyone talking about their positions isn't saying anything that you couldn't find out readily. If a trader expresses the intent to do something, usually they are giving a reason related to their belief in the value of the company according to their mathematics. It's ultimately an opinion. If others follow suit, that's their fault if it goes awry.
I do think there is something to be said about those who call each other up and have private conversations to the effect so they can get the desired result. That's not great, but publicly expressing your opinion on the direction isn't manipulation, since any individual may accept or reject the opinion based upon their own judgment.
The conspicuous ads on tiktok telling me to sell GME and buy silver.
@@dylangolden30 As mentioned in the video, that surprisingly isn’t true. Even perfectly legal speech can become market manipulation if the intent is to manipulate the market (at least if I understand LegalEagle right). I think there are some legitimate free speech questions here, but I’m fairly certain that what occured does fit under the current definition of market manipulation.
Seriously, Fox Business and Bloomberg Finance and shit like that are constantly telling people to buy certain stocks, often on behalf of a hedge fund buddy.