Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

That account sounds like at least one of the 3 provided a detailed description of what happened. The SEC weren't listening into the initial conversations they had - presumably they got wind of the trading and then managed to get enough leverage on one of them to make them talk. If they didn't talk, I wonder what level of evidence the SEC would have.


sort by: page size:

It's not very clear though, the investor could've just as well overheard a conversation. If they didn't commit a crime, why should they be scared of the SEC?

Didn't the SEC have a chat with him about that?

The SEC knows who is trading, and is likely investigating why.

There is zero chance they all independently came to the same conclusion at the exact same time. There has to be a bare minimum amount of coordination involved, which is likely illegal. Either that or they got an order from the SEC/White House.

Interesting. Do you know why they were doing this? Just in anticipation that the SEC would crack down?

I guess what I am really asking is did the SEC not spot this because it was not their job or because it was their job and they didn't do their job properly?

They did, as you can read in great detail in the SEC complaint.

The fact that they traded options (probably deep OTM) is the cherry on top. How incompetent did they think the SEC was?

If so, I think the SEC might want a talk with someone.

From afar what appears to be going on here is that the sec did nothing for years and years then ftx blew up and sbf went to jail and within the sec there was fear that they appeared asleep at the wheel. So they oversteered and decided to drum up some complaints to look like they are taking action but in reality probably don’t fully understand the space so aren’t able to clearly articulate a case.

How do you figure this was SEC bullying? Looks like a clear cut case of insider trading to me.

The SEC thing is a smokescreen. There is no reason to go to or via the SEC for their rebuttal, if anything they're just trying to get ahead of the PR nightmare of the SEC going to them.

Them staying silent and sending info to the SEC is a big red flag, but to the lay investor it looks good, which is why they did it.


Why will they need a good explanation? Can't they just say I lucked out and the burden of proving insider trading would fall on the SEC? Innocent until proven guilty right?

I agree, it's not clear cut. It's unlikely that SEC goes after the WSB but they could.

What happened satisfies the four part test for market manipulation. But you would have to figure out the suspects who actually match the test. Most participants are just fools.


Who do you think complained to the SEC and is having them investigate?

The SEC would think twice about it after it became obvious what was going on. This stuff gets actively investigated.

It is probably considered their job but I don't have any confidence in the SEC to proactively investigate anything of real substance. However they did not even have to spot it since Mr. Markopolos turned up with a ton of evidence that it was a Ponzi scheme. They did not even do basic things like verify that he was actually trading.

The SEC only had a chat with him because it has to maintain the facade that it does something.

The mortgage crisis showed that the SEC is a toothless revolving door of rubberstampers. And still is.


I dunno. There's a reasonable chance that the SEC might have encountered that sort of activity some other times in its history.
next

Legal | privacy