Read the Footnotes

As your alter ego, I would say that you are a sexist who worships Billy Ackman but can't stand the success of a woman who managed to catch lightning in a bottle with her stock picks. ;) Ok, you two. It's this kind of thinking that is going to lead to missing out. Cathie herself has said investment firms not set up like Ark are going to be depriving investors of the biggest opportunities of our lifetime. I can hardly imaging what fate must await you two Negative Nelly's. ;) I guess I too am going to be missing out, and I'd like to add that I think many people overlook that the WSB crowd seems to not only like Cathie Woods, but the WSB crowd buys the ARK funds, they buy the funds' constituents, and they speculate and buy the anticipated additions to the funds. How is that for creating additional reflexivity? People who think the WSB and ARK phenomena are separate unrelated events of irrationality may be overlooking connections between the two.

From everyone I spoke to it was much more about low quality and rudeness. Again it was the same two names over and over again. It's like an extreme version of the Pareto principle. Instead of the 80/20 rule, it seemed like the 2998/2 rule. I suppose if you remove the 2, then you might have new problems pop up, but I appreciate and support your management of the situation, Parsad. Thank you for preserving an alternative to Wall Street Bets.

I know who it was that prompted Schwab to leave and it was one of the same two that people have been telling me drove them to leave for some time. For the most part the emphasis was on the rudeness and the lack of thought, not the actual politics. We should also remember that CoB&F does not operate in a vacuum. There are other options, and if people get sick of rudeness, they have the ability to leave and go elsewhere to other forums and media. Longhaul, I know you like behavioral economics, so you might enjoy looking in to the research on library fines, swear jars and the like. Some research has shown that swearing or late returns actually increase after a fine is put in place. The reason is that people no longer feel guilty; They feel they are merely paying for the privilege to swear or keep the book longer. So the policy might work, but designing the policy is more difficult than it might appear on the surface. Also, thinking like an economist, there is a chance that a policy like that would select for only the richest jerks who don't mind paying fees (see: adverse selection and unintended consequences).

Second of all, where were you all guys when great contributors like Schwab711 were forced to leave CoBF because of behavior of people like Gregmal who has justified rape multiple times on this site without any consequences. ... Gregmal should have been banned long time ago. He's probably still not. Just because you disagree with his ethics does not mean Greg is not a good contributor. He is one of the most valuable contributors of this forum. Please explain though: How was Schwab forced to leave? A couple of years ago just about every investment professional I knew and respected told me that they no longer read CoB&F. Each of them had one explanation, and it came down to members who: 1) Were abusive in their posts 2) Were frequently posting about politics 3) Posted low quality posts with great frequency. Interestingly about 95% of the time it was the same two people that came up in the discussion. So it seems to me that for each jerk you keep, you might be losing dozens or even hundreds of respectful, thoughtful participants. Here is "the lesson" from Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson: Applying Hazlitt's thoughts to this situation, we know what the world looks like with one or two members frequently posting low quality and abusive drivel that drives other people away, but we don't fully weight the alternative because it is less immediate and present. In other words it's not so much what it is, but what it could be. Personally, I would like it if Schwab711 and others chose to come back and if the quality of the discussion prompted them to do so.

Like Buffett says, you are never forced to swing and can keep the bat on your shoulder all day. Sure, HF's and Banks suck in many ways, but you have the option to at try to not play their games. Ok, I'm not using options or margin but yet I can't buy some stocks with cash? That's what what bothers me personally. THAT is a way better complaint in my opinion. The attention that this is calling to the fact that there has been so little effort to assure suitability is potentially a problem for Robinhood and any other broker that is allowing 18 years with no source of income who don't can't define an option to engage in option trading. I'm guessing they are not excited about the potential this has to stir regulatory attention.

Again as I said, his comments were limited to exchange traded derivatives, and he has engaged in over the counter transactions. No one is being prohibited from over the counter transactions if they can find a counter party.

Buffett has spoken out about it many times. He has said that no one should be allowed to buy options unless they are legitimately hedging something. Though he has used options, I believe they have primarily been warrants in the early days, or over the counter options in later days with Berkshire. His negative comments have been restricted to exchange traded derivatives (primarily options), which is of course what we are discussing here. From his 2002 letter: “In my view, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.” Wall Street Bets: "Hold my beer, I'm going to try to take down this market maker. What could possibly go wrong?" It's interesting to note that the loses to date are reported to be larger than the loses that LTCM suffered in 1998. At that time, many people feared that if LTCM had to liquidate that it would bring down the entire system. They did liquidate orderly and didn't bring down the system, but it is interesting, none the less. Also interesting that the WSB attitude is to try to kick the crap out of their counter parties by rigging the game and then they are surprised that the counter party might not want to make a market any more. Both sides have the option not to play, but neither side can be forced to play. Like Buffett says, you are never forced to swing and can keep the bat on your shoulder all day. Sure, HF's and Banks suck in many ways, but you have the option to at try to not play their games.

Sorry but that simply isn't a rational argument unless you consider brokerage platforms as financial advisors. People are ok with ARK pumping companies with terrible fundamentals the past four years and allowing retail investors to buy in. But all of a sudden it's about protecting free individuals from making conscious decisions with their own money. You're picking winners and losers if you intervene. I mean the head of NASDAQ said that trading should be halted so firms can reposition accordingly. That is absurd as it gets and she should immediately be removed for suggesting something like that. Sorry, I didn't express that well. I didn't mean to imply that I agree with them, or that I think that is the way things should be, but I do believe that their financial incentives are probably: -volatility is great, the more volatility and trading the better -minimize litigation risk from any customer while at the same time allowing and encouraging trading no matter how stupid (ARKK included)

So conspiracy theories are always fun, but the flip side of the argument is that brokers and others face litigation and reputational risk if they allow anyone to buy or open contracts when the market is clearly irrational or manipulated. Either way prices are clearly detached from value. So you can say they are intentionally hurting retail investors, which may have some truth, but it is also true that there is a reasonable argument that brokers are protecting the really stupid retail investor from doing something really stupid at this point. Of course, anyone who loses money at this point might try to claim they had no idea what they were doing, and in many cases it would be consistent with their previous statements. It also wouldn't surprise me if the SEC is either in favor of or willing to look the other way regarding actions that have the effect of increasing the sense of risk and uncertainty for people who want to mob individual securities in the future.

What legal theories are you referencing? I am only familiar with Rule 10b-5, which is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.10b-5 A 10b-5 violation requires a material misstatement or omission of fact. Speculative statements of opinion ("This stock is going to the moon" or "Buy GME, can't go tits up") don't count. And there are more hurdles than this in the law. Importantly, the Supreme Court held in Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/185/) that there must be intent to deceive. On top of that, you actually have to show that the misstatements or omissions caused someone to buy or sell the stock in question, AND that they lost money. Are regulators really going to trawl through millions of posts from 20-year-old kids looking for deliberate factual misstatements to trace to individual buy/sell decisions? I doubt it. I would've thought it would've been more around the intentional manipulation, but looking back at Porsche/VW, the courts ruled in favor of Porsche. Yes, I was referring to intentional manipulation primarily. If there was coordination among a group or enough deception by a single individual then they might face criminal issues. I have seen articles from reasonably reputable sources that make me believe it is possible that there was more going on behind the scenes than meets the eye. Though it is possible, usually someone doesn't have a good idea and suddenly it goes viral and becomes worth billions in market moves. Frequently making something go this viral involves a bit more effort on the part of someone. I'm not saying it happened in a way that might be prosecutable, but it might have. I think the question is basically was the effort distributed in such a way that no one individual bears enough responsibility. On a side note, Melvin Capital seems to be the fund that may be suffering the most. Melvin Capital was founded by Gabriel Plotkin a former trader at SAC Capital. Plotkin was also known as "Portfolio Manager B" in one of the SEC's complaints regarding insider trading. After the insider trading scandal and the shutdown of SAC, Plotkin launched Melvin Capital. Cohen reportedly invested $1 billion in Melvin. Cohen is also reportedly down 15% on his entire portfolio due to the Melvin investment. Cohen also contributed to the $2.75 backstop of Melvin. Given the involvement of SAC Capital in the Fairfax shorting debacle of 2002, I would guess there are a lot of people here who will not feel too bad about Plotkin and Melvin or Cohen and Point72's difficulty in this matter. On the homepage, Parsad describes Cohen's involvement in the 2002 FFH short selling incident: An interesting distinction is that those of the CoB&F community who in 2002 made lots of money on their long call FFH LEAPS had to wait for the business and the market to prove them right, whereas in 2021 the WSB crowd forced a quick market manipulation through mobbing the market.

What legal theories are you referencing? I am only familiar with Rule 10b-5, which is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.10b-5 A 10b-5 violation requires a material misstatement or omission of fact. Speculative statements of opinion ("This stock is going to the moon" or "Buy GME, can't go tits up") don't count. And there are more hurdles than this in the law. Importantly, the Supreme Court held in Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/185/) that there must be intent to deceive. On top of that, you actually have to show that the misstatements or omissions caused someone to buy or sell the stock in question, AND that they lost money. Are regulators really going to trawl through millions of posts from 20-year-old kids looking for deliberate factual misstatements to trace to individual buy/sell decisions? I doubt it. There are other legal theories and you are completely ignoring civil litigation risk. Going around bragging on social media about how much money you made is also like putting a target on your back if someone wants to know who they could file a suit against and potentially recover something. For a lawsuit to be viable, there would need to be a tort claim, there would need to be damages, and it's a whole lot more worthwhile if you know a few people who might have assets to go after.

I think retail investors are underestimating the number of different legal theories that could be an issue for them. Just because there has not been much appetite for pursuing bad behavior for the past 4+ years, does not mean there won't be in the future. The SEC tends to be reactive, not proactive, and I am sure they know they have a problem now. I am guessing that reddit realizes it has a problem too. From what I have read, several early instigators probably have multiple risks that they should be worried about. Some people involved will face little to no risk even if what they did technically broke the law, but my guess is that some people will be made an example of. Even more participants just amplified the message or joined the mob and in no way broke the law in the way they did it. What is interesting is that in the past it was more organized crime, rogue professionals, conflicts of interest, corrupted journalist and corrupted analysts that the SEC needed to worry about. Social media has just democratized the ability for the average Joe to commit a crime and amplify that message in a way that can move markets. That really would not have been possible to this extent 20 years ago, but we shouldn't forget that the TMT bubble had it's own version of market manipulations scandals that resulted in firings, prosecutions and reforms.

Nice joke, but more similar to Anaconda Copper in my opinion due to the prevalence of bucket shops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaconda_Copper

This has basically been my mental model for what is going on for some time. If you compare this to bucket shops from 100 years ago, the speculative environment was very similar with one very important exception. To the best of my knowledge, the bucket shop trades were never executed on any exchange and had no mechanism to feedback in to the value of the underlying exchange traded security. Today the speculative environment is very similar, but today's option trades are executed and visible on exchanges, and there are multiple pathways for the options trades to feedback in to and effect the market price of the underlying security.

Relative valuation sucks. What you want is to see where you are vs your potential. Right now, "49% of the shots distributed to states have been administered", and more shots could probably have been available if the Feds had taken up Pfizer's offer last summer. The opportunity cost to the economy of not purchasing those extra shots is very, very high. Placing most of your bets on one tool was also not a good strategy. If anything goes wrong, even a delay will cost lives and billions of dollars unnecessarily, and delays should have been expected.