6 ms·
>The vast majority of regulation is there to protect market participants. Anyone involved with GME knows this isn’t true.
by TruthIsHeresy 4y ago
>The vast majority of regulation is there to protect market participants.
Anyone involved with GME knows this isn’t true.
- puppyprogram 4y agoThe vast majority of regulation is there to protect CERTAIN market participants.
- kevingadd 4y agoThe vast majority of the nasty stuff that happened around GME was not the work of regulators trying to hurt ordinary investors.
- im3w1l 4y agoI actually think the opposite. Causing a short squeeze is market manipulation. Regulatory agencies let it happen anyway because it was done by random nobodies.
- reedjosh 4y agoIf a short squeeze happens that by definition means the shorts were over zealous. If a market allows shorts it should allow a squeeze as a mechanism of balance.
- jcranberry 4y agoThe market allows short squeezes. SEC too. What the SEC doesn't allow is the deliberate triggering of short squeezes.
- formerkrogemp 4y agoI'll believe their not allowing it when their soft gums and limp regulations have teeth again. Fines are a cost of doing business in many cases, unfortunately.
- ckastner 4y ago> Anyone involved with GME knows this isn’t true. People involved with GME used to refer themselves as the "Apes", and reading their main forum on /r/wallstreetbets back then, that would be a pretty accurate characterization of what they "know".