[2/4 @ $88 per share] GME - Gamestop stock - anyone following this absolute MEME-HILARITY (now with Elon tweet)

[sdifox]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Illegally scamming others in WSBs (many of whom have now lost quite a lot of money) is not the proper way to go up against the "evil" shorters.

And please try to be civil in your responses here.

what did he do other than tell others what he is doing? HE didn't lie, things didn't turn out the way he predicted, but that is because the big boys cheated.

 

[dullard]

what did he do other than tell others what he is doing? HE didn't lie, things didn't turn out the way he predicted, but that is because the big boys cheated.

If DFV truly doesn't sell anything, then DFV did nothing wrong. He will not be convicted of anything.

Where things come into trouble though is all the others who did participate in the scam. A pump-and-dump requires three things:
1) Buy stock low.
2) Tell others that the stock price will skyrocket. For example, saying "To the moon".
3) Sell that stock high.
How many of the people who paid off their student loans from promoting GME stock did all three? I'm going to bet many did. Will they be prosecuted? No. Should they be prosecuted? No. But, it was still illegal to do what they did and having a good end of paying off the loans does not justify the illegal means used.

If you want to support GME and stop hedge fund billionaire shorts, go ahead. Buy GME stock and even more importantly buy GME products from their stores. End of story. GME wins, shorts lose. No pumping needed.

 

[sdifox]

If DFV truly doesn't sell anything, then DFV did nothing wrong. He will not be convicted of anything.

Where things come into trouble though is all the others who did participate in the scam. A pump-and-dump requires three things:
1) Buy stock low.
2) Tell others that the stock price will skyrocket. For example, saying "To the moon".
3) Sell that stock high.
How many of the people who paid off their student loans from promoting GME stock did all three? I'm going to bet many did. Will they be prosecuted? No. Should they be prosecuted? No. But, it was still illegal to do what they did and having a good end of paying off the loans does not justify the illegal means used.

If you want to support GME and stop hedge fund billionaire shorts, go ahead. Buy GME stock and even more importantly buy GME products from their stores. End of story. GME wins, shorts lose. No pumping needed.

send all the financial advisers to jail first, then you can go after DFV...

 

[Svnla]

If DFV truly doesn't sell anything, then DFV did nothing wrong. He will not be convicted of anything.

Where things come into trouble though is all the others who did participate in the scam. A pump-and-dump requires three things:
1) Buy stock low.
2) Tell others that the stock price will skyrocket. For example, saying "To the moon".
3) Sell that stock high.
How many of the people who paid off their student loans from promoting GME stock did all three? I'm going to bet many did. Will they be prosecuted? No. Should they be prosecuted? No. But, it was still illegal to do what they did and having a good end of paying off the loans does not justify the illegal means used.

If you want to support GME and stop hedge fund billionaire shorts, go ahead. Buy GME stock and even more importantly buy GME products from their stores. End of story. GME wins, shorts lose. No pumping needed.

While I agree with your points, should buyers beware apply to this case too? Buying stocks (which stayed below $10 for months and months) from a company with the same obsolete business model and then expect to make money somehow? Seriously what were those buyers thinking? Yeah, let teach them stinking rich hedge funds a lesson or two.

I get it if folks want to spend some money just for kick but to put your life savings on the line just because some dudes on the internet say so? Goodness.

 

[dullard]

While I agree with your points, should buyers beware apply to this case too? Buying stocks (which stayed below $10 for months and months) from a company with the same obsolete business model and then expect to make money somehow? Seriously what were those buyers thinking? Yeah, let teach them stinking rich hedge funds a lesson or two.

I get it if folks want to spend some money just for kick but to put your life savings on the life just because some dudes on the internet say so? Goodness.

Yes, buyers should beware. I personally have two intelligent friends who both lost money on GME. I blame them for doing so. But, no matter how much blame these buyers deserve, pumping and dumping is still illegal.

 

[destrekor]

Yes, buyers should beware. I personally have two intelligent friends who both lost money on GME. I blame them for doing so. But, no matter how much blame these buyers deserve, pumping and dumping is still illegal.

You're conflating organized pump and dump schemes, with individual first amendment rights.
The first is akin to the "boiler room" idea, while the second couldn't be further from it.

A whole bunch of unincorporated individuals in a social forum, all saying MOON, and successfully selling high after buying low... is perfectly legal. Just because they fed off each other and basically created a feedback loop (and then a combo epic short squeeze and gamma squeeze), doesn't make it any less legal.

 

[dullard]

You're conflating organized pump and dump schemes, with individual first amendment rights.
The first is akin to the "boiler room" idea, while the second couldn't be further from it.

A whole bunch of unincorporated individuals in a social forum, all saying MOON, and successfully selling high after buying low... is perfectly legal. Just because they fed off each other and basically created a feedback loop (and then a combo epic short squeeze and gamma squeeze), doesn't make it any less legal.

It comes down to whether or not it is considered material and misleading. If it is material and misleading, then it is fraud. If not, it is free speech. There are various related laws. Here is one relevant law:

18 U.S. Code § 1348 - Securities and commodities fraud

www.law.cornell.edu

"to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any money or property in connection with the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery, or any option on a commodity for future delivery, or any security"

What is fraudulent?

17 CFR § 240.10b-5 - Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices.

www.law.cornell.edu

"To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading"

So, it comes down to whether or not the statements that the stock was "going to the moon" or similar statements were material. That goes beyond my knowledge of laws. But to me, it seems material.

The rest is under conspiracy laws (18 U.S. Code § 371). Did they agree to spread the information? Did they willfully spread the information? Did they act on that agreement? Answer no to any of those, and it is okay. Answer yes to all and it is illegal.

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

www.law.cornell.edu

I personally think the posts on WSB seem to be agreements, were willful, and were acted upon. But again, that is beyond my knowledge of the law.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I guess one way to look at it, say a bunch of people decided to get together and buy the same dying stock because YOLO, and it just so happens this stock goes up because of the sudden activity and some people cash in, is that illegal? That is basically what happened here in a way, most people who bought knew it would not stay up.

 

[dullard]

I guess one way to look at it, say a bunch of people decided to get together and buy the same dying stock because YOLO, and it just so happens this stock goes up because of the sudden activity and some people cash in, is that illegal? That is basically what happened here in a way, most people who bought knew it would not stay up.

• You and I can discuss a stock. That is legal.
• You and I can agree to buy a stock. That is legal. That is legal for any reason, YOLO or not.
• You and I cannot materially mislead others when discussing the stock publicly and profit from it. That is not legal.

Your phrase "most people who bought knew it would not stay up" leaves open the fact that some people did not know that. If some did not know it, then it is highly likely to be judged misleading. The defense comes then down to whether or not the discussion was material. Was there a "substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would attach importance" to the discussion? I suppose your argument boils down to all people who bought GME stock on the WSB statements was not a reasonable investor. I'm not really sure if a judge would buy that argument.

 

[zinfamous]

You're conflating organized pump and dump schemes, with individual first amendment rights.
The first is akin to the "boiler room" idea, while the second couldn't be further from it.

A whole bunch of unincorporated individuals in a social forum, all saying MOON, and successfully selling high after buying low... is perfectly legal. Just because they fed off each other and basically created a feedback loop (and then a combo epic short squeeze and gamma squeeze), doesn't make it any less legal.

to me this is why this whole thing is becoming very grey/complicated/iffy/potentially illegal.

Just because it isn't technically illegal (now), because this very new access to this type of investing, for everyone, so easily gathered together online forums like this is not yet regulated and subject to the same sort of penalties that, well, other "professional" are subjected to, doesn't really mean it's right....or that it isn't problematic/going to be regulated.

That dude did lock in about $13million, right? So he definitely profited massively on his position; though I recall he put out a pretty thorough analysis of what he was doing, why he was doing it...and originally, it wasn't so much "screw the evil hedge funds!" but "look what these dummies are doing!"

If anything, it almost sounds like a Bill Bellichick type loophole, where this guy is a pro that very much wants to get into boiler room scammery, but found a way to do it publicaly...so legally in the face of things, but really the results are all the same. I think it's neither good nor bad right now, but it's hard to say.

 

[ultimatebob]

send all the financial advisers to jail first, then you can go after DFV...

Amusingly, DFV's day job was being a financial advisor

 

[Pohemi]

Missed this thread and dug up and posted the article in the other one, but here it is from AP-

DFV has a screen date with congress

Sounds like he had made out pretty well on GME before the whole 'run' on it.

 

[ponyo]

Missed this thread and dug up and posted the article in the other one, but here it is from AP-

DFV has a screen date with congress

Sounds like he had made out pretty well on GME before the whole 'run' on it.

This man is legend. Kitty poster with words "hang in there!" and red banana hanging on the poster. Salute DFV! You have my respect.

 

[Pohemi]

This man is legend. Kitty poster with words "hang in there!" and red banana hanging on the poster. Salute DFV! You have my respect.

Yeah...that backdrop cracked me up.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Lol yeah that's totally awesome. He even said "I'm not a cat" and "I like this stock" lmao. He seems super professional about how he's handling it. He either knows a shit ton about the legal stuff or has a good lawyer, but either way he prepared well.

Just hope he crushes this and wins the case.

 

[Pohemi]

Yeah I saw mentioned in the AP article that he's had a class action filed against him? I'm curious who the plaintiffs are. I doubt they are WSB posters...

 

[destrekor]

It comes down to whether or not it is considered material and misleading. If it is material and misleading, then it is fraud. If not, it is free speech. There are various related laws. Here is one relevant law:

18 U.S. Code § 1348 - Securities and commodities fraud

www.law.cornell.edu

"to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any money or property in connection with the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery, or any option on a commodity for future delivery, or any security"

What is fraudulent?

17 CFR § 240.10b-5 - Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices.

www.law.cornell.edu

"To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading"

So, it comes down to whether or not the statements that the stock was "going to the moon" or similar statements were material. That goes beyond my knowledge of laws. But to me, it seems material.

The rest is under conspiracy laws (18 U.S. Code § 371). Did they agree to spread the information? Did they willfully spread the information? Did they act on that agreement? Answer no to any of those, and it is okay. Answer yes to all and it is illegal.

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

www.law.cornell.edu

I personally think the posts on WSB seem to be agreements, were willful, and were acted upon. But again, that is beyond my knowledge of the law.

I feel you might be getting somewhere more relevant by focusing on conspiracy. I'm not sure I'd agree with that in being applied to the everyday WSB redditor, and doubt it would stick to Gill (DFV) in this case anyway. Without evidence of backchannel communications linking multiple parties to a direct effort to con others, more specifically other retail-level investors, then I just don't see anything sticking.

I think the decider, as you state, is whether he purposefully made untrue statements of material fact, etc. And, frankly, I haven't seen anything that can qualify here in regards to a case against him.

Come to think of it, I don't believe even then we can call it illegal, because it seems a key part of when pump and dumps have been litigated, has concerned brokers directly interfacing with target clients, and obtaining their money to invest for them. There is a direct complicity there that I think is entirely missing from these social media-driven pumps.

Let's face it, the game is kind of rigged here in favor of freedom of speech if it can be remotely argued as merely personal opinions and well-reasoned arguments and, ultimately, blind speculation and gambling; in a crowd, it just gets louder. And it happens all day long, especially in the penny stocks and cryptos... with actual concerted efforts and communication between parties to focus on some particular target and hype it to hell, aka veritable pump and dumps. That's a difficult case to pin on people with the internet being what it is these days, though.

It's partly because the federal government have always been soft on the markets and only get involved when these market cases capture the public's attention. It'll be interesting to see what comes of all this though, Yellen has ideas. There will be some kind of regulation or law to come of this I'm sure.

to me this is why this whole thing is becoming very grey/complicated/iffy/potentially illegal.

Just because it isn't technically illegal (now), because this very new access to this type of investing, for everyone, so easily gathered together online forums like this is not yet regulated and subject to the same sort of penalties that, well, other "professional" are subjected to, doesn't really mean it's right....or that it isn't problematic/going to be regulated.

That dude did lock in about $13million, right? So he definitely profited massively on his position; though I recall he put out a pretty thorough analysis of what he was doing, why he was doing it...and originally, it wasn't so much "screw the evil hedge funds!" but "look what these dummies are doing!"

If anything, it almost sounds like a Bill Bellichick type loophole, where this guy is a pro that very much wants to get into boiler room scammery, but found a way to do it publicaly...so legally in the face of things, but really the results are all the same. I think it's neither good nor bad right now, but it's hard to say.

I'm not saying whether any of this is right or wrong. And there are some elements that are morally questionable, at least depending upon one's morals.

It's one of the many [presently] legal loopholes and cheats that are being exposed, and possibly some still-illegal cheats that haven't been caught. I'm not sure of the finest details but it sounds like there was naked shorting in the GME situation, which I thought had been made illegal after the 2008 recession.

I think more than anything, the real changes are going to be at the bank/clearinghouse levels, maybe shine a light where there might be clearinghouses working together with hedge funds directly implicated, allegedly.

 

[FelixDeCat]

The Simpsons predicted this back in 1968**



** = Which is kind of ironic since the show started in 1989.

 

[JTsyo]

Amusingly, DFV's day job was being a financial advisor

Listening to his opening remarks, he was never an adviser. He worked for a firm making educational kits for advisors to give to investors. He wasn't interacting with clients.

From what gathered from this sage is that he did some research and acted on it. He then posted about it and others felt it was right. Afterwards it became less informed (ie "$1000 isn't a meme" and "To the moon") people just jumping in hoping to make some profits. At some point it evolved into a crusade against big firms. That's how AMC got into it. Since the big firms had short plays against AMC.

 

[Pohemi]

At some point it evolved into a crusade against big firms. That's how AMC got into it. Since the big firms had short plays against AMC.

Isn't there (currently) speculation or the appearance that there was a good amount of naked shorts on GME, as well?
I thought that sort of became one of the goals of the WSB efforts was to expose that, but I've only loosely followed the story.

 

[Icecold]

DFV just posted an update in the last hour, and he has purchased 50,000 more shares since his last update a couple weeks ago and now holds 100,000 shares. The guy is a legend.

 

[IronWing]

I don't see why pump and dump, if not done by an insider (board or officer), should be illegal. If people are investing based on hype and hysteria, that's their problem.

 

[Red Squirrel]

DFV just posted an update in the last hour, and he has purchased 50,000 more shares since his last update a couple weeks ago and now holds 100,000 shares. The guy is a legend.

Holy crap that's bold lmao, right in the middle of a trial and everything. I hope he has a good lawyer that he's consulting with though, I'd hate to see him lose because of some semantic due to a post or a market move etc.

 

[ponyo]

DFV just posted an update in the last hour, and he has purchased 50,000 more shares since his last update a couple weeks ago and now holds 100,000 shares. The guy is a legend.

I just woke up from nice afternoon nap and saw your post. So I checked and yup, he doubled down. He must bought towards the close today while I was napping based on his new avg price.

The balls on this dude. The only person who was telling the truth and not lying yesterday during the Congress hearing was DFV. It was so obvious if you watched any of videos fo the hearing. Absolutely correct. The guy is fucking legend. Diamond hands.

 

[Zeze]

Dude DFV is a handsome mofo too. I don't worship dudes in this GME fiasco, but he's one sharp-eyed mofo.