Steve R.
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 13:23
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,599
I don't know how many on this forum follow the US financial markets, but as I write this the DOW Jones market is down by approximately 500 points. The market has been extremely volatile, so by the time I post this and you read it things could be substantially different. So what is behind this negative precipitous reaction?
The fat finger of blame is currently wagging its finger at Game Stop (GME). The stock has moved up today by $130 per share to $278 from a low of approximately $3.00 per share in August of 2020. Based on the pundits scrambling to find excuses, the shorts are being forced to buy the stock to cover their positions. Ironically this is forcing the price of Game Stop ever higher. The shorts, in having to cover their positions in Game Stop, have had to sell other stocks, flooding the market with stocks "for sale", resulting in the current approximate market decline of 500 points. Note: that the stock action with Game Stop is very similar to prior (short) stock actions with Tesla (TSLA) and Eastman Kodak (KODK).
The humorous kicker behind this post, one of the pundits reasonable explained that what is happening is an assumed "coordinated" assault by by retail stock investors to drive the stock price of Game Stop stock up so that the hedge funds would loose money. Apparently that is happening. But he went on to amusingly speculate concerning this market manipulation that is technically illegal: where are the social media "fact checkers" to squelch the market disruption being created?
Market manipulation has always been a concern, but it is very interesting to observe a stock market pundit now raise a concern that social media platforms can be active participants in market manipulation. Usually market manipulation is considered more of a (hidden) corporate activity, so it is groundbreaking to have social media platforms identified as being participants. Social media platforms have probably been involved in market manipulation for some time, but until now it has not been exposed.
The viral spreading of "false" news through social media platforms is not simply limited to politics, but can permeate a whole spectrum of topics. The obvious conclusion, social media platforms will never have the resources to really suppress alleged "fake" news. Furthermore, the definition of "fake" news tends to be highly subjective. As a quick example, how can a stock that was only $3 a share a few month ago, now at $280 a share justify a "buy" recommendation? Who would be a qualified "fact checker"? So how would social media, as one example, evaluate the quality of "buy" and "sell" recommendations, that in itself is a reason for social media platforms to stay out of the censoring game.
The fat finger of blame is currently wagging its finger at Game Stop (GME). The stock has moved up today by $130 per share to $278 from a low of approximately $3.00 per share in August of 2020. Based on the pundits scrambling to find excuses, the shorts are being forced to buy the stock to cover their positions. Ironically this is forcing the price of Game Stop ever higher. The shorts, in having to cover their positions in Game Stop, have had to sell other stocks, flooding the market with stocks "for sale", resulting in the current approximate market decline of 500 points. Note: that the stock action with Game Stop is very similar to prior (short) stock actions with Tesla (TSLA) and Eastman Kodak (KODK).
The humorous kicker behind this post, one of the pundits reasonable explained that what is happening is an assumed "coordinated" assault by by retail stock investors to drive the stock price of Game Stop stock up so that the hedge funds would loose money. Apparently that is happening. But he went on to amusingly speculate concerning this market manipulation that is technically illegal: where are the social media "fact checkers" to squelch the market disruption being created?
Market manipulation has always been a concern, but it is very interesting to observe a stock market pundit now raise a concern that social media platforms can be active participants in market manipulation. Usually market manipulation is considered more of a (hidden) corporate activity, so it is groundbreaking to have social media platforms identified as being participants. Social media platforms have probably been involved in market manipulation for some time, but until now it has not been exposed.
The viral spreading of "false" news through social media platforms is not simply limited to politics, but can permeate a whole spectrum of topics. The obvious conclusion, social media platforms will never have the resources to really suppress alleged "fake" news. Furthermore, the definition of "fake" news tends to be highly subjective. As a quick example, how can a stock that was only $3 a share a few month ago, now at $280 a share justify a "buy" recommendation? Who would be a qualified "fact checker"? So how would social media, as one example, evaluate the quality of "buy" and "sell" recommendations, that in itself is a reason for social media platforms to stay out of the censoring game.
Last edited: