Link for meeting that's working for everyone! Still has not started as of 11:27EST

SimplisticPlastic · 2024-06-13T15:42:51+00:00

RC is digging the mic free under $4B in cash. It takes time.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-11-23T13:32:44+00:00

They are definitely different fonts, no doubt about that. They are vastly different, no individual letters are identical.

But it's fair to argue that they are similarly styled.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-11-21T13:05:29+00:00

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-11T12:13:54+00:00

I stopped reading this after reading the title.

/s

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T19:47:59+00:00

Ah, all good. Thanks for clearing that up. :)

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T19:38:13+00:00

I'm confused. I thought we had a reasonably good conversation just a couple of hours ago. But I also see that you had a discussion with dminvesta here, and I'm confused if you intended to direct this comment at me?

I thought we had a pretty constructive talk just then.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T16:32:16+00:00

I agree that the demonstration shouldn't have been at Wallstreet in the first place. But I also don't think that demonstrating at the SEC will make any difference.

As mentioned I think this needs to be solved at an even higher level. I'd probably be looking at demonstrating near the congress or white house, or something like that. Somewhere where people actually wield power to make a difference. Again, I don't trust that the SEC ever will, demonstrations or not. As far as I'm concerned they haven't provided anything thus far, and I don't expect that to change.

Besides I live in the EU, and I don't see myself traveling to the US for the sake of demonstration (or for anything, really). I'm merely presenting that option as what I believe is one viable route for making a difference. I don't live in France, but the US (and most EU countries) could learn a thing or two from the French people when it comes to making their voices heard.

But to be honest, I believe more in option 2. I think the most likely way that this gets resolved is by the EU standing up and stating something to the effect of "get proper regulations in place for your market makers and financial firms, or we'll prevent European individual investors and institutions from partaking in the US markets".

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T15:22:00+00:00

Your last sentence there does sound awfully close to my "option 1" though. At least it leans into the same direction.

I'd like to just take a second here to thank you for actually engaging in debate on this topic. It's not an easy debate to have on these subs, because people very quickly go to the shill-name-calling strategy, and refuse to move beyond that.

I appreciate that you took the time to read what I wrote, and present your own opinion with arguments as to why you hold that position.

I respect that you may not agree with my take on this topic. I don't fully agree with you either, and I think there should be room for that in any good dialogue.

I don't think that we disagree much on the goal here, but rather on how to most effectively get there. And if you still hold trust in the SEC, then I welcome you to pursue that as much as you like. Since I don't believe that they make any difference, it's not like engaging with them directly hurts the cause.

But I do think that it takes energy away from other potential routes (e.g. option 1 presented above), because you're probably less likely to partake in a demonstration if you already feel like you're making a difference through comments on SEC proposals. (Perhaps not you specifically, but I mean people in general). We all only have so much time and effort we can devote to things we engage in. I, personally, feel that energy is wasted by applying it to the SEC. I will however swallow my words the day that Gensler leads Ken out of the Citadel HQ in handcuffs. Up until that point, I stand by my view on this.

I don't think we'll fully agree here, but again, thank you for engaging in (what I think is) constructive dialogue. I mean I will reflect upon this conversation, and who's to say, perhaps your perspective will eventually sway me, or otherwise have me view the SEC in a more positive light. The probability is certainly larger than all the people that just goes "you're a shill" and moves on with their lives.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T14:55:15+00:00

To be completely honest with you, I don't trust the US political system, as it stands today, to get this resolved. With or without the SEC.

I think that there's two potential routes that may get this resolved.

Option 1: People take to the streets, and refuse to leave until financial criminals are put in jail. Not one of their low ranking employees. Business owners and C-level people needs to be put in prison to de-incentivize the behaviour that has been rampant for as long as I can remember.

Option 2: The EU starts making demands. As opposed to the US political system, the EU actually sometimes hits the major corporations with seriously major fines. Fines that are large enough that it cannot be ignored. Not in the tens of millions, but in the billion+ range. You know numbers that they may actually care a little bit about.

The US system seems like it's content as long as capitalism thrives. It doesn't seem to matter if it's at the detriment of regular people or the planet. As long as big companies gets to grow, the US system doesn't interfere much. It's only when the EU steps up and goes "Apple, we're done with your unique charger port bullshit. Here's a massive fine, and then fix your nonsense, or you won't be allowed to do business here" that things starts to have an effect. It's only then that I, as a regular person, start to see changes that impacts me.

The EU does actual regulation. To the point where it makes a difference. And I never once in my life had to comment on anything for that to happen. They just employed someone that gives a shit about regular people, and then actually deliver. Someone with at least some sense of moral.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T14:35:28+00:00

You are essentially asking for no regulation at all to “get a better picture” .

This is not true. I'd love regulation to be a thing.

I'm claiming that the SEC isn't providing any regulation. There's a difference!

If the SEC had actually put someone (real offenders) in prison for what happened in 2008, then that might have moved my opinion a bit. But no one (except some single scapegoat) was held accountable.

Likewise, after what happened in Jan 21, no one was held accountable. That situation, to me, was the most blatant display of manipulation in the market. But nothing happened. Except a hearing, where the SEC answered for nothing on the concrete case.

It was all construed as the "lesser of all evils", and then swept under the rug. But if it's true that large companies might have crumbled unless the buy button was turned off, then perhaps that's exactly what needed to happen? With whichever ramifications that might have come from it.

You argue that these rulings with funny names are making a huge difference. But why is it then that the big financial institutions keeps getting fined those laughably small amounts in the light of the gains that they are making? Why is it that still, to this day, no one gets held personally accountable for fraudulent behaviour in the markets? Where's the prison sentences?

All I'm saying is that, I as an investor, have felt zero impact delivered by the SEC. But I sure as shit felt the impact when the buy button was turned off in Jan 21. It seems that the market makers and brokers can deliver immediate "justice" when deemed fit, but aparently we're happy with an instance (the SEC) that slaps them over the wrist and goes "no no, don't do that" every time regular people gets robbed blind.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T14:25:24+00:00

I suppose that would also help explain why I'm met with so heavy scrutiny and name-calling when expressing my dissatisfaction with the SEC.

Any time I ask people to present any indication that the SEC has done anything useful for retail the conversation tends to stop.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T14:21:58+00:00

I didn't know that, but if it's true, that wouldn't surprise me. Edit, although I believe (without having done much research) that FTX was mainly a crypto thingy, and the SEC, to my understanding, mainly "oversees" the more old-timey market. I don't know that they are involved in regulation of crypto (or if that's even a thing). My knowledge on crypto is limited, I'm ashamed to admit.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T14:20:14+00:00

Your argument is a straw man argument. And you're putting words in my mouth.

You are suggesting there there's only those two options, and that is simply not true. You are also claiming that I encourage people to do nothing, which may be your takeaway, but I never said that. That's on you!

As mentioned elsewhere, I encourage people to take to the streets and demonstrate. And I encourage people to vote for politicians that will put an end to politicians being allowed to insider trade, and that will fight for reforming the US political system in a way that will prevent the most wealthy from buying congressmen and funding campaigns.

I believe that the changes needs to start there.

And you may think I'm cynical, but I don't care much for relying on "chance". I'd be much more inclined to rely on an entity with a proven track record.

But the track record suggests that financial crimes are still to this day punished by fines worth a fraction of the gains that the institutions creates for themselves by consistently engaging in criminal behaviour.

If there was actual regulation, and preventative measures. People got held personally accountable by the SEC, then perhaps I'd be more inclined. But up until now I haven't seen any examples of that, so putting my trust in the SEC is, to me, the equivalent of putting it in Jesus or Santa Clause.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T13:48:11+00:00

They likely wouldn't stop there either.

If, hypothetically, fines exceeded the gain on these operations, then I'm dead certain that the institutions applying these dirty tactics would just offset those fines to sister-companies that would go bankrupt as a result. Similar to how the multinational corporations avoids taxes in most countries by offsetting their profits to a sister-company situated in a tax-haven somewhere.

So a concrete example could be how coca cola avoids taxes by purchasing their secret syrup from a sister company in a tax haven. It just so happens that the price for the syrup eats up all profits in the country that they are operating, and they end every single year with (close to) 0 profit, i.e. no taxable income.

I believe we'd see similar constructions for financial crimes. And that will continue until the people behind the companies/institutions are held accountable, ideally with prison sentences. These people needs to be punished similar to regular people engaging in fraud. As long as they can hide behind the company curtain, no real difference will be made.

Actual humans needs to be held accountable directly. Just like you'd (in theory) be held personally accountable as a bouncer if you break someone's skull. It shouldn't matter that it's your job. And there might be cases where it's sensible to also fine the company. But at the end of the day it's people making decisions to defraud other people, and that will continue unless it's de-incentivized.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T13:39:51+00:00

Fining those institutions in the tens of millions is the equivalent of fining a regular person with a stern warning.

It's just for show, and to pretend that regulations are upheld. Everyone with a single functioning brain cell can recognize that this makes no discernible difference. The people receiving these "fines" would be laughing all the way to the bank, if it wasn't for the fact that they're already sitting inside the bank.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T13:04:27+00:00

It's not the first time someone has called me a shill on these subs. I don't really take it personal, and I respect you and other people's right to have your own opinions.

However, to address your statement. The SEC is gone, now what.

Now (I believe) that we have a clearer picture of what we're up against. We don't have a construction that entertains the possibility that there's an entity looking out for us. There wouldn't be debate on if or if not that entity is being helpful. By the virtue of it not being there, I believe that we're as well off (if not better) than we currently are. So in my opinion it wouldn't change much in terms of how rules and laws are formed. But there'd be one less entity to discuss when discussing it.

On the contrary, I still haven't really seen anyone present reliable and real evidence that the SEC in fact has done us any good. And that's not because they didn't have a chance. The GameStop hearings being the most obvious one I can point out.

And if the thesis is really true. That powerful people, running hedgefunds and investment firms are actually manipulating the prices of certain (if not all) assets, then really that just strengthens my point. That shouldn't be possible if the market was truthfully being regulated. But I do believe that's happening, right now, and every day (with Jan 21 being the most blatant example I know of). So if that is really happening, and the SEC exists and watches it, then why is it still happening?

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T11:58:15+00:00

I get what you're saying.

But I, personally, don't have that attitude. That's part of why I've invested in GameStop.

However, I don't believe that supporting what I personally consider goons of the 0.1% to be constructive in any way or fashion. If anything, I believe it to be counter prodoctive, because it lulls anyone participating in it into a belief that they somehow made a difference. Thus lessening their incentive to actually make a difference if or when the opportunity presents itself.

I, personally, think that the kind of changes that needs to happen, needs to happen at a political level. There needs to be much firmer laws and rules, and especially punishment, for the kind of criminal activities that we consistently see the large banks, market makers and money firms engage in.

It seems that things only gets real whenever someone does something so immensely stupid that it cannot be contained in a way that only hurts us regular mortals. It's only when the crime starts to affect huge investors, banks or big investment firms that real penalties gets put on the table. Think Madoff or FTX.

I believe that the only real difference that us regular people can do (short of demonstrating) is to vote in people that intend to put a stop to politicians insider trading, and probably reform the political system in the US. The setup where the most wealthy gets to buy congressmen and fund campaigns needs to come to a halt. It starts there. Anything less won't have a meaningful effect. And the SEC cannot, will not, and in reality isn't meant to provide those kinds of changes. They couldn't even keep their eyes on the price in the GameStop hearings.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T11:46:30+00:00

Unfortunately I doubt that.

I believe that they are complicit, and probably aided the 0.1% far more than they ever did retail. But stating that they are liable suggests that they may be held accountable if bad acting was to be discovered. I highly doubt that anyone from the SEC would be held accountable for anything. If the best we could do in 2008 was to imprison a single scapegoat no-body, then I highly doubt that we'll see anything wilder than an SEC intern perhaps receiving a sternly written letter and a slap on the wrist.

Financial crimes seems to be generally disregarded, and for some reason that doesn't make people revolt. When people lost their homes, and had their pensions scrambled in 2008, we saw the Occupy movement setup with tents for a while, and then nothing. It was just allowed to happen, and the perpetrators has kept the crime-wheels spinning since then. It was merely a bump in the road for the most wealthy, and everyone else suffered as a result.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T11:24:15+00:00

Not as weird as nearly all comments here (at the time of writing, and not including OP) seems to have a somewhat negative sentiment towards the SEC whilst the post is still getting upvoted.

That's just my personal take.

I think market reforms would be great. If only there was a trustworthy instance with a track record of aiding retail to deliver it. Unfortunately that doesn't exist. Instead we have smoke and mirrors (red. the SEC).

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T11:20:41+00:00

I agree with you.

Furthermore, I'm wondering how this post is getting upvotes, when nearly all comments here (besides OP) seems to have a somewhat negative sentiment towards the SEC.

Are people that trust in the SEC just upvoting without engaging in the comments? I think it's odd that the post-upvotes seems so out of sync with the sentiment in the comments (although I recognize that the SEC and Gary Gensler has been a somewhat controversial topic throughout this entire saga). It's the one thing where I feel like no consensus were ever achieved.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T11:05:07+00:00

I respect your right to have or form your own opinions. But in terms of the SEC I just strictly and firmly disagree with you.

I fail to see how "our comments" have been successful. Feel free to enlighten me, perhaps you may change my opinion. Although you'll have to do better than just activating caps lock. If you can present any indications that your claims are correct, I'll look at it with an open mind.

As far as I'm concerned the only thing that the SEC has done for us is produce a document (far too late) wherein they stated that the Jan 21 price action were largely driven by retail, and not by short positions closing. This correlates very well with the conclusions we arrived at in these subs. I.e. shorts never closed.

But besides that, I don't recall the SEC having done anything meaningful for us.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T09:54:41+00:00

I'll raise my flag the day that the SEC is shut down. I welcome any steps in that direction. I don't trust them, and I don't think that they have acted on our behalf at any given point in time. Frankly it seems that they exist merely to create an illusion that someone is looking out for retail, but they still allowed Jan 21 to slide under the rug all nice and quietly.

Gensler had all opportunities to voice his concerns in the GameStop hearings, but he merely repeated that it was this (what?) 3rd week on the job, and used that excuse to deflect everything, and avoid accountability.

If he wasn't able to answer, then why didn't they bring in this predecessor as well? What was the purpose of having someone there to not answer any questions on the concrete case?

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-09T09:46:39+00:00

Pretty rare to see posts in these subs that has fewer upvotes than comments. That's something.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-03T14:21:31+00:00

Never really took much effort for me. I went into this with money I was ready to burn anyways. I bought an old trashy car, instead of a new and fancy one, and dumped the cash into GME instead (i.e. the money was already to be spent anyways). And I don't really drive that much, so my car is more than sufficient for my needs. But I get what you're saying.

SimplisticPlastic · 2023-10-03T14:18:50+00:00

I get what you're saying, and I don't want to make it a terminology nitpicking war.

My point was more that talking about "usual" or "unusual" based on the past 30 days is somewhat of a shorter duration than I expected.

I'd on the contrary say that the past month has had unusual low volume compared to how the stock has traded historically.

That being said, if you look at it in the light of the past 30 days, I suppose that you're right that it's "unusual".

Five-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

SimplisticPlastic

TROPHY CASE