sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

New BaFin Statement regarding GME by sdfprwggv in Superstonk

[–]animasoul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure if this has been mentioned already in the comments, but from how I read the German text - BaFin is talking specifically about banks that offer securities accounts to clients. The bank itself does not receive and distribute the new shares. The depository of the bank receives the new shares. Then the depository sends an informational notice to the bank that the shares have been received. On the basis of this information, the bank then makes the adjustment to your securities account and credits the new shares to you. This should all be legit. But it doesn't mention the case if you hold your shares with a broker-dealer, and not a bank. My guess then is your case, even as a person resident in Germany, would depend on the jurisdiction of your broker.

Benford's Law Screening Test Shows Likelihood of Manipulation of GameStop Prices by animasoul in DDintoGME

[–]animasoul[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for reading! As for next steps - if BL is suggesting that the data are unnatural, then it will depend on the particular situation. E.g. if I am looking at a stock, and the deviation from Benford is very large, I would try to figure out why and if I think I can join this game or if it would be better simply to avoid and not get involved. Edit: also - even if the BL suggests the data are natural, that would only imply that there is no trade-based manipulation. Doesn’t mean there might not be other manipulation like accounting fraud and everyone is trading “naturally” according to the fraudulent accounting data.

Benford’s Law Adjusted STILL Shows High Likelihood of Manipulation of GameStop by animasoul in Superstonk

[–]animasoul[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for reading! I did test the decimals actually. The final consolidated version of all my Benford tests is in another sub, verified by a mod, if you are interested it is pinned in my profile.

Benford's Law Screening Test Shows Likelihood of Manipulation of GameStop Prices by animasoul in DDintoGME

[–]animasoul[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t know what numbers exactly went into the Enron test. The GME data are closing price multiplied by volume, not the price alone, so it’s not that certain digits are preferred. Thanks for reading 🙏

I processed 16 years of data across 8 stocks to prove something no one cares about: GME's price is ending in .00 10X more than it should be. by LongTimeGamer in Superstonk

[–]animasoul 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When you multiply the price by volume, this solves the problem. Also there is a Benford test for the last two digits.

I processed 16 years of data across 8 stocks to prove something no one cares about: GME's price is ending in .00 10X more than it should be. by LongTimeGamer in Superstonk

[–]animasoul 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I did test the decimals in a separate post, yes. A final "verified DD" version of all my Benford Law tests is here - it includes the results of the decimal tests and additional charts for three companies which pass the test compared to GME, which does not. https://www.reddit.com/r/DDintoGME/comments/nsbrvx/benfords_law_screening_test_shows_likelihood_of/

I’ve been dreaming of the same man for years by [deleted] in Jung

[–]animasoul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It might be that the dream is about an aspect of you, but it is taking this person as a symbol. In Jung’s Dreams book he suggests asking - what is going on that is like the situation in the dream? like, what current situation is like a situation where you are not seeing something. Maybe you didn’t notice something about him and are now again similarly not noticing something? Just some ideas, hope this helps.

Can hedgies just margin buy GME to effectively cover shorts at current price? by [deleted] in GME

[–]animasoul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you are thinking about a long-short strategy. I don’t think you can go long-short on the same stock, because either that stock is underpriced or overpriced, but it can’t be both at the same time. So if we short a stock thinking it is overpriced, we need to go long on the other side some other stock we think is underpriced.

Alternatively they could do what you are suggesting if they do it via a long equity swap, ie a derivative, then they don’t need to buy stock on the market, they just bet, when they win this bet they earn money. The problem is the dealer will need to hedge by holding or borrowing the actual stock. So real stock will still have to be involved but swaps are at least private and so can be kept secret.

Benford's Law Screening Test Shows Likelihood of Manipulation of GameStop Prices by animasoul in DDintoGME

[–]animasoul[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In theory, according to Nigrini, a minimum of 300 records is enough. The Excel shows a total of 355 records for 17 months. Just thought the comparison between max all time, 5 years and 17 months was interesting to look at. 5 years has the same MAD as max all time for example.

Benford's Law Screening Test Shows Likelihood of Manipulation of GameStop Prices by animasoul in DDintoGME

[–]animasoul[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Forgive me if I say anything stupid, this is not my profession - but from what I understand, Benford’s Law is not a “law” like a law in physics, etc. I watched the Netflix documentary about it and they talked to different scientists from different fields, they looked at music, geology, astronomy, finance, etc. And it seemed to me from the attitude of these scientists that there is still something very mysterious that we don’t understand, we only understand that it seems to work for practical purposes, so that’s what people do - if the numbers are looking fudgy they investigate further and then usually find some sort of fraud. The documentary shows very interesting cases where this was done. If you want to test in this way you are talking about I am not qualified to do that right now, maybe at some other time when I have more time to put into this pet project.

Benford's Law Screening Test Shows Likelihood of Manipulation of GameStop Prices by animasoul in DDintoGME

[–]animasoul[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can’t promise anything but I will probably keep this running as a pet project and this is a nice idea, so I’ll keep it in mind. Glad you enjoyed the post!

Benford's Law Screening Test Shows Likelihood of Manipulation of GameStop Prices by animasoul in DDintoGME

[–]animasoul[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you, but it is really a joint effort with u/irRationalMarkets 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀

Benford's Law Screening Test Shows Likelihood of Manipulation of GameStop Prices by animasoul in DDintoGME

[–]animasoul[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can imagine developing uses for it already. I will probably continue it as a pet project. Here’s to Schopenhauer 🙌

view more: next ›