SEC Suspends Trading in Multiple Issuers Based on Social Media and Trading Activity

Sig said:
So in general you're not even putting together comprehensible sentences, so we can only assume you are a bot or drunk.

But more importantly to the whole "sue the SEC" crowd, one of these names caught my eye because I vaguely remember the company going out of business several years ago, HLXW. So I did a little digging and in fact in 2011 they did sell all their assets to another company and closed up shop. Since 2011 the company has had no employees, no assets, filed no reports with the SEC.....in short the company hasn't existed for a decade! And yet it had a market cap of $1.9M prior to the SEC shutting down trading. Are you, and @gkishot and @comagnum (apt name, btw) who mindlessly upvoted you, really saying the SEC are the bad guys here and the assholes who are pumping and dumping a stock for a company that literally hasn't existed for a decade are the good guys? I guess because "'gumbnt bad", amiright? Unbelievable!
More...
Just because a criminal does a good deed, does not exempt them from punishment for wrongdoing.
 
stockpredictor said:
Just because a criminal does a good deed, does not exempt them from punishment for wrongdoing.
More...
This thread was specifically about the "deed" of the SEC halting trading on companies that in reality don't exist. You said, in response to that, "Need to sue the SEC. Criminals." But when it was pointed out who the actual criminals were in this specific case, THE CASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, you pivot to "Just because a criminal does a good deed, does not exempt them from punishment for wrongdoing.?"

It's clear from the 3 responses you put here that you're unfamiliar with how humans carry on conversations. If you want to start a thread about some alleged "criminal" behavior on the part of the SEC, go knock yourself out. And sue them while you're at it. Like I said, let us all know how it works out for you. Until then, maybe spend some time engaging in actual conversations with real people, maybe ask them for some hints on how you respond to what they said rather than the voices in your head? Once you've got some practice with that, you can come back to the big boy table and engage in a conversation with the adults in the room.
 
Sig said:
This thread was specifically about the "deed" of the SEC halting trading on companies that in reality don't exist. You said, in response to that, "Need to sue the SEC. Criminals." But when it was pointed out who the actual criminals were in this specific case, THE CASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, you pivot to "Just because a criminal does a good deed, does not exempt them from punishment for wrongdoing.?"
More...

I was not talking about those specific cases. If we are talking about this case, then we need to ask how they got to be tradable without having filed the prerequisite information. Maybe the SEC should do their job better.
 
Sig said:
Are you, and @gkishot and @comagnum (apt name, btw) who mindlessly upvoted you, really saying the SEC are the bad guys here and the assholes who are pumping and dumping a stock for a company that literally hasn't existed for a decade are the good guys?
More...
My guess for the upvote is that the SEC seems very arbitrary in what it does. Half of the time it probably even steps in too late. Musk has proven that he has more power than they do. The entire GME fiasco also makes you wonder who does the SEC actually want to protect.

This entire game these days is a shit show. To make it sound like an organization is actually looking out for the little guy is a joke. Because we know this is all a game, its probably best to just take away all the rules, as opposed to arbitrary rules designed to help the big boys. The occasional trader goes to jail, but banks that continuously break the rules get a fine that is peanuts compared to their profits.
 
and since the fools have no clue about regulations and existing SEC securities laws, everything seems random to them and "unfair", while actually the SEC is strictly following the securities laws and regulations
 
Market_Diver said:
Why SEC, which is there to protect the little guys, make laws and regulations which favor the big boys.
More...
they don't make laws that favor the big boys,

the big boys get big fine all the time, every day, the SEC is very active going after the big boys. They love the big boys because they do a lot of shit wrong and can give them big fines.

The rules are the same for everyone, small or big, even though small investors might get away with things that big boys wouldn't. Sometimes the case for big boys are so complicated, it's impossible to prosecute, the laws are not specific enough to reach certain cases, so there is reasonable doubt for a case.

For small guys, the cases are always simpler, see Roaring Kitty for his blatant violations of every law in the book.
 
Butterfly said:
and since the fools have no clue about regulations and existing SEC securities laws, everything seems random to them and "unfair", while actually the SEC is strictly following the securities laws and regulations
More...
found the SEC's elitetrader account.
 
Market_Diver said:
Why SEC, which is there to protect the little guys, make laws and regulations which favor the big boys.
More...
Anyone who thinks the SEC "make laws" is so fundamentally ignorant to how the U.S. government works that they don't deserve to be a citizen, let alone participate in a discussion about how a government agency works. Please, stop embarrassing yourself. Shut up and maybe listen and learn a little before injecting your hopelessly ignorant and therefore entirely useless opinions, you're destroying value every time you open your mouth!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top