I can only speculate, but I would guess that wishing to avoid a precedent and maintaining the decision-making oligopoly against the retail rabble is an integral part of it.
正在查看此主题的用户
Congress will investigate and show that Trump's messing with SEC regulations caused it.
There was something in that article I linked:
Trump oversaw a massive wave of financial deregulation. Here are just a few examples:
The Trump administration shut down a working group that was examining the risks that Hedge Funds might pose to the financial system. This working group was housed at the Financial Stability Oversight Council; Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin shut it down.
Trump put a former executive from the cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase in charge of one of the major banking regulators, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). He proceeded to deregulate crypto at banks. As Yahoo Finance detailed, "During his term, the OCC published several interpretive letters or made statements announcing that banks can provide services to issuers of stablecoins, partner with crypto custodians, conduct payments using stablecoins and operate nodes on blockchain networks."
Trump appointed former OneWest executive Steven Mnuchin, who oversaw massive foreclosures during his tenure, to the Treasury. Trump also appointed a former white shoe law firm attorney Jay Clayton, who defended many Wall Street clients, to run the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which oversees much of the stock and equity options marketplace.
The Trump administration shut down a working group that was examining the risks that Hedge Funds might pose to the financial system. This working group was housed at the Financial Stability Oversight Council; Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin shut it down.
Trump put a former executive from the cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase in charge of one of the major banking regulators, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). He proceeded to deregulate crypto at banks. As Yahoo Finance detailed, "During his term, the OCC published several interpretive letters or made statements announcing that banks can provide services to issuers of stablecoins, partner with crypto custodians, conduct payments using stablecoins and operate nodes on blockchain networks."
Trump appointed former OneWest executive Steven Mnuchin, who oversaw massive foreclosures during his tenure, to the Treasury. Trump also appointed a former white shoe law firm attorney Jay Clayton, who defended many Wall Street clients, to run the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which oversees much of the stock and equity options marketplace.
I don't like conspiracies and believe markets set the rules, but halting buying (but not selling!) on a rising stock doesn't make sense and does look very suspicious, particularly when the PR statements justifying this look like lame excuses. All traditional market circuit breakers are set to halt sharp stock value drops, not the reverse. Is financial capitalist conspiracy.
Now the question is who exactly short-sells at the moment and will directly make money off this intervention. And will this be investigated by financial authorities.
Thanks for all informed posts, especially Kurczak.
Edit: BTW, when Cruz and AOC agree on something, you know it's populist bull****. The populist right and left agree on many things and they are playing for the galleries of simple folks who are made to believe that there are simple solutions for complex problems.
Now the question is who exactly short-sells at the moment and will directly make money off this intervention. And will this be investigated by financial authorities.
Thanks for all informed posts, especially Kurczak.
Edit: BTW, when Cruz and AOC agree on something, you know it's populist bull****. The populist right and left agree on many things and they are playing for the galleries of simple folks who are made to believe that there are simple solutions for complex problems.
最后编辑:
Nega-Brutus
I know **** all about stock markets but there's this, if you care:
Why isn't Robinhood letting me trade? (hint: there's probably not a conspiracy against you)
Today's been a big day in the stock market . Lots of people have lost a lot of money, and a lot of people are understandably really upset . ...
statswithsasa.blogspot.com
That's very interesting, thanks.
I know nothing too, but I was not convinced that the reason is that the Robinhoods don't have enough liquidity. They had enough liquidity so far, so what's different now and what's up with the synchronized halt on buying between retail investment platforms?
They basically need short-term loans at most to continue working with volatile stocks and massive retail interest. Or they could have limited the rate of buying somehow, to match their liquidity level. Shutting down all retail buys seems a too excessive solution to a seemingly solvable problem. But, I know too little to judge.
Edit. Robinhood is pushing this line too:
"As a brokerage firm, Robinhood has many financial requirements, including SEC net capital obligations and clearinghouse deposits," Tenev wrote. "Some of these requirements fluctuate based on volatility in the markets and can be substantial in the current environment."
Tenev also said the platform will start allowing "limited buys of these securities" Friday.
Edit 2. Meanwhile, it seems that SEC is investigating the Reddit crowd (ffs!) for market manipulation, but they are not expected to do anything about it because they never did.
I know nothing too, but I was not convinced that the reason is that the Robinhoods don't have enough liquidity. They had enough liquidity so far, so what's different now and what's up with the synchronized halt on buying between retail investment platforms?
They basically need short-term loans at most to continue working with volatile stocks and massive retail interest. Or they could have limited the rate of buying somehow, to match their liquidity level. Shutting down all retail buys seems a too excessive solution to a seemingly solvable problem. But, I know too little to judge.
Edit. Robinhood is pushing this line too:
"As a brokerage firm, Robinhood has many financial requirements, including SEC net capital obligations and clearinghouse deposits," Tenev wrote. "Some of these requirements fluctuate based on volatility in the markets and can be substantial in the current environment."
Tenev also said the platform will start allowing "limited buys of these securities" Friday.
Edit 2. Meanwhile, it seems that SEC is investigating the Reddit crowd (ffs!) for market manipulation, but they are not expected to do anything about it because they never did.
最后编辑:
Lusitani 5th Empire
They also automatically (without consent) sold the shares of some people at a low price, when the stock dipped. There are also reports of people being blocked from rating the app and rantings being deleted or changed.
To be fair, what Rams posted turned out to be the real reason. Now Robinhood got a huge 1 billion loan and will continue (limited) trades. Unless you believe that's a cover-up and you prefer the little-man-vs-rich-elite narrative.
Google removed the review-bombing reviews of Robinhood as it always does (or should do) and now the little men are angry with it. Why do people think that they have a right to review-bomb in concert is beyond me. These are the same people that deplore the cancel culture.
Google removed the review-bombing reviews of Robinhood as it always does (or should do) and now the little men are angry with it. Why do people think that they have a right to review-bomb in concert is beyond me. These are the same people that deplore the cancel culture.
One of the largest brokers with clients from mega hedge funds to 13 million retail traders, that processes probably tens (?), hundreds (?) of millions or more orders a day for thousands and thousands of products from stocks, through futures and options to crypo, has to halt buying only and for retail only on one singe penny stock, because they can't afford the clearing collaterals anymore.
Just stop being paranoid and trust one of the mos notoriously corrupt industries to be good boy scouts and follow rule of law, so help them God, when there's literally billions of dollars at stake. It just so happens that the conclusion they reached benefits their second cousins and the fellas from their country club. What are you a populist or something?!
Trust the Free Market.
All Hail the Free Market.
All Hail the Free Market.
Nega-Brutus
idk
I can share some theory on regulatory capture and corruption if someone wants. It's pretty cool and relevant and not too complicated. Wallstreet meets a lot of the variables for the prediction of regulatory capture/corruption, I think.
A new documentary is being made called First Ladies, about the wives of American presidents.
It seems they get quite a bit of political influence simply being married to the president.
Is it all just informal, or do de jure powers come with the 'title'?
I'm worried about nepotism, or is that silly, because they just write books and play ambassadors for 'feel good' causes?
It seems they get quite a bit of political influence simply being married to the president.
Is it all just informal, or do de jure powers come with the 'title'?
I'm worried about nepotism, or is that silly, because they just write books and play ambassadors for 'feel good' causes?
I think it's silly and they play a role similar to British royalty. Diana was married to a Prince and had to be a public figure doing charity and whatnot. Who cares? Apparently people do care, a lot.
The most ambitious and meddling wife I remember was Hillary when Bill was president. She had ambitions to push universal healthcare through Congress, but this was quickly torpedoed. While the desire to do so is nice, she was not elected by anyone and that's what worries you probably.
Others I think only limited themselves to patronage of charitable or good causes, just like royalty. The formal powers are pitiful I think, limited to running a small office, but their events are guaranteed publicity.
The informal power also comes from them being one of the gatekeepers to the most powerful man etc. It's one way out of many to get access to the administration.
But so is everywhere else. Boris Johnson's girlfriend managed to clear out the macho Brexiter retinue from Boris' court and install her, more moderate, favorites. She wasn't elected to do so, she merely was getting Boris' sad **** after his divorce and then went along with the events. Nobody missed those guys, but the press was upset (and delighted) that court intrigue decides policy.
The most ambitious and meddling wife I remember was Hillary when Bill was president. She had ambitions to push universal healthcare through Congress, but this was quickly torpedoed. While the desire to do so is nice, she was not elected by anyone and that's what worries you probably.
Others I think only limited themselves to patronage of charitable or good causes, just like royalty. The formal powers are pitiful I think, limited to running a small office, but their events are guaranteed publicity.
The informal power also comes from them being one of the gatekeepers to the most powerful man etc. It's one way out of many to get access to the administration.
But so is everywhere else. Boris Johnson's girlfriend managed to clear out the macho Brexiter retinue from Boris' court and install her, more moderate, favorites. She wasn't elected to do so, she merely was getting Boris' sad **** after his divorce and then went along with the events. Nobody missed those guys, but the press was upset (and delighted) that court intrigue decides policy.
Exactly. Through the years the 'first lady' has built up political influence through an office, while not being elected by the people.
Ironically making the role more formal, means it's less nepotistic since it's more transparent.
You could argue that in the American direct elections that put focus on personality, people choose not just their President, but very explicitly and strangely, his
I had another interesting question that puzzles me for some time:
Why is the (Western) hard left so apologetic of Russia?
I even did some googling, but I still can't quite understand. I'm also a bit disgusted by lies and propaganda that are common in defending Russia.
Now, some googled background. The natural allies of the Russian regime in the West are far-right parties - they share the same values: authoritarian, nationalist, conservative, populist. Russia loves them as well, and helps them destabilize the EU project by running covert disinfo campaigns and by shady financing of far-right causes. Brexit was a major victory for Russian interests and they are hoping for more exits.
Then why do far-left idealists, the opposite of far-right scum, defend Russia and its interests? The main examples of hard left favoritism are in Greece (Syriza; also helped by popular support for Russia, perhaps as fellow Orthodox people?), Spain (Podemos), Germany (Linke) and UK (Corbyn's Labour, Momentum).
Now the hard-leftists defend Russia in the West whenever it is attacked for its actions: for example, they took Assad's side in Syria, claiming chemical attacks were a hoax, they are on the side of Russian separatists in Ukraine, citing self-determination, and generally making excuses for any Russian bad behavior and peddling conspiracy theories created by Russian propaganda.
Why?
Some mention that the Western hard-left and Russia have common enemies: Western imperialism and Western free market capitalism.
So every time Russia does something imperialist on their own, like invading Ukraine or killing former spies abroad, and the mainstream Western politicians start with sanctions and such, the hard-left sees only Western imperialist over-reach and willfully turn a blind eye to the Russian version of it. They are using world events to attack the hated regime at home.
Some also say that there are old connections and affinity between veteran European communists and the successor of the Soviet Union. It seems far-fetched, but everyone over 50 was an adult when communism fell and before that some of them still looked up to the Soviets (presumably, I can't see this).
Any other reasons?
And what do you hard lefties say? Do you like Russia @Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and why?
最后编辑:
it's a whole thing. one of the big classic schisms. i don't fully understand why they do. some folks blame it on aesthetics.
as for me, i like many things about russia. i'm in particular a fan of russian classical composers. but obviously i am no fan of the current political situation, nor is anyone i hang with, so regrettably i cannot explain to you those who are.
as for me, i like many things about russia. i'm in particular a fan of russian classical composers. but obviously i am no fan of the current political situation, nor is anyone i hang with, so regrettably i cannot explain to you those who are.
What?
Almost nobody outside of certain soviet bloc countries actively likes Russia, and even after googling I genuinely don't know what you're talking about when you say some parties defend Russian interests. I'm not taking the piss either, everything I'm reading is like a breadcrumb trail of vague assumptions, just like Russiagate in 2017, and in the same year when the Labour anti-Semitism non-scandal came out. It's like Qanon for people with uni degrees. Everything I've searched so far has been from bizzare political gossip blogs that act like modern Russia is essentially the same as the USSR and that everyone who isn't on board with anti-Russian geopolitical struggle, or has a "weak" stance towards them is a traitor. It was the same crap during the Iraq war and the war on terror, nobody who wanted to keep their career publicly criticised the geopolitical direction.
It also feeds off this weird idea that Russia is basically sockpuppeting parties like AfD and Golden Dawn or whatever, with the insinuation that they wouldn't be as prevalent if it wasn't for the pesky asiatic fascist hordes whispering in the ears of the otherwise completely content public. The hilarious thing is that all Russia has to do to destabilise European democracies (no matter how ineffective it ends up being) is to insinuate that they're funding extremists, or even just normal political parties. During the early Russiagate scandal in the early to mid 2010s when the first russiabot articles were coming out, it was so easy to throw that accusation around at journalists and even politicians, even though the actual russian sockpuppets were just a few hundred underpaid grannies in Moscow. It turns politics into a fun, moralising battle between normies and traitors that everyone is susceptible to.
I definitely think some politicians are overly skeptical of geopolitical overreach, but that has far more to do with constantly failing interventions abroad than Russia in particular. The real question shouldn't be "why aren't more politicians goading for confrontation with other countries", it should be "why is anybody doing it". The Stop the War Coalition in Britain was the largest popular movement in British history, and French non-intervention in the war in Iraq was almost universally supported. If they're overreacting to interventionalism it's because it's easy political points.
最后编辑:
Nega-Brutus
I'd personally probably agree with Jacob that hard left support of Russia may not be representative of them as a whole. Could be a few anecdotes that are blow out of proportion. Maybe there's something idk.
I am certain though of Russian proactive interest and meddling in Euro elections. We don't have too much blatant corruption in the Netherlands, it's more subtle. But every time we do it's a far right party campaign where it's revealed that the money is sourced from Russia, or the person has objectively wierd connections in Russia or something. Our biggest far right party with ~10% of the seats in parliament now has "the normalisation of relations with Russia" as a main campaign point. I can probably find medium-hard evidence of this happening across most of Europe.
I'm personally from Russia and I'm in market regulation, and corruption is part of my portfolio. Russia is kinda a ****ing floodgate of corruption, nepotism, racist, nationalist bull****. They can go **** themselves, honestly. We usually have an idea of trying to build relations with peoples if there's opportunities for prosperity, but economically tying ourselves with Russia is not just accepting the financial risks but also an impediment to our efforts to keep everything as transparent as we can, most likely.
I'm personally still always sympathetic to normalizing relations with nations and I don't disriminate who I'm compassionate to, I feel for ordinary people in Russia. It would be cool if Russia would be willing to compromise and negotiate. But everytime we try they just abuse the **** out of it and break everyone's trust. It's obvious we're all playing the geopolitical game. But whereas most countries can come together in a room to come to some understandings and keep their promises, Russia just can't even do the bare minimum.
Putin never stopped believing that Russia was or could still be USSR and tries to flex it in that direction when their economy is on par with Italy's (no joke). If they want to be part of the world, let them at the ****ing least have a functional constitution and some consistency so we can understand wtf to expect.
Don't mean to preach to the choir, just felt like writing.
I am certain though of Russian proactive interest and meddling in Euro elections. We don't have too much blatant corruption in the Netherlands, it's more subtle. But every time we do it's a far right party campaign where it's revealed that the money is sourced from Russia, or the person has objectively wierd connections in Russia or something. Our biggest far right party with ~10% of the seats in parliament now has "the normalisation of relations with Russia" as a main campaign point. I can probably find medium-hard evidence of this happening across most of Europe.
I'm personally from Russia and I'm in market regulation, and corruption is part of my portfolio. Russia is kinda a ****ing floodgate of corruption, nepotism, racist, nationalist bull****. They can go **** themselves, honestly. We usually have an idea of trying to build relations with peoples if there's opportunities for prosperity, but economically tying ourselves with Russia is not just accepting the financial risks but also an impediment to our efforts to keep everything as transparent as we can, most likely.
I'm personally still always sympathetic to normalizing relations with nations and I don't disriminate who I'm compassionate to, I feel for ordinary people in Russia. It would be cool if Russia would be willing to compromise and negotiate. But everytime we try they just abuse the **** out of it and break everyone's trust. It's obvious we're all playing the geopolitical game. But whereas most countries can come together in a room to come to some understandings and keep their promises, Russia just can't even do the bare minimum.
Putin never stopped believing that Russia was or could still be USSR and tries to flex it in that direction when their economy is on par with Italy's (no joke). If they want to be part of the world, let them at the ****ing least have a functional constitution and some consistency so we can understand wtf to expect.
Don't mean to preach to the choir, just felt like writing.
最后编辑:
Jacob, you seem to be poorly informed and/or jumping to conclusions. You have this weird contrarian reaction to the attacks on Corbyn (some of which were undoubtedly unfair) and generalize it to the whole of European far left, as if the mainstream/right-wing parties invented the far-left love of Russia as a myth. Well, it's not a myth and you can find evidence of this both in far left parties statements and online comments (presumably not by Russian bots but genuine far leftists).
Here's some evidence to help your googling efforts. I'll stick to the far left connections to Russia, because the far right connections are far easier to find and the covert disinfo campaigns are very much real - the question is only how effective they are (probably not very, but you can see the intention and the Russians take these seriously).
Syriza in Greece (okay, Greece is an outlier, with historical and spiritual connections too) is against EU sanctions on Russia and actively promotes stronger bilateral relations. Greece was basically the Russian mole in the EU when Syriza was in power.
Podemos in Spain talks about "overcoming NATO" and having an "autonomous" relations with Russia (possibly meant independent of US interests, but obviously Spain is in the EU, which has its own common Russian policies). They also describe the Russian insurrection in Ukraine as "anti-fascist", which is a common claim of other far left parties and quite obviously beside the point. Now they are in the coalition that rules Spain. Note that there's a cross-party consensus in Spain that's "favorably neutral" to Russia, so Podemos is not so out of step from the rest of the parties, just more pro-Russian, motivated by its anti-American views.
Die Linke in Germany is for dissolution of NATO and a new security alliance that includes Russia. Obviously the last one is completely unrealistic and ideological. They also delivered aid to Russian separatists in Ukraine and acknowledged the Russian annexation of Crimea.
Corbyn and friends' attitudes (Seumas Milne is a great example) in the UK are well documented. Every time there was a crisis related to Russia (the latest example was the Skripal poisoning), Corbyn and his allies stepped to defend it and at least express skepticism about Russia's involvement and guilt, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You don't just do this out of love for the truth, there's a deeper motivation and that's what my question is about. In this case the motivation comes probably from deeply felt anti-imperialist attitudes that are very much ideological.
Now I'm sure the Tories and their tabloids insinuated even more alleged sinister ties between Corbynites and Russia, but that's not what I'm talking about. His public statements are evidence enough.
I could go on and on, and find more damning statements that you could have found too, if you were looking.
I hope you can see a pattern here.
I find it disturbing that far leftists, that are not some fringe loonies anymore, but have good electoral prospects and access to power, abandon their other principles and take Russia's side out of some ideological motivation, possibly anti-Western-imperialism.
Also agreed with Rams balanced views. I don't have anti-Russian motivations, but their rogue actions make it very hard to deal with them as partners. They are also typically rude on the internet so **** that too.
Here's some evidence to help your googling efforts. I'll stick to the far left connections to Russia, because the far right connections are far easier to find and the covert disinfo campaigns are very much real - the question is only how effective they are (probably not very, but you can see the intention and the Russians take these seriously).
Syriza in Greece (okay, Greece is an outlier, with historical and spiritual connections too) is against EU sanctions on Russia and actively promotes stronger bilateral relations. Greece was basically the Russian mole in the EU when Syriza was in power.
Podemos in Spain talks about "overcoming NATO" and having an "autonomous" relations with Russia (possibly meant independent of US interests, but obviously Spain is in the EU, which has its own common Russian policies). They also describe the Russian insurrection in Ukraine as "anti-fascist", which is a common claim of other far left parties and quite obviously beside the point. Now they are in the coalition that rules Spain. Note that there's a cross-party consensus in Spain that's "favorably neutral" to Russia, so Podemos is not so out of step from the rest of the parties, just more pro-Russian, motivated by its anti-American views.
Die Linke in Germany is for dissolution of NATO and a new security alliance that includes Russia. Obviously the last one is completely unrealistic and ideological. They also delivered aid to Russian separatists in Ukraine and acknowledged the Russian annexation of Crimea.
Corbyn and friends' attitudes (Seumas Milne is a great example) in the UK are well documented. Every time there was a crisis related to Russia (the latest example was the Skripal poisoning), Corbyn and his allies stepped to defend it and at least express skepticism about Russia's involvement and guilt, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You don't just do this out of love for the truth, there's a deeper motivation and that's what my question is about. In this case the motivation comes probably from deeply felt anti-imperialist attitudes that are very much ideological.
Now I'm sure the Tories and their tabloids insinuated even more alleged sinister ties between Corbynites and Russia, but that's not what I'm talking about. His public statements are evidence enough.
I could go on and on, and find more damning statements that you could have found too, if you were looking.
I hope you can see a pattern here.
I find it disturbing that far leftists, that are not some fringe loonies anymore, but have good electoral prospects and access to power, abandon their other principles and take Russia's side out of some ideological motivation, possibly anti-Western-imperialism.
Also agreed with Rams balanced views. I don't have anti-Russian motivations, but their rogue actions make it very hard to deal with them as partners. They are also typically rude on the internet so **** that too.
