The idea under discussion is to allocate as much as 30% of a future SpaceX IPO to retail investors, roughly three times the usual share set aside for individuals. In most IPOs, institutions dominate the allocation and retail investors get a small slice. A SpaceX deal structured this way would flip that model and give everyday investors unusually large access from day one.

That matters because SpaceX is not a normal IPO candidate. At a possible valuation of up to $1.75 trillion, the company would enter public markets on a scale that few businesses in history have even approached.

The size comparison is what makes this potentially historic.

The largest IPO ever completed was Saudi Aramco, which raised about $29.4 billion in 2019. Alibaba raised $25 billion in 2014. Other giants include ICBC at roughly $21.9 billion, Visa at $17.4 billion, Meta at $16 billion, and General Motors at $15.8 billion.

If SpaceX were to raise more than $75 billion, it would not just break the IPO record. It would destroy it. A $75 billion offering would be about 2.5 times the size of Aramco’s record deal, 3 times the size of Alibaba’s, and more than 4 times Visa’s.

Even by U.S. standards, the gap would be enormous. Among the biggest American IPOs by valuation were AT&T Wireless at about $68 billion, Rivian at roughly $66.5 billion, Didi at nearly $61 billion, and UPS at around $60 billion. A SpaceX debut at a valuation of up to $1.75 trillion would be operating in an entirely different universe.

What makes the structure even more unusual is not just the size, but who gets access. IPOs have traditionally been built around large institutions because banks want stable demand and issuers want deep-pocketed shareholders. Musk seems to be betting on something else: that his loyal fan base and long-term backers could help support the stock after it starts trading.

That would be a real break from the traditional Wall Street model. In most blockbuster IPOs, retail demand may drive excitement, but institutions still control the book. A SpaceX IPO with a 30% retail allocation would signal that brand loyalty and investor enthusiasm can be just as powerful as institutional demand.

Nothing is final yet, and the terms could still change. But even as a possibility, the message is already clear: a SpaceX IPO would not be just another giant listing. It could become one of the biggest and most unconventional public offerings ever, resetting expectations for both size and access.

Essen Medical Associates, a healthcare provider based in New York, has agreed to pay $4 million to settle a class action lawsuit after a cyberattack exposed sensitive information belonging to current and former patients. The lawsuit followed a March 2023 breach in which unauthorized access to the company’s systems reportedly compromised a huge amount of personal and medical data.

The incident affected more than 900,000 people. Depending on the person, the exposed information may have included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver’s license or passport details, insurance records, financial account information, lab results, medical histories, treatment information, prescriptions, and other private health data.

Under the settlement, people who can show they suffered losses tied to the breach may be eligible to receive up to $5,000. Those who do not have documentation for specific expenses may still be able to claim a $100 cash payment.

There are a few key dates to know. Anyone who wants to object to the settlement must do so by May 4, 2026. Claims must be submitted by June 1, 2026, and the final approval hearing is set for July 7, 2026.

While the settlement resolves the lawsuit, it does not automatically mean the company admitted fault. Still, the case is another reminder of how damaging healthcare data breaches can be, especially when deeply personal information ends up in the wrong hands.

For affected patients, this settlement may offer some financial relief after a serious privacy scare.

The file, identified as EFTA00097262, is not a court ruling or enforcement action. It consists primarily of correspondence from a self-identified SEC whistleblower sent to federal judges, regulators, and enforcement officials. What follows is a summary of what the file itself states.

Congressional Testimony and Naked Short Selling

According to the file, Ken Griffin told members of Congress during House Financial Services Committee testimony that the SEC had eliminated illegal naked short selling long ago through Regulation SHO.

The author of the file states that this claim is false and that mechanisms still exist that allow market participants to sell shares without borrowing or locating them. The document repeatedly asserts that regulators are aware of this and that the public has been misled about the true state of enforcement.

Citadel’s Clearing Structure

According to the file, Citadel maintains a deliberate distinction between how its internal hedge funds and its market-making arm handle clearing.

The file states that Citadel’s internal funds self-clear, while Citadel Securities does not. Instead, Citadel Securities clears trades through large third-party clearing firms, including major custodial banks.

The document claims this structure exists to prevent liabilities from appearing directly on Citadel Securities’ balance sheet and to avoid exposing Ken Griffin personally to insolvency or accounting risk that could arise from self-clearing activity.

OTC Markets and Internalization

According to the file, Citadel is one of the dominant traders in OTC Markets and internalized order flow, particularly in thinly traded securities.

The document states that Citadel and similar firms generate profits by repeatedly selling shares into demand without covering positions, especially in microcap and OTC securities. The file claims that trading volumes attributed to these firms exceed total available share counts, which the author says can only occur if shares are sold without being borrowed.

Fails-to-Deliver and the Obligation Warehouse

According to the file, the DTCC’s Obligation Warehouse plays a central role in masking the true scale of fails-to-deliver.

The document states that this system allows unsettled trades to persist outside normal clearing processes, effectively bypassing Regulation SHO close-out requirements. The file asserts that regulators have full visibility into these positions but do not require public disclosure.

Regulatory Oversight

According to the file, the SEC and FINRA have been aware of these practices for years and have declined to pursue meaningful enforcement.

The document states that regulatory actions focus on small, peripheral cases while systemic market-making activity remains untouched. It further claims that whistleblower submissions detailing these practices were used selectively while core market participants were protected.

Why the File Matters

The Epstein DOJ files do not present verdicts or enforcement outcomes. They present a record preserved by the federal government of repeated warnings sent to regulators and courts.

According to the file, if these practices were fully disclosed, they would fundamentally challenge public claims about market fairness, price discovery, and investor protection.

The document leaves readers with one central question:

If the system is as transparent and well-regulated as advertised, why does this file exist at all?

The release lands in a political and legal minefield: Congress mandated disclosure, courts imposed privacy constraints, and the DOJ is openly warning that the production includes material of uneven reliability, including items submitted to the FBI by the public that may be fabricated or false. 

What the DOJ says it released

In its press release and a companion letter to Congress, DOJ frames the release as the product of an unusually large review effort, involving more than 500 attorneys and reviewers. The Department says it over-collected material to avoid missing responsive records, identifying more than 6 million pages as potentially responsive during collection, then releasing over 3 million responsive pages in this tranche (and nearly 3.5 million pages total when combined with prior releases). 

DOJ describes the released material as pulled from multiple buckets tied to historic investigations and prosecutions, including the Florida and New York cases involving Jeffrey Epstein, the New York case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, investigations into Epstein’s death, and multiple FBI/Inspector General-related components. 

The files are hosted on DOJ’s “Epstein Library,” which includes warnings about sensitive content and notes that not all documents are reliably searchable due to format limitations (e.g., handwritten items). 

What was withheld or redacted — and why

DOJ says it limited redactions primarily to protect victims and their families, and to comply with legal constraints. It lists several categories of material that were not produced or were withheld/redacted, including:

• Victim-identifying information and certain private/medical information
• Child sexual abuse material (CSAM)
• Items that could jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution (narrowly tailored and temporary)
• Depictions of death, physical abuse, or injury
• Material withheld under privileges (e.g., deliberative process, work-product, attorney-client)  

In the letter to Congress, DOJ quantifies privilege-based withholding/redaction at approximately 200,000 pages and says it will submit a formal report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees within 15 days listing categories released/withheld and summarizing redactions, including a list of government officials and politically exposed persons referenced in the released materials. 

The court-order constraint most people will miss

A key operational detail: DOJ says the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York used an additional review protocol to comply with a court order requiring the U.S. Attorney (named in the DOJ materials) to certify that victim-identifying information would not be produced unredacted. In practice, DOJ describes multiple “layers” of review and quality control, including specialized second-level review teams. 

This matters because it helps explain why the release is heavy on redactions and why DOJ is positioning privacy protection as the dominant constraint.

DOJ’s warning: the dump includes unreliable submissions

One of the most consequential lines in DOJ’s press release is its warning that the production may include fake or falsely submitted items, because “everything that was sent to the FBI by the public” and deemed responsive was included. The DOJ specifically notes that some documents contain “untrue and sensationalist claims” that it says are unfounded. 

That warning is not a throwaway. It is the DOJ preemptively telling readers: don’t treat every file as verified evidence. In practical terms, the release appears to mix primary investigative materials with third-party noise, the kind of environment where misinformation travels faster than fact.

Why this is already contentious

The release drew criticism, including objections that some internal communications were withheld and that lawmakers argue additional material should have been disclosed under the act. DOJ, for its part, emphasizes legal privileges and victim-protection obligations as justification for what was not produced. 

This is the core tension: Congress mandated a broad public disclosure regime, but DOJ is asserting guardrails via privacy law, court orders, active-investigation exceptions, and privilege doctrines. That tension is likely to keep generating secondary headlines long after the initial “millions of pages” shock fades.

How to read this release responsibly

If you’re approaching this as an investigator, journalist, analyst, or citizen, the disciplined approach is:

1. Separate source types: court filings and authenticated records are not the same as tips, uploads, or third-party submissions. DOJ itself flags this risk.  
2. Treat redactions as signals, not proof: a redacted name might be a victim, a private individual, or something privileged — it isn’t automatically evidence of a cover-up.  
3. Expect inconsistencies: DOJ explicitly says inconsistencies may exist in how redactions were applied due to scale and manual review.  
4. Watch the promised report: the “within 15 days” report to Congress is where the most structured accounting should appear (categories withheld, legal basis, referenced officials/PEPs).  

DOJ’s release is enormous in volume and historic in sensitivity, but its value will depend on what analysts do next: validating provenance, mapping connections across datasets, and resisting the incentive to turn raw documents into instant narratives. The Department is simultaneously declaring compliance and building a legal/operational rationale for why “full transparency” still comes with redactions, exceptions, and a lot of messy material that was never tested in court.  

For two decades, the cinema business has been valued like a utility: ticket sales in, rent and labor out, and whatever margin is left depends on a slate of films no theater chain controls. That model worked when movies were the unquestioned center of home entertainment. In a world of infinite streaming choice, it has become a business that must absorb the risk of cultural volatility without owning much of the upside.

AMC’s predicament is often framed as a balance-sheet story—debt, refinancing, and the long hangover of a pandemic that trained consumers to stay home. But the underlying strategic problem is simpler: theaters are largely paid after studios take the first bite, and they are exposed to demand swings that they can’t forecast with precision and can’t hedge.

If AMC wants a credible narrative beyond “more premium formats and better popcorn,” it needs to stop acting like the final checkpoint in the content supply chain and become something closer to a gatekeeper of demand.

There is a way to do that, one that would be difficult for streamers to replicate and uncomfortable for studios to ignore.

Call it the AMC Greenlight Market: a platform where audiences pre-commit to films and event content before they are produced, creating a pool of verified demand that can finance projects, de-risk distribution, and give AMC an ownership-like participation in the very content that fills its screens.

The conceptual leap is not crowdfunding in the Kickstarter sense. It is demand locking turning the cinema ticket from a last-minute purchase into a forward contract on attention. Consumers don’t “donate”; they place refundable “ticket locks” inside AMC’s app, reserving admission for projects that meet a threshold of support. If a project hits the threshold, the credit converts to tickets, premium seating, exclusives, or opening-night experiences. If it fails, the credit is refunded.

In other words, AMC would not ask fans to gamble on art. It would ask them to pre-order an event.

The implications are meaningful because theatres sit on an asset that streaming giants can’t easily manufacture: verified, high-intent attendance at physical scale. A view on a streaming platform can be passive, algorithmic, or inflated by autoplay. A cinema ticket is a purchase that forces intention and a willingness to leave the house. If AMC can aggregate that intent early months before production or marketing budgets are locked, it can change who bears risk in entertainment.

Studios would dismiss this as a gimmick until they see the first data.

A demand-locking marketplace would generate insight that makes current audience analytics look soft: how many people will pay in advance, at what price point, in which cities, with what sensitivity to casting announcements, trailers, or genre conventions. It would show the difference between social media noise and actual purchase intent. That dataset, because it’s tied to real money and real showtimes, would be valuable enough to reshape negotiating leverage.

It could also reshape AMC’s revenue model, which has long been limited by its place in the value chain.

Today, AMC earns from tickets, concessions, and occasional distribution arrangements for special events. Under a demand-locking model, AMC could add at least four scalable streams.

First, platform economics. If AMC curates projects and takes a small fee only when a project crosses its greenlight threshold, it builds a transaction layer that is not directly dependent on weekly box office volatility.

Second, distribution participation. Hitting a demand threshold could trigger a pre-negotiated distribution deal where AMC, having de-risked opening weekend through presales, secures a better margin, performance bonuses, or rights participation. Even modest participation across multiple projects creates a portfolio effect, something theatres rarely enjoy.

Third, premium experiences. Demand-locking naturally sells high-margin add-ons: opening-night bundles, Q&A events, limited collectibles, “fan credit” placements, and member-only screenings. This is where theatrical can outcompete streaming: scarcity, community, and the sense of occasion.

Fourth, loyalty monetization. A-List becomes more than a discount plan; it becomes an access layer. Members could get earlier access to greenlight listings, lower pledge thresholds, better seating windows, or voting privileges on which concepts advance. That turns membership into infrastructure rather than promotion and reduces churn in a way that price cuts never will.

Creators would have strong incentives to participate, especially outside the traditional studio system. For independent filmmakers, anime producers, comedians, and niche documentary teams, the most punishing part of the business is uncertainty: you can make a project, but you cannot guarantee distribution or a meaningful launch. Demand-locking offers a different promise: prove your audience exists, and a theatrical window arrives pre-sold.

That could open a new lane of “cinema-first” content that studios have neglected: micro-budget horror that thrives on communal reaction, stand-up specials that benefit from a live audience, diaspora-focused films that can be targeted city by city, and limited-run event series pilots that audiences effectively commission through presales.

None of this is without risk. A greenlight marketplace could become a low-quality content dump, a marketing circus, or a refund-management headache. It could also trigger legal scrutiny if it blurs into financial participation. But those risks are manageable with design choices: strict curation, refundable consumption credits rather than profit-sharing, transparent deadlines, identity verification, and a phased rollout that begins with event cinema where production timelines are short and delivery risk is low.

The biggest resistance would come from the incumbents’ studios and streamers because a transparent demand market undermines their advantage: control over what gets made and how success is measured. Hollywood has long relied on opacity, narrative, and marketing muscle to create inevitability around projects. A marketplace that shows raw purchase intent in real time would reprice that power.

Which is precisely why AMC should pursue it.

The chain’s long-term vulnerability is not that consumers don’t like movies; it’s that AMC has been stuck as a downstream participant in an upstream business. The only durable escape is to move upstream without trying to become a traditional studio by becoming the entity that makes demand legible, tradable, and actionable.

If AMC can build a system where audiences effectively “order” content into existence, it will have created a new category: the demand-locked distributor. That is a strategy Wall Street can model, lenders can understand, and competitors can’t easily copy without owning thousands of screens.

In a market obsessed with content supply, the scarce asset is no longer production capacity. It is guaranteed attention.

AMC has the physical network where attention still shows up in person. The question is whether it has the imagination to turn that network into a demand engine that doesn’t just play the next movie but helps decide what the next movie is.

“I own GME. I have been buying recently. I expect I am buying at what may soon be 1x tangible book value / 1x net asset value,” Burry wrote in a Substack post published Monday. He pointed to Chief Executive Officer Ryan Cohen’s role in investing and deploying the company’s capital and cash flow, adding that it could be “for the next 50 years.”

GameStop shares jumped more than 6% on Monday after the post circulated.

Burry who has recently shut his hedge fund, Scion Asset Management framed the position as a long-term value investment rather than a bet on a return of meme-stock mania. GameStop was a central name in the meme-stock surge about five years ago, when retail traders organized on online forums pushed the stock sharply higher and triggered short covering among hedge funds.

“I am not counting on a short squeeze to realize long-term value,” Burry wrote. “I believe in Ryan, I like the setup, the governance, the strategy as I see it. I am willing to hold long-term.”

After giving back much of its meme-era gains as speculation faded, the stock last traded around $25. The company has also used bursts of investor interest to raise billions of dollars through equity sales, building a sizable cash position.

“Ryan is making lemonade out of lemons,” Burry wrote, describing GameStop as a challenged core business that has nonetheless been used to raise cash and wait for an acquisition opportunity.

GameStop began buying bitcoin last year in a move that echoed the strategy popularized by MicroStrategy, now known as Strategy. Cohen said the decision was driven by macro concerns, arguing that bitcoin’s fixed supply and decentralized structure could help hedge certain risks.

“I do not know about this Bitcoin thing, but I cannot argue with what has been done so far,” Burry wrote.

Burry isn’t alone in leaning bullish. Cohen bought 1 million shares of GameStop last week, according to disclosures filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In a Jan. 21 SEC filing, he said it’s “essential” for a public-company CEO to buy shares with personal funds to strengthen alignment with shareholders.

• Quantum BioPharma (NASDAQ: QNTM) has announced a $7 million reward for anyone who can provide definitive and verifiable proof of market manipulation involving its stock, the company said on Wednesday.
• The biopharmaceutical firm stated that the cash reward will be issued only if the information provided is tangible, supported by strong evidence, and leads to a final, non-appealable judgment in Quantum BioPharma’s favor.
• According to the company, employees, affiliates, or regulatory personnel who submit unlawful, false, or misleading information will be disqualified and deemed ineligible for the reward.
• Quantum BioPharma described the initiative as part of its broader commitment to market integrity, shareholder transparency, and accountability across financial markets.
• The company added that the reward aims to encourage credible whistleblowers and expose potential manipulation affecting the fair valuation of its publicly traded shares.

Dalio’s privacy concern aligns with his view that state actors require discretion in reserves management—something a public, traceable ledger cannot provide. His code-risk comment echoes disclosures from BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), which cautions that advances in mathematics and computing—including quantum computing—could one day undermine the cryptography securing Bitcoin. BlackRock’s filings also note that past software flaws in digital-asset systems have exposed users or enabled theft, and any broad loss of confidence in crypto code would likely hit Bitcoin’s value. 

For now, neither BlackRock nor Dalio suggests an imminent technical break; rather, both flag a tail risk that grows with future computing power. That distinction helps explain Dalio’s stance: he keeps a small BTC allocation as a hedge, but sees gold as the sturdier long-term store of value and views central-bank adoption of Bitcoin as unlikely.  

When she called, the man on the line sent images of a fake FBI badge, claimed nine bank accounts had been opened in her name using her Social Security number, and urged her to move her savings to a “protected account.” He directed her to withdraw $63,000 as a cashier’s check and try to deposit it at a Citibank branch in Hayward. After tellers declined the transaction, he told her to mail the check to an address in San Lorenzo.

The victim, Judith Rosenberg, later contacted Bank of America to report the fraud, but a branch manager initially refused to stop the check, ABC7 reports. After the station reached out to the bank, her money was restored.

In a separate case highlighted by ABC7, authorities in Washington state arrested a man accused of impersonating an FBI agent and targeting older victims. Officials warn that neither the FBI nor Apple will ever ask people to move money to “safe” accounts; consumers who receive similar calls should hang up and contact the institution using an official number.

This scheme is insidious, often orchestrated through third-party marketing agencies, allowing companies to sidestep regulatory scrutiny. Many of these companies disguise themselves as new and innovative, but upon closer examination, their histories reveal a trail of failure and rebranding meant to deceive investors. Take Rua Gold Corp., for example. Formerly known as First Uranium Resources Ltd., the company has rebranded and shifted its focus from uranium to gold, hoping to erase its troubled past. Similarly, Lexton Mining Corp., once Lexton Life Sciences Corp., abandoned its ventures in life sciences to rebrand as a mining company. These industry pivots and name changes obscure decades of poor performance, creating the illusion of a fresh start for unsuspecting investors.

The mechanics of the pump-and-dump scheme are disturbingly clear. Companies compensate third-party marketing agencies with shares, often in the form of restricted stock units or stock options, instead of cash. These agencies, conveniently not classified as insiders, avoid the regulatory transparency that would otherwise reveal their manipulative trading activities. After their lock-up periods expire, these agencies collaborate with YouTubers to promote the stock, inflating its price through deceptive marketing. Amateur investors, drawn in by what they perceive as credible recommendations, rush to buy these stocks, unknowingly fueling the bubble. Once the price peaks, those behind the scheme sell their shares, leaving retail investors holding the bag when the stock inevitably crashes.

Consider Gold Standard Media, which exemplifies this shady practice. The agency received three million shares of Traction Uranium Corp. over a three-month consultation agreement. To pump the stock, they hired Morris Media LLC, paying $25,000 to create promotional content. This created a facade of organic interest, but the true goal was simple: inflate the stock price just long enough for insiders and promoters to cash out. Predictably, once the stock collapsed, retail investors were left with steep losses.

The financial fallout for retail investors is catastrophic. An estimated 80% of the companies involved in these schemes have seen their stock prices plummet, many by staggering amounts. For instance, Alaska Energy Metals Corp. paid YouTuber Paul Joseph Watson $5,000 to promote their stock, which traded at $0.40 before the video’s release on January 8, 2024. Today, the stock is down 67%, proving that the hype was a carefully constructed illusion. This wasn’t an isolated incident—Alaska Energy Metals also paid YouTuber Task & Purpose $40,000 for another promotional campaign, and the pattern repeats across multiple instances.

Another glaring example is Silver Mountain Resources Inc., which paid YouTubers The Economic Ninja and I Allegedly $20,000 each to promote their stock. The result? The stock has lost 73% of its value since the campaigns, devastating investors who trusted the influencers' endorsements. Similarly, Uranium Royalty Corp. paid Katusa Research an astonishing $1,250,000 to promote their stock. While the stock’s decline—8% since the campaign—is less dramatic, it still exposes the short-term nature of these manipulative tactics.

Even large-cap companies are not above these dubious strategies. CNX Resources, a company with a $5 billion market capitalization, has also engaged in paying YouTubers to promote its stock. The inclusion of such a significant player in these schemes demonstrates the alarming scale and reach of these manipulations. It also blurs the line between desperate small-cap companies and established firms, raising serious questions about the integrity of corporate governance across the market.

Many of the companies involved were on the brink of financial collapse before turning to these influencer-driven promotions as a last-ditch survival strategy. By using the temporary price surge to issue new shares, these companies dilute their stock even further, compounding losses for retail investors. The reliance on YouTubers and influencers, who often have little to no understanding of the broader implications, adds another layer of deception. These content creators unwittingly—or worse, knowingly—become accomplices in schemes designed to prey on the trust and naivety of their audiences.

The lack of transparency is another glaring issue. Since third-party marketing agencies are not classified as insiders, their trading activities are invisible to the public. This obscurity enables them to exploit the artificial price spikes they create without fear of detection. For example, a company like Alaska Energy Metals Corp. can pay influencers through an intermediary, such as a marketing agency, ensuring that neither the company nor the YouTubers bear the full brunt of regulatory scrutiny. The integrity of the market is compromised by this flaw, and individual investors are also totally in the dark about the real reasons for these promotions.

The result is a toxic cycle. Companies struggling to survive manufacture excitement around their stock through promotions, driving up retail interest. Once the price surges, insiders and third-party participants cash out, leaving retail investors with worthless shares. For those who fall for these schemes, the financial and emotional toll is devastating, as they see their hard-earned savings evaporate in the aftermath of a pump-and-dump.

A full spreadsheet detailing the companies and YouTubers involved in these manipulative schemes can be found here, credit to YouTuber The Plain Bagel, whose investigative work enabled the exposure of this widespread fraud. Without such meticulous documentation, it would be nearly impossible to uncover the scale of these schemes.

This kind of behavior is not only immoral, but it also threatens the fundamental principles of justice and trust in the financial system. By exploiting loopholes, manipulating influencers, and preying on amateur investors, these companies and their collaborators are profiting at the expense of those who can least afford it. The lack of accountability for third-party agencies, combined with the misuse of social media platforms, highlights an urgent need for regulatory reform. If these practices are not curtailed, the damage to retail investors and the broader market will only continue to grow.

The manipulation of retail investors through these campaigns is not just an attack on individuals—it’s an attack on the credibility of financial markets. This exploitation must end. Regulatory agencies need to close the gaps that allow these schemes to flourish and ensure that both companies and their collaborators face meaningful consequences for their actions. Until then, retail investors remain vulnerable to a system rigged against them, where trust is weaponized and profit is prioritized over ethics.

The significance of independent media in exposing unethical behavior and defending investors' interests is shown by this investigation. In order to maintain accountability and openness in the financial markets, we at InvestorTurf are committed to providing comprehensive, objective information. With your help, we can keep continuing this important job. To help us maintain the standards that investors deserve, we invite you to support InvestorTurf if you think that investigative journalism has the ability to bring about constructive change.

Support InvestorTurf

Byrne’s campaign against naked short selling—where short sellers bet against shares without actually borrowing them—began when he noticed a trend of relentless downward pressure on Overstock’s stock price in the early 2000s. Suspecting that his business was the subject of a deliberate manipulation plan, he investigated hedge funds and uncovered what he perceived as a coordinated effort to reduce Overstock’s value to zero. The forces at work, Byrne claimed, included powerful financial institutions that enabled naked shorting to benefit hedge funds aiming to profit by collapsing share prices of vulnerable companies.

In response, Byrne took unprecedented steps. He launched lawsuits against major financial firms, including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, accusing them of facilitating naked short selling and making profits by exploiting Overstock’s stock. At the time, lawsuits against Wall Street behemoths were almost unheard of, especially from public companies that depended on the same financial institutions for underwriting and investment services. However, Byrne was unrelenting. He pursued legal action, hired investigators, and launched a media campaign aimed at exposing what he viewed as the deeply ingrained, exploitative practices on Wall Street.

The case was emblematic of Byrne’s unyielding approach. Overstock’s lawsuits accused these institutions of aiding and abetting short sellers by failing to properly settle stock trades, effectively allowing massive volumes of phantom shares to be sold into the market. Byrne argued that these “fake” shares created artificially high supply, which in turn led to price suppression that short sellers could then exploit. While initially seen as an eccentric CEO with a grudge, Byrne’s persistence paid off when Overstock settled with firms like Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs. The settlements were a rare victory, though the details of the payouts remain largely confidential.

Byrne’s campaign brought public attention to naked shorting in ways few CEOs had dared. His public feud with Wall Street wasn’t just a self-defense mechanism for Overstock but became a rallying cry for transparency advocates. He was instrumental in pressuring regulators to implement new rules aimed at curbing abusive short selling. Although the SEC introduced measures to restrict naked short selling, enforcement has been sporadic, with many critics arguing that the rules lacked teeth. Byrne’s supporters see this as evidence that his perspective is needed in a regulatory role, where he could push the agency to enforce the very policies he fought to establish.

For Trump, appointing Byrne as SEC Chairman would be a bold decision, potentially reshaping the agency’s approach to enforcement. Unlike many candidates who may bring a traditional background in finance or law, Byrne’s experience directly battling hedge funds provides him with a unique understanding of the systemic issues plaguing market fairness. His presence at the SEC could mean a renewed focus on enforcement, particularly against forms of market manipulation that have historically gone unchecked.

However, Byrne’s path has not been without controversy. His critics argue that his focus on short sellers might overshadow the SEC’s other responsibilities, such as cryptocurrency oversight, cyber-security, and emerging financial risks. Additionally, his outspoken nature and willingness to engage in public battles might make him a divisive figure, which some believe could hinder the SEC’s ability to function effectively within the constraints of Washington politics.

Moreover, Byrne’s unexpected departure from Overstock in 2019, following his involvement in political controversies, raises questions about whether he could adapt to the demands of a regulatory role. His departure was abrupt and shadowed by revelations of his involvement in certain political dealings, leading some to question whether his approach could be more of a distraction than an asset for the SEC.

Nonetheless, Byrne’s supporters argue that his willingness to challenge Wall Street and his track record of exposing malpractice demonstrate precisely the kind of tenacity needed in an SEC Chairman. Byrne has consistently championed transparency and argued for a level playing field in the markets—stances that have garnered him respect among retail investors and advocacy groups. His experience at Overstock, where he turned the tables on short sellers, remains a defining aspect of his legacy, and he could bring the same determination to the SEC.

While Byrne’s appointment would undoubtedly face scrutiny, his leadership could mark a transformative shift in the SEC’s priorities. At a time when public trust in financial markets is wavering, a leader who understands Wall Street’s complexities and has demonstrated a willingness to hold it accountable could help restore confidence among everyday investors. As the SEC strives to regain credibility, Byrne could be the outsider with the insight and drive necessary to challenge the status quo.

We reached out to Patrick Byrne for comment on his potential appointment but did not immediately receive a response.

Stand with Independent Journalism: Your Voice for Accountability

When you support us, you’re not just backing a publication—you’re standing up for a journalism that isn’t afraid to challenge Wall Street. We don’t answer to big banks or powerful institutions; we answer to you. Every single contribution, no matter the size, strengthens our ability to investigate, report, and expose how the financial system impacts everyday investors.

Your support allows us to dig deeper, uncover hidden practices, and shine a light on the issues that matter most to retail investors. Together, we can bring transparency to an industry that often operates behind closed doors. Thank you for helping us keep powerful interests accountable. Every contribution counts, and we’re grateful to have you with us in this mission.

Support InvestorTurf

They were founded long before today’s tech giants like Amazon or Meta, and they’ve built empires that have weathered numerous economic storms. GameStop and AMC are not here by accident, nor are they recent inventions of the Reddit crowd. They’ve earned their place, and while they face challenges like any business, calling them “meme stocks” is a misunderstanding that reflects Wall Street’s resistance to changing market dynamics and a tendency to overlook the staying power of companies that don’t fit into convenient molds.

Consider GameStop. Founded in 1984, GameStop grew from a small software retailer in Texas into the world’s largest video game retail chain. GameStop has had a hand in the gaming industry’s growth, giving players a place to buy, trade, and discuss games for nearly 40 years. It’s more than a store—it became part of the cultural fabric of gaming long before gaming was mainstream.

The company flourished as the go-to destination for game enthusiasts looking to get their hands on the latest releases or trade old games, a precursor to today’s model of recycling and reselling that even online giants are attempting to replicate. This is not a business without value, and to dismiss it as a “meme” ignores the contributions it has made to an industry that now dwarfs Hollywood in revenue.

GameStop’s issues are clear. Physical retail is tough, and the shift toward digital gaming means that GameStop’s original model has become less sustainable. Yet, instead of quietly fading away, the company has shown resilience, adapting in ways that show it’s still in the fight. In recent years, GameStop’s management has pivoted its focus towards e-commerce, digital assets, and restructuring its retail footprint.

The retail frenzy of 2021 that saw GameStop’s stock soar had roots in a combination of underappreciated fundamentals and the dedication of a retail investor base tired of Wall Street’s control over narratives. But that rally was quickly dubbed a “meme” phenomenon, as if no rationale beyond internet chatter could justify GameStop’s valuation. The reality is that investors saw value in a brand that, despite struggles, still holds significant assets and customer loyalty. The “meme” label was simply a shortcut for Wall Street to dismiss what it didn’t understand.

And then we have AMC, the world’s largest movie theater chain, a company that has been part of the entertainment landscape for over a century. Established in 1920, AMC didn’t just survive but thrived through countless challenges—the Great Depression, multiple recessions, the rise of home entertainment, and now the age of streaming. This company is an institution, not just in the U.S. but globally. If the lights are on in a theater anywhere in the world, chances are it’s an AMC screen. This isn’t the kind of business that can be propped up by a handful of Redditors. It’s a business model that has endured changes in consumer habits for decades, a testament to its management’s ability to adapt.

Yes, AMC faces challenges, especially in an era where streaming is more accessible than ever. But it’s worth noting that AMC has taken proactive steps to diversify, even dabbling in cryptocurrency acceptance and hinting at using its vast theater network for e-sports or live concerts. The fact that it became one of 2021’s biggest “meme stocks” wasn’t just a coincidence; it was a response to the dismissive attitude Wall Street has often shown towards businesses outside of technology. Retail investors saw AMC’s intrinsic value and its potential for transformation, not just its current cash flow issues.

The broader implications of this “meme stock” label reach beyond GameStop and AMC. Nokia, founded in 1865, became a telecommunications giant and, for many, the introduction to mobile technology. Today, it’s often lumped into the “meme stock” group simply because retail investors chose to rally around it.

Yet, Nokia’s influence in telecom infrastructure remains relevant, especially as global 5G networks roll out. Likewise, BlackBerry, the pioneer of mobile security and a status symbol for the early smartphone era, is still in business, focusing on software and cybersecurity. But due to a surge in retail interest, it, too, gets the “meme” treatment, as if it’s little more than a curiosity.

What’s notable about these examples is that they all represent companies that not only helped define industries but also hold assets, intellectual property, and market positioning that give them a path forward—if Wall Street would look beyond the label and see these companies’ intrinsic potential. In labeling these companies as “meme stocks,” Wall Street is overlooking something profound: the agency and intelligence of retail investors who are using new platforms to make their voices heard.

It’s easy to call these movements irrational, but when retail investors point out undervalued assets or spot potential in brands Wall Street has long abandoned, that’s not “dumb money.” It’s a recalibration of priorities in an industry long focused on immediate gains over long-term value.

The irony here is that Wall Street has had its share of irrational exuberance. Over the years, we’ve seen tech bubbles and the over-leveraging of assets that, on paper, looked revolutionary but ultimately crashed, leaving retail investors to pay the price. WeWork, once valued at $47 billion, fell from grace after Wall Street’s “smart money” poured in without scrutinizing the business model. Similarly, Theranos, backed by sophisticated investors, was later exposed as a fraud. And let’s not forget the 2008 financial crisis, a fallout from the very same industry that now dismisses retail enthusiasm as misguided.

By clinging to the “meme stock” label, Wall Street is avoiding a reckoning with its own failures. These companies, labeled “meme stocks,” have shown resilience and adaptability, qualities that Wall Street once valued. GameStop and AMC might not look like traditional growth stories, but they’re still here, still adapting, and, notably, still making headlines—not for collapsing but for persisting. Retail investors see something that traditional analysts might miss: a sense of opportunity beyond quarterly earnings and beyond the typical frameworks of risk and reward.

As for Wall Street’s “smart money” designation? Perhaps it’s time for a rebranding. When the same institutions that crashed the housing market, missed the tech bubbles, and poured billions into pipe dreams now point fingers at retail investors, it feels less like financial wisdom and more like an aversion to accountability. Retail investors have exposed a disconnect between Wall Street’s perception and the reality of what these companies represent to everyday people.

So maybe, instead of calling GameStop, AMC, and others “meme stocks,” we should consider what that term says about the industry using it. Wall Street’s “smart money” has consistently underestimated the value of these brands and the potential within a highly motivated investor base. Maybe the more accurate term here isn’t “smart money” but “slow money”—or, as some would cheekily suggest, “dumb money,” unable to learn from its past and quick to dismiss forces that don’t fit its playbook.

In the end, GameStop, AMC, and their retail champions may be the disruptive element that traditional finance never saw coming, but that doesn’t make them memes. It makes them relevant, influential, and most of all, a sign that the world of investing is changing, whether Wall Street likes it or not.

Stand with Independent Journalism—Powered by People, Not Wall Street

We’re not backed by Wall Street. We rely on you, the public, to fuel our mission of independent journalism and keep the truth front and center. Your support means we can keep reporting without compromise—stand with us and make a difference.

Support InvestorTurf

As retail traders grow in power and numbers, largely due to the democratization of trading platforms and the rise of social media-led investment strategies, their interests have collided with Wall Street’s deeply entrenched practices. Increasingly, it appears that the LULD halt is being misused, allowing institutional players to control price movements, disrupt organic market momentum, and protect their short positions. This article investigates the abuse of the LULD mechanism, conflicts of interest within the LULD Advisory Committee, and how dark pools further facilitate price manipulation—all to the detriment of the everyday investor.

The Mechanics of LULD and Its Manipulation

The LULD mechanism was established to temporarily halt trading when a stock’s price moves beyond a predetermined price band. These halts are meant to cool down volatile price swings and protect market participants from flash crashes or extreme market reactions. If a stock’s price rises or falls too rapidly, the system triggers a halt, pausing trading for a few minutes to allow the market to rebalance itself. Once the halt is lifted, trading resumes with the expectation that price movement will have stabilized.

In theory, the Limit Up-Limit Down (LULD) mechanism is designed to ensure market stability. However, in practice, it is increasingly being misused to disrupt normal trading behavior, especially in stocks with high short interest or heavy retail participation. These are often stocks where institutional investors have large short positions and would lose money if the price rises too quickly. By triggering unnecessary trading halts, institutional traders and market makers can suppress upward momentum and regain control over stock prices.

Evidence suggests that this mechanism is being exploited to limit upward price movements, particularly in stocks like GameStop (GME) and AMC Entertainment (AMC), which have attracted significant retail interest. Both stocks, targeted by short sellers but later embraced by retail investors in 2021, have repeatedly been halted during sharp price increases. In many instances, these halts occurred even though the stock hadn’t breached the LULD price bands. Independent analyses indicate a pattern: just as a stock gains upward momentum, an LULD halt is triggered, followed by a price drop when trading resumes. This has fueled speculation that institutional players are deliberately using these halts to suppress prices and avoid losses on their short positions.

Read: The targeted campaign against AMC and GameStop: A wall street media manipulation?

Here’s how it works: When a stock approaches the upper limit of its price band—often due to buying pressure from retail investors—large institutional players can initiate sell orders that push the stock’s price down just enough to trigger a halt. These sell orders may not even be significant enough to justify the halt under the original intent of the LULD system, but they create enough price fluctuation to pause trading.

During the halt, institutional investors and market makers can use the pause to reassess their positions, retool their strategies, and flood the market with sell orders once trading resumes. The retail investors, by contrast, are left powerless during the halt. They are unable to buy or sell, and by the time trading resumes, the price often drops, leaving them at a disadvantage. This tactic is especially useful for short sellers, who benefit when a stock’s price falls. With enough manipulation, institutional players can cause a stock to lose momentum and even reverse course, thereby protecting their short positions.

Conflicts of Interest Within the LULD Advisory Committee

A critical issue contributing to the misuse of LULD halts lies in the conflicts of interest within the LULD Advisory Committee, which oversees the implementation and adjustments of the LULD rules. This committee includes representatives from various financial institutions, exchanges, and broker-dealers—the very entities that benefit most from controlling price movements. These members, many of whom represent market makers or institutional investors, have a vested interest in maintaining a system that allows them to protect their positions.

The composition of the LULD Advisory Committee raises serious questions about objectivity and fairness. Market makers and institutional investors have a strong incentive to keep the LULD mechanism flexible enough to manipulate in their favour. Their influence on the committee means that any changes to the LULD system are likely to benefit the same institutions that exploit it. This conflict of interest undermines the credibility of the LULD system and contributes to the growing mistrust of retail investors who feel the market is stacked against them.

Retail-heavy stocks have been disproportionately impacted by LULD halts. Stocks with significant retail investor participation are far more likely to experience multiple trading halts during periods of upward price movement, compared to stocks dominated by institutional investors. 

Moreover, the committee's lack of transparency further exacerbates concerns. Decisions about when and why to trigger halts often appear arbitrary, especially when retail traders see stocks being halted repeatedly without any clear justification. The absence of a transparent decision-making process allows institutional investors to continue manipulating the system with little oversight.

Dark Pools

Dark pools—private exchanges where institutional investors can trade large volumes of shares away from the public eye—add another layer of manipulation to the LULD system. When a stock is halted on public exchanges due to LULD rules, trading often continues in dark pools. This gives institutional players a distinct advantage, as they can continue to execute large trades without retail investors being able to participate or even see what’s happening.

Dark pools are often used by institutional investors to buy or sell large blocks of shares without affecting the stock’s price on public exchanges. However, in the context of LULD halts, dark pools allow institutions to reposition themselves during the halt, so they are prepared to push the stock’s price in their favour once public trading resumes. Retail investors, by contrast, are left in the dark—unable to act, unaware of the trading happening behind the scenes, and often forced to react to a market that has moved significantly by the time they can trade again.

This ability to continue trading during halts, combined with the overall opacity of dark pools, means that institutional investors have an unfair advantage. They can sell shares during the halt to drive the price lower, cover short positions, and lock in profits, while retail investors are locked out of the process.

Weaponizing Volatility to Suppress Retail Momentum

At the heart of this manipulation is the weaponization of volatility. Retail traders, particularly those involved in highly volatile stocks, often rely on momentum to drive prices higher. However, the LULD system, in its current form, allows institutional players to suppress this momentum by triggering unnecessary halts. By using LULD halts to slow down or reverse upward price movements, institutional investors can prevent retail traders from realizing the full potential of their investments.

This tactic is particularly effective in stocks with high short interest, where upward price movements can lead to a "short squeeze" that forces short sellers to buy back shares at higher prices. By triggering halts just as the price is rising, institutional investors can prevent the squeeze from occurring, keeping the price within a range that allows them to continue profiting from their short positions.

The result is a market that is increasingly tilted in favour of institutional players, who have the tools and resources to manipulate volatility to their advantage. Retail traders, by contrast, are left at the mercy of a system that was supposedly designed to protect them but is now being used to undermine their efforts.

Conclusion: A Call for Greater Transparency and Reform

The original intent of the LULD mechanism was to stabilize the market and protect investors from extreme volatility. But its misuse, particularly against retail investors, raises serious questions about the fairness of the system. The conflicts of interest within the LULD Advisory Committee, the lack of transparency around halt triggers, and the use of dark pools during halts all point to a system that disproportionately favors institutional players at the expense of retail traders.

To restore faith in the markets, the SEC must undertake a thorough review of the LULD mechanism and its application. This includes increasing the transparency around halts, revisiting the composition of the LULD Advisory Committee, and ensuring that dark pool activity during halts is disclosed to the public. Without these reforms, the LULD halt will continue to be seen as a weapon for Wall Street to manipulate prices and suppress retail investors, rather than a safeguard for market stability.

Supporting Independent Journalism: Your Voice Against Wall Street

When you support us, you’re standing up for independent journalism that holds Wall Street accountable. We don’t answer to big financial institutions; we answer to you. Every contribution—whether it’s $1 or more—helps us continue exposing the truth about how the financial system is manipulated against everyday investors.

Your support enables us to investigate deeply, report accurately, and shine a light on practices that would otherwise go unchecked. With your backing, we can keep digging into Wall Street’s hidden dealings and ensure retail investors like you have a voice in a market that too often favors the few. Thank you for standing with us and fighting for accountability. Every bit helps, and we appreciate your support!

Support InvestorTurf
Supporters’ or donor wall comments may not display on mobile devices and could only be visible on other platforms.

Convinced by the deception, Baxley transferred funds from her bank account in a series of transactions, including mailing $15,000 in cash via UPS. Her sons are now questioning Eagle Bank’s responsibility, claiming the bank should have flagged the unusual withdrawals and intervened.

Eagle Bank, however, asserts that its staff followed all necessary protocols and that an internal review found no failure in procedures. The bank is now working with Baxley to recover her lost funds, though it remains unclear how much, if any, will be returned.

The FBI reports that financial scams targeting people over 60 surged by 11% in 2022, with losses totaling $3.4 billion, highlighting the growing threat to vulnerable seniors.

From relentless media bashing to questionable social media accounts dedicated solely to undermining these stocks, it’s clear that something more than simple financial analysis is at play. At the heart of this coordinated effort are powerful financial interests, short-sellers, and a media machine aimed at driving down the stock prices of AMC and GameStop, stocks that at any moment could soar, leaving Wall Street’s short positions in financial ruin.

The Media’s Role: Relentless Bashing of AMC and GameStop

In 2021, Motley Fool, a financial blog often seen as a resource for retail investors, published an astounding 1,300 negative articles about AMC alone. This pattern of negative coverage extended to other outlets such as Seeking Alpha and InvestorPlace, which seem to have an unusual fixation on disparaging both AMC and GameStop. The sheer volume of articles, many of which contained similar talking points about why these stocks are doomed, raises the question: why are these media outlets so focused on two stocks, if they truly believe they are bad investments?

Motley Fool’s Sean Williams, who also runs the Twitter account “amcscam,” is a key figure in this narrative. His account exists almost solely to criticize AMC and GameStop, labeling them as bad investments while pushing the narrative that retail investors are misguided in supporting these companies.

This is not just a single individual’s opinion, but part of a broader, coordinated effort by financial media to manipulate public sentiment.

Furthermore, InvestorPlace, another financial blog known for its extensive negative coverage of these stocks, hosts contributors with tarnished reputations. One such contributor is Louis Navellier, an investment adviser who was charged by the SEC for fraud and ordered to pay $30 million in fines.

Navellier’s firm, Navellier & Associates, was found guilty of defrauding clients by providing false and misleading information in its marketing materials. Given the legal troubles surrounding some of its contributors, InvestorPlace’s role in bashing AMC and GameStop becomes even more suspect.

On the social media front, Charles Gasparino, a journalist known for his work on Fox Business, has used his Twitter account to consistently attack retail investors and their investments in AMC and GameStop. His account often features posts bashing the potential of these stocks, portraying retail investors as naive and misguided. Gasparino’s relentless focus on these stocks stands out, considering he has a platform that could be used to cover a broad spectrum of financial topics. Instead, his Twitter feed reads like an extended critique of AMC and GameStop, leading to suspicions about his motivations.

Gasparino’s behavior on X (formerly Twitter), coupled with his media appearances, creates a reinforcing cycle where his tweets and reports influence market sentiment. This strategy appears aimed at discouraging retail investors from holding these stocks, further pushing the narrative that AMC and GameStop are not worth the investment. The constant negativity not only undermines retail investors but also reinforces the short-seller’s position by helping to depress stock prices.

Wall Street’s Deep Involvement: Virtu Financial’s Douglas Cifu

While media figures and financial blogs may be the public face of the attack on AMC and GameStop, the real power behind this campaign comes from Wall Street itself. Douglas Cifu, CEO of Virtu Financial, a high-frequency trading firm, has been particularly vocal about AMC and GameStop, often belittling retail investors and their investments in these companies.

The CEO of Virtu Financial, a publicly traded company, posts a disrespectful comment regarding individuals with special needs.$VIRT pic.twitter.com/P0g35n1DeX

— InvestorTurf (@InvestorTurf) March 22, 2024

His Twitter posts are littered with derogatory comments aimed at the retail community, dismissing their efforts as misguided. But Cifu’s involvement goes beyond rhetoric; Virtu Financial has a direct financial interest in the suppression of these stocks.

Virtu, like many other trading firms, stands to benefit from high levels of volatility and the success of short-sellers. By helping to drive down stock prices, firms like Virtu can generate profits from short positions, further incentivizing them to engage in activities that suppress stock prices. Cifu’s attacks on retail investors are not merely opinions—they are part of a broader strategy to ensure that the interests of hedge funds and short-sellers are protected.

Naked Short-Selling: The Root of the Manipulation

Naked short-selling has emerged as one of Wall Street’s most insidious tools for manipulating stock prices, especially in the case of companies like AMC and GameStop. Unlike traditional short-selling, where an investor borrows shares and sells them with the hope of repurchasing them at a lower price, naked short-selling occurs when shares are sold without actually being borrowed. This illegal practice creates counterfeit shares, artificially increasing the supply in the market and driving down the stock price.

At the core of naked short-selling is the sale of shares that do not exist. When an investor sells a stock short, they usually borrow the shares from another account to cover the transaction. However, in naked short-selling, these shares are never borrowed, leaving the transaction “naked.” The broker involved in the trade records the sale, but no actual share is delivered within the regulatory three-day settlement period. This results in what is known as a fail-to-deliver (FTD), where the sold shares never materialize.

The practice effectively creates counterfeit shares, flooding the market with supply and driving down the stock price. As the stock price falls, the short-sellers, including hedge funds and financial institutions, can buy back shares at the lower price to close their positions, reaping enormous profits. This manipulation of supply and demand distorts market prices and can ruin companies targeted by these attacks.

The major participants in naked short-selling include prime brokers, market makers, and hedge funds, all of whom play a key role in facilitating this form of stock manipulation. These entities work in concert to manipulate the market:

• Prime Brokers: Large financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup act as prime brokers, clearing and settling trades for their clients, which include hedge funds. They are instrumental in facilitating naked short-selling by allowing short-sellers to bypass the requirement of borrowing shares. In many cases, they are also directly involved in these trades, profiting from lending fees, commissions, and their own proprietary trading.
• Hedge Funds: Hedge funds are among the most aggressive users of naked short-selling. These unregulated pools of capital frequently take large, concentrated short positions in stocks they believe will decline in price. By working with prime brokers, hedge funds can sell shares they do not own, driving down the price of the targeted stock. David Rocker and Marc Cohodes are notorious examples of hedge fund managers who have used naked shorting to attack companies.
• Depository Trust Clearing Corporation (DTCC): The DTCC plays a critical role in stock clearing and settlement and is owned by the very brokers it is supposed to regulate. The DTCC has been accused of enabling naked short-selling by clearing trades that result in FTDs without enforcing buy-ins or penalties for these discrepancies. The DTCC’s Continuous Net Settlement (CNS) system ensures that these counterfeit shares remain in circulation, allowing market makers and hedge funds to create an unlimited supply of naked short positions.

Naked short-selling has a devastating effect on stock prices. By artificially increasing the supply of shares through the creation of counterfeit shares, short-sellers can overwhelm demand and cause prices to plummet. This manipulation often targets small-cap and mid-cap stocks, which are more vulnerable to price movements due to their lower trading volumes. The influx of counterfeit shares causes the stock to fall, creating a downward spiral as more and more short-sellers pile on.

For companies like AMC and GameStop, this manipulation has resulted in extreme volatility and severe price suppression. Despite strong retail investor interest and occasional spikes in demand, the relentless pressure from naked short-sellers prevents these stocks from realizing their full potential.

Naked short-selling persists due to regulatory loopholes and a lack of stringent enforcement by authorities like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). For example, Regulation SHO, introduced in 2005 to curb abusive short-selling, contains numerous exemptions that allow market makers to sell shares without borrowing them. Additionally, the regulation’s lack of teeth—such as the failure to enforce buy-ins for FTDs—means that naked short-sellers can operate with impunity.

The SEC’s enforcement efforts have been weak, and the agency has been criticized for being too closely aligned with Wall Street interests. High-profile investigations into naked short-selling have often been stymied by industry lobbying and legal obfuscation, leaving retail investors and emerging companies vulnerable to these predatory practices.

Naked short-selling is not just a technical market tactic—it is a form of stock counterfeiting that allows powerful financial institutions to manipulate stock prices, often to the detriment of small investors and emerging companies. The system, as it currently exists, is designed to benefit the brokers, hedge funds, and clearinghouses that profit from these manipulative practices.

The lack of regulatory oversight and enforcement allows this fraud to continue unabated, distorting markets and robbing retail investors of fair opportunities. As AMC, GameStop, and other companies continue to face this attack, it remains to be seen whether regulatory bodies will step up to address these abuses or continue to turn a blind eye to one of the largest financial manipulations of our time.

The Financial Risk to Wall Street

Despite the relentless media and financial campaign to suppress these stocks, there remains a looming threat to Wall Street: at any moment, the prices of AMC and GameStop could skyrocket. Should this happen, hedge funds and financial institutions that have bet heavily against these stocks could find themselves in serious financial trouble.

The most notable example of this occurred with Melvin Capital, which suffered enormous losses during the initial GameStop short squeeze in January 2021. If a similar event were to occur again, particularly with the vast number of naked short positions still outstanding, it could send shockwaves through the financial system and bankrupt many firms with short exposure.

The possibility of a sudden price surge is exactly why Wall Street and its allies in the media are so determined to maintain a negative narrative around these stocks. Forcing retail investors to sell and driving the price down ensures that hedge funds can close out their short positions before they are caught in another short squeeze. This is not just about protecting profits—it’s about survival.

Conclusion: A Coordinated Effort to Control the Narrative

The coordinated campaign against AMC and GameStop is not the result of objective financial analysis. Instead, it appears to be part of a broader strategy to manipulate public sentiment, suppress stock prices, and protect the interests of Wall Street’s short-sellers. From media outlets like Motley Fool and Seeking Alpha to high-profile figures like Charles Gasparino and Douglas Cifu, a wide range of players are involved in this effort to undermine these stocks.

At the heart of the issue is the practice of naked short-selling, which has allowed hedge funds to flood the market with counterfeit shares and suppress prices. Despite these efforts, the risk to Wall Street remains high. Should these stocks experience another meteoric rise, it could result in significant financial losses for hedge funds and financial institutions, potentially triggering another financial crisis.

For retail investors, the battle over AMC and GameStop has become more than just a financial play—it’s about exposing the manipulation and corruption that pervades Wall Street. As this fight continues, it remains to be seen whether regulatory bodies like the SEC will step in to protect the integrity of the markets, or whether Wall Street will continue to exploit loopholes to maintain its stranglehold on these stocks.

Fighting for Truth: Support Independent Journalism

When Twitter accounts like "fuggabaggie" spend their days attacking AMC and GameStop shareholders, calling independent outlets like ours “goofy blogs with no revenue,” they’re half right—we don’t generate anywhere near the revenue of media giants like Motley Fool or InvestorPlace. But there’s one thing they’ll never admit: we’re honest.

Your goofy blog has no revenue to share, loser.

— fuggabaggie (@fuggabaggie) October 21, 2024

Unlike the major outlets pushing the narratives of Wall Street, we aren’t backed by hedge funds or advertisers looking to line their pockets. Our reporting is driven by truth and independence, not by profit or manipulation. We stand by the retail investors and refuse to be another voice for the short-selling elite.

This is why we need your support. Every dollar you contribute helps us stay independent, allowing us to continue our investigative journalism and fight back against the smear campaigns run by big-money interests. Whether it’s $1 or more, your donation sends a message to the fuggabaggies of the world: we won’t back down, and we won’t sell out. Support independent journalism and help us keep pushing for transparency—because the truth is worth fighting for.

Support InvestorTurf

The paper, authored by Amol Amol and Erzo Luttmer of the University of Minnesota, was released on October 17 and explores the implications of ongoing fiscal imbalances. A permanent primary deficit occurs when a government consistently spends more than it earns from taxes, excluding interest payments on its existing debt. This scenario creates a persistent financial gap that typically requires borrowing to cover the shortfall.

While economists often view a permanent primary deficit as sustainable only under conditions of manageable borrowing rates or robust economic growth, Amol and Luttmer suggest that governments can maintain such deficits through specific strategies. They argue that in an economy with incomplete markets and risk-averse consumers, governments can issue nominal debt and apply continuous Markov strategies to finance their deficits while stabilizing the price of that debt.

However, the authors express concern that Bitcoin, described as a “useless piece of paper” lacking intrinsic value, disrupts this strategy. They contend that Bitcoin’s ability to trade at a positive price introduces multiple economic equilibria, leading to what they call a “balanced budget trap.” In this scenario, governments may find themselves compelled to balance budgets, contrary to their objective of sustaining permanent deficits.

To counteract this challenge, Amol and Luttmer propose that governments might need to tax Bitcoin or prohibit its use altogether. By imposing a tax equal to Bitcoin’s market value, they believe governments could eliminate alternative equilibria, allowing for the continued implementation of fiscal deficits without the interference of the cryptocurrency.

The paper highlights broader implications for fiscal policy, noting that assets like Bitcoin provide an independent means of wealth storage that undermines government efforts to manage economic stability. As a result, the authors argue that the rise of cryptocurrencies complicates the fiscal landscape, raising questions about the viability of ongoing deficits in a world increasingly influenced by digital assets.

The ongoing regulatory challenges posed by Bitcoin and other digital assets remain significant. Governments around the world continue to grapple with how to effectively regulate cryptocurrencies to ensure financial stability and prevent tax evasion. As the landscape evolves, the need for clear and coherent regulations becomes increasingly urgent. Without a unified approach, the interaction between traditional fiscal policies and the burgeoning cryptocurrency market could lead to unintended consequences for both economic stability and government financing.

In separate announcements, the SEC confirmed it has authorized the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) to introduce options contracts tied to Bitcoin-based ETFs. The approval follows the SEC’s recent decision to greenlight a rule change proposal from Nasdaq, which allowed the listing of options for the iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), a Bitcoin-holding trust, and produced favorable results.

“This is a competitive filing, as the Commission recently approved Nasdaq’s proposal to list and trade options on the iShares Bitcoin Trust,” the SEC noted. The regulatory body highlighted that options on Bitcoin funds would offer hedging opportunities, enhance liquidity, improve price efficiency, and reduce volatility. It also emphasized that listing these options would boost market transparency and efficiency.

In September, Jeff Park, head of alpha strategies at Bitwise, predicted a volatile but transformative period following the SEC’s approval of Nasdaq’s request to list BlackRock’s IBIT options. Park underscored the significance of Bitcoin’s limited supply, stating that “things will likely get wild” as options ETFs emerge.

“For the first time, the financial world will witness regulated leverage on a truly supply-constrained commodity,” Park said. “While regulated markets may face disruptions, Bitcoin’s decentralized nature means there will always be an alternative market that cannot be shut down—unlike GameStop during its trading frenzy. It’s going to be unbelievably fantastic.”

Privileged Access to Information: The Insider’s Advantage

One of the core problems with allowing government officials to trade stocks is the insider access they possess. Members of Congress, for example, have direct influence over, and access to, information about upcoming legislation, regulatory changes, and economic forecasts. They sit on committees that control national defense, health care, and financial regulations—industries that move billions of dollars in stock value.

The stock market thrives on information, and often even the slightest piece of non-public news can move the needle on prices dramatically. A single decision, or even knowledge of a potential decision, about tax policy, defense contracts, or energy regulation can have enormous implications for the stock prices of affected companies. The question isn’t just whether government officials are using this information to enrich themselves but whether the potential to do so distorts their decision-making in ways that harm the public.

Several studies have demonstrated that lawmakers’ stock portfolios tend to significantly outperform the market. This trend raises the question: are government officials simply good at investing, or is something more troubling at play?

One of the most cited studies on the topic is Ziobrowski et al. (2004), which analyzed stock transactions made by U.S. senators from 1993 to 1998. The study found that U.S. senators, on average, outperformed the market by 12.3% per year. This performance far exceeds that of the typical investor, suggesting the use of privileged, non-public information.

The study concluded that lawmakers’ unique access to inside information—and their ability to act on it—gives them an advantage that is fundamentally unfair to the average investor. This not only undermines public confidence in the integrity of financial markets but also creates a two-tiered system where those in power benefit from insider knowledge.

Loopholes in the STOCK Act and High-Profile Lawmaker Stock Profiteering

The 2012 passage of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act was intended to prevent insider trading by government officials by making it illegal for lawmakers to use non-public information for personal financial gain. It also required lawmakers to disclose their stock trades within 45 days. However, the effectiveness of the STOCK Act has been questionable at best.

Several high-profile cases have shown that the STOCK Act has little real bite. There have been numerous instances where lawmakers have failed to report their trades on time, and yet the penalties—typically a small fine—are hardly a deterrent for wealthy members of Congress. Many officials simply delay reporting trades without facing serious consequences. Worse still, the law has little to no enforcement mechanism for ensuring compliance.

Furthermore, the STOCK Act does not prevent lawmakers from owning or trading stocks in industries they oversee or regulate. The potential conflicts of interest here are immense. For example, members of the Senate Banking Committee can own shares in major financial institutions while drafting laws that directly impact those institutions’ profitability. Similarly, lawmakers with significant investments in pharmaceutical companies may be influenced in their legislative decisions regarding drug pricing reforms.

Senator Richard Burr

Senator Burr has been under intense scrutiny for stock trades made early in the COVID-19 pandemic. In February 2020, Burr sold a significant portion of his stock portfolio—between $628,000 and $1.72 million—shortly after attending confidential Senate briefings on the pandemic’s potential economic impact. Shortly after his trades, the market experienced a steep decline, prompting allegations of insider trading.

Outcome: Burr faced investigations but was not criminally charged. However, the optics of profiting from privileged information severely damaged public trust.

Nancy Pelosi

Though Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly stated that she doesn’t coordinate her stock trades with her husband, Paul Pelosi, the sheer scale and timing of some of his trades have raised questions. In July 2021, Paul Pelosi purchased a large number of shares in Nvidia just before Congress was set to vote on a bill benefiting the semiconductor industry. Though legal, the timing of the purchase raised ethical concerns about lawmakers’ indirect influence on stock markets.

2021 Trading Volume: In 2021 alone, Nancy Pelosi’s household reported trades worth over $10 million, with significant investments in major companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Tesla.

Distortion of Public Trust, Policy-Making, and Economic Inequality

At its heart, the issue of stock trading by government officials is one of trust. Democracy relies on the public’s confidence that their elected representatives are acting in the collective interest, not for personal financial gain. When government officials are seen to be profiting from the same policies they are responsible for enacting or enforcing, it erodes this trust.

Polling data from the Pew Research Center reveals that public trust in the federal government has hit historic lows, with only 20% of Americans saying they trust the government to do what is right “most of the time”. While a variety of factors contribute to this, the perception that politicians are profiting from their offices is a significant driver of disillusionment.

Moreover, evidence indicates that policy decisions can be influenced by the financial interests of lawmakers. Lawmakers with investments in certain industries often demonstrate a tendency to vote against regulations that could negatively impact those industries’ profitability. This creates a distorted incentive structure in which politicians prioritize personal financial gain over the broader welfare of the public.

The problem becomes even more acute when lawmakers, tasked with regulating industries that dominate the U.S. economy, maintain extensive personal financial ties to those sectors. From Big Tech to Wall Street, the personal financial stakes of lawmakers in these industries create a dangerous feedback loop that can undermine the objectivity and fairness of regulation.

Allowing government officials to trade stocks while in office also exacerbates economic inequality. These officials already belong to a privileged class with access to high-level financial information and substantial wealth. Their ability to leverage this insider knowledge for personal financial gain widens the gap between the political elite and ordinary citizens.

Data from the Federal Reserve shows that the wealthiest 10% of Americans own over 80% of the stock market. By allowing lawmakers to participate in stock trading, the government is effectively endorsing a system where those already at the top are able to further enrich themselves, while the vast majority of Americans, who lack access to insider information or the ability to influence policy, are left behind.

This dynamic creates a feedback loop where wealthy lawmakers make decisions that benefit themselves and their elite peers, which in turn makes it harder for the average citizen to gain financial security or upward mobility. Over time, this erodes not only public trust but the very fabric of democratic society, where economic power increasingly concentrates in the hands of the few.

Why a ban is necessary

Given the depth and breadth of the problem, it’s clear that more than just incremental reforms like the STOCK Act are needed. The most straightforward and effective solution is a complete ban on stock trading by government officials while in office.

Some critics argue that such a ban would unfairly restrict the financial freedom of lawmakers. However, this argument misses the point: when someone chooses to serve in public office, they are taking on a role that requires them to put the public good above personal enrichment. Just as judges are required to recuse themselves from cases in which they have a personal financial interest, lawmakers should be required to divest from any holdings that could create a conflict of interest with their role as public servants.

Another potential reform is the use of blind trusts. Under such a system, lawmakers could place their investments in a trust managed by an independent third party, ensuring that they have no control over or knowledge of how their money is being invested. This would prevent lawmakers from profiting off of insider information while still allowing them to maintain a level of personal financial autonomy.

Conclusion: Public interest over private gain

The continued ability of government officials to trade stocks while in office presents an unacceptable conflict of interest that undermines the integrity of democratic governance. Much like professional athletes are banned from betting on the games they play in, government officials must be held to the same—if not higher—standards. The public must have confidence that lawmakers are working for the common good, not their personal financial interests.

A comprehensive ban on stock trading for government officials, combined with stricter enforcement of financial transparency laws, is essential to restoring public trust and ensuring that elected officials prioritize their duties to the citizens they serve.

Intrinsic value represents the true worth of a company’s stock, determined by its financial health and overall performance. Unlike the stock’s market price, which fluctuates due to market sentiment and investor emotions, intrinsic value provides a more accurate measure of whether a stock is genuinely a good investment.

This article breaks down why AMC’s improved earnings, in conjunction with a strong valuation argument, make the company a buy for investors willing to bet on the rebound of the theatrical industry.

AMC’s Valuation: A Substantial Discount

Based on our analysis, the intrinsic value of AMC’s stock is calculated at $16 per share, compared to its current trading price of $4.23. This means AMC is undervalued by approximately 70%. Moreover, on a relative valuation basis, AMC’s stock is estimated to be worth $25 per share, translating to an even more substantial discount of ~80%.

Intrinsic value is derived by averaging the results of two widely accepted valuation methods: the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis and relative valuation. Here’s a breakdown of how these methodologies help establish a fair value for AMC.

• Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis

  The DCF method estimates a company’s future cash flows and discounts them back to present value, giving a precise figure for the company’s intrinsic worth. AMC, despite its volatility, has been improving its cash flow through various cost-cutting measures, refinancing debt, and boosting theater attendance post-pandemic.

  With the gradual recovery of cinema demand, particularly from blockbuster releases and higher per-patron spending on concessions, AMC’s future free cash flow could see substantial growth. Conservatively, these future cash flows suggest that AMC’s intrinsic value stands at $16 per share.

• Relative Valuation

  Relative valuation involves comparing AMC to similar companies based on industry-specific metrics, including EV/Revenue, EV/EBITDA, and P/E ratios. Despite AMC’s unique position in the entertainment space, the company compares favorably to peers when accounting for the rebound in the cinema industry and its high revenue potential.

  For example:

  EV/Revenue: As AMC’s revenue has rebounded strongly post-pandemic, it compares favorably to other theater chains and media companies.

  EV/EBITDA: AMC’s EBITDA has also shown improvement as costs are contained and audience numbers return.

  The relative valuation places AMC’s stock at $25 per share, underscoring the potential for price appreciation in a market recovery scenario.

Intrinsic Value as an Average of DCF and Relative Value

By taking the average of the intrinsic value from the DCF analysis and the relative valuation, we arrive at an overall intrinsic value of $20.50 per share. This implies that AMC stock is trading at a significant discount to its fair value and offers investors a ~70-80% potential upside based on current market conditions.

Earnings Improvement: A Path to Recovery

AMC’s financials have seen remarkable improvement over the past few years, which supports the investment thesis. After navigating through a challenging pandemic-induced downturn, AMC is beginning to show positive momentum, particularly in 2023 and 2024.

• Revenue Growth: AMC’s revenue declined significantly during the pandemic, dropping to as low as $1.2 billion in 2020. However, since theaters reopened, the company has seen a strong recovery. For the fiscal year 2024, revenue is projected to reach $4.5 billion, up from $3.9 billion in 2023, showing a steady upward trajectory. The resurgence of movie-goers, boosted by popular films, has driven higher attendance and increased per-patron spending on concessions.
• Improved EBITDA and Margins: EBITDA margins have improved as AMC has focused on cost efficiency and better financial management. In 2020, AMC posted a negative EBITDA of over $500 million, but by 2023, EBITDA turned positive, and for 2024, it is forecasted to grow to $600 million. This is a significant turnaround, driven by both revenue growth and operational improvements.
• Debt Restructuring: One of the key issues that investors have been wary of is AMC’s debt load. However, the company has made significant strides in addressing this concern by restructuring and refinancing its debt. As of 2024, AMC has reduced its net debt position from over $5.4 billion to $4.6 billion, while also securing more favorable interest rates, which will save the company millions in interest expenses moving forward.
• Diversified Revenue Streams: AMC has also embraced new business opportunities, including partnerships with streaming services and expanding its food and beverage offerings. These initiatives, while still in early stages, could further support long-term growth and help the company adapt to the evolving entertainment landscape.

Catalysts for Future Growth

Several factors could drive AMC’s stock price higher:

• Blockbuster Releases: Major movie releases in 2024 and beyond are expected to bring even more foot traffic to AMC theaters. These blockbuster movies have the potential to boost both ticket sales and concessions.
• Premium Cinema Experience: AMC has invested heavily in its premium theaters, including IMAX and Dolby Cinema. As consumers return to theaters for the superior movie-going experience that can’t be replicated at home, AMC’s revenues from premium formats could see a strong boost.
• Subscription Services: AMC Stubs A-List, AMC’s movie subscription service, has seen a surge in membership. This recurring revenue stream provides a stable base for future earnings growth.

Risks to Consider

While AMC is undervalued from both an intrinsic and relative perspective, potential investors should be mindful of the risks involved:

• High Debt Levels: AMC still carries a significant debt load, which could become a burden if interest rates rise further or if revenue recovery slows down.
• Competition from Streaming: Streaming services continue to pose a threat to traditional theater chains, though AMC has proven its ability to coexist alongside streaming by partnering with major streaming platforms for exclusive releases.

Conclusion: A Buy for Value-Oriented Investors

At its current market price of $4.23, AMC stock is significantly undervalued when compared to its intrinsic value of $16 per share and its relative value of $25 per share. With a 70-80% discount to its fair value, and supported by improving earnings, cost control, and a recovering cinema industry, AMC presents a deep value opportunity for investors willing to weather near-term volatility.

For those with a longer-term outlook, AMC offers substantial upside potential as it continues to recover from the pandemic and capitalize on the return of movie-going audiences.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this analysis is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice. Always do your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions. The author and publisher are not liable for any financial losses or damages that may result from following the information provided. Investing in stocks involves risks, including the loss of principal.

Partnership Overview

Under this collaboration, GameStop will serve as an authorized PSA dealer, allowing customers to access PSA’s authentication and grading services in select retail locations. For the uninitiated, PSA provides expert authentication and grading services to ensure the legitimacy and condition of trading cards and memorabilia, which is critical for enthusiasts and collectors alike, as these factors directly impact an item’s value.

GameStop will facilitate the submission process for its customers, offering them a streamlined way to submit their trading cards for authentication. Once authenticated, these cards will be graded on PSA’s proprietary scale, which ranges from 1 to 10, reflecting the condition and overall quality of the card. Collectors can then use these grades to assess market value, with highly graded cards often fetching premium prices at auctions or private sales.

Implications for GameStop: Market Reaction and Future Prospects

This collaboration comes at a pivotal time for GameStop as it continues to diversify its revenue streams beyond video games. By becoming a PSA dealer, GameStop is positioning itself to capture a share of the booming collectibles market, which has seen a resurgence over the past few years. Offering in-store authentication and grading services will likely drive foot traffic and attract a new demographic of collectors and enthusiasts.

In terms of market reaction, while the financial impact of the partnership has yet to fully materialize, analysts are optimistic. GameStop’s stock (NYSE: GME) has experienced volatility in recent years, but this collaboration signals the company’s commitment to evolving its business model. The collectibles market, estimated to reach $370 billion globally by 2024, offers significant upside potential. By tapping into this growth area, GameStop aims to complement its traditional gaming business with high-margin services in the trading card segment.

Looking ahead, the partnership could expand, potentially including more GameStop locations or other collectible services, such as auctions, appraisals, or card-trading platforms. The success of this initiative will depend on GameStop’s ability to resonate with its consumer base while effectively managing operational execution. Investors and industry stakeholders will be keen to see how this move contributes to GameStop’s broader transformation efforts in the evolving retail landscape.

The collaboration between GameStop and PSA marks a significant step in GameStop’s transformation as it seeks to become a broader retail destination for collectibles, beyond its gaming roots. By leveraging PSA’s world-class reputation and tapping into the surging interest in trading cards, GameStop is positioning itself to attract a new type of customer while providing added value to existing patrons. The potential for increased store traffic and higher-margin services makes this partnership one to watch as GameStop continues to reinvent its business in a rapidly changing retail landscape.

James Howells, the Wales-based engineer, claims the hard drive—discarded in 2013 during an office clean-up—holds a fortune in Bitcoin, now valued at nearly half a billion dollars. In a last-ditch effort to recover his lost wealth, Howells has turned to the courts.

As reported by WalesOnline, the lawsuit isn’t about the money itself but a tactic to compel the local council to allow excavation of the landfill site. Howells has proposed a cost-free recovery operation, assembling a team of experts who would handle the dig without burdening the city. He even offered Newport City Council 10% of the recovered Bitcoin, a potential windfall of tens of millions of dollars.

However, Newport City Council remains firm in its opposition. The council has dismissed the lawsuit as “weak” and expressed concerns over the environmental risks associated with excavating the landfill. They have cited possible ecological damage as the primary reason for their refusal.

The legal case, set for a hearing in December, marks a dramatic chapter in a bizarre saga that began over a decade ago. Back in 2013, when Bitcoin was still an obscure digital currency, Howells unknowingly discarded the hard drive containing 8,000 BTC while tidying his workspace. At the time, the loss was a modest financial hit. Today, with Bitcoin’s meteoric rise, it has become a massive financial regret.

Howells’ compensation claim is based on Bitcoin’s peak valuation earlier this year when the cryptocurrency hit an all-time high. Whether the court will entertain the case, and if the council’s environmental concerns can be overcome, remains to be seen.

Market Manipulation in Focus: The Trump Media Battle Led by Devin Nunes.

Market manipulation, especially in the form of short selling, has long been a problem on Wall Street. Short selling—the practice of betting that a stock’s price will fall—can play a legitimate role in financial markets by promoting liquidity and price discovery. But it can also be exploited, especially through illegal “naked” short selling, where traders sell shares they do not own or borrow, artificially driving down prices. This practice undermines trust in the markets, damages targeted companies, and disproportionately affects retail investors.

According to a study published by the SEC in 2020, naked short selling was identified as a factor in the 2008 financial crisis, and it has continued to be a problem in the years since. Between 2014 and 2020, market manipulation cases related to illegal short selling surged, with fines totaling over $1 billion, but actual enforcement has often been weak, as major firms like Citadel Securities and Virtu Financial typically settle without admitting guilt, paying fines that barely affect their bottom lines.

One of the most striking recent examples involves Trump’s media company, DJT. In early 2024, Devin Nunes, CEO of Trump’s DJT, publicly claimed that the company was being targeted by illegal naked short selling. According to Nunes, 700,000 to 1 million shares per day were being sold without being covered during just the first two weeks of April 2024. In a letter to Florida State Attorney General Ashley Moody, Nunes requested an investigation into this alleged manipulation, naming high-profile market makers Citadel Securities, Virtu Financial, and Jane Street.

Nunes stated, “We knew it was bad, but we finally got the numbers this week… maybe we’re going to expose something that’s going to be bigger than what most of us imagined.” The sheer volume of naked short selling alleged by Nunes paints a picture of a financial system where market manipulation is commonplace, with major players taking advantage of the lack of enforcement.

“We knew it was bad but we finally got the numbers this week, and the first two weeks of April, there was 700,000 to 1 million shares a day that aren’t covering “- Devin Nunes$DJT pic.twitter.com/IRWpueKNC1

— InvestorTurf (@InvestorTurf) May 4, 2024

Nunes’ calls for an investigation have resonated with Trump’s supporters and anti-Wall Street factions, reigniting conversations about whether the financial markets are rigged in favor of large institutions. If this case proceeds, it could shine a light on the deep-rooted issues that continue to plague U.S. markets.

Trump’s relationship with Wall Street has always been complex. While he benefited from deregulation during his first term, his personal business interests might shift his stance should he return to the Oval Office. Given DJT’s current struggles with alleged market manipulation, it is plausible that Trump could take more aggressive action against short selling and naked short selling in particular.

Trump has shown, historically, that his personal interests shape his policy decisions. If DJT continues to be targeted by short sellers, there’s a strong possibility that Trump would push for new legislation or executive action aimed at curbing these practices. Additionally, Trump has a history of focusing on enforcement measures that align with his populist base’s concerns, which often include perceived Wall Street corruption and unfair financial practices.

In 2020, Trump signed the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, which increased oversight of Chinese companies listed on U.S. exchanges. If he wins in 2024, a similar push could be made to restrict or eliminate predatory short selling practices, especially if Trump frames the issue as one of economic nationalism and the protection of American businesses.

The Elon Musk Factor

Elon Musk, one of the most vocal critics of short sellers and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has been at odds with the regulatory body for years. Musk has frequently accused the SEC of being complicit in allowing hedge funds and institutional investors to manipulate markets through short selling, all while disproportionately targeting companies like Tesla with regulatory scrutiny.

Musk has repeatedly referred to “regulatory capture”—a phenomenon where regulatory agencies, such as the SEC, end up serving the interests of the very industries they are supposed to oversee. According to Musk, the SEC is more interested in protecting large financial institutions than enforcing rules against fraudulent practices like naked short selling. He has criticized the agency for turning a blind eye to market manipulation, even as short sellers publicly spread misinformation about Tesla’s stock to drive down its price.

In a well-known incident from 2018, Musk tweeted that he was considering taking Tesla private at $420 per share and had “funding secured.” This tweet led to an SEC lawsuit, which Musk eventually settled for $40 million—$20 million paid by Tesla and $20 million from Musk himself. However, Musk has since spoken openly about the circumstances surrounding the settlement. In a 2021 interview, Musk revealed that he felt coerced into settling because the alternative could have led to Tesla’s financial ruin.

Banks and the SEC colluded and forced @elonmusk to lie in order to save Tesla. pic.twitter.com/tYpxCmhG6S

— InvestorTurf (@InvestorTurf) April 7, 2023

He stated that the SEC forced him into a settlement by threatening to cut off Tesla’s access to capital: “I had no choice. I was told by the banks that if I didn’t settle with the SEC, they would cease providing working capital, and Tesla would go bankrupt immediately.”

This revelation highlighted how vulnerable companies can be when facing market manipulation, as short sellers and financial institutions exert immense pressure. In Musk’s case, he felt the SEC was not acting to protect investors or the market but was instead enabling a situation where predatory financial practices could drive his company to the brink of collapse.

Musk’s public battles with the SEC have also brought attention to how little enforcement is carried out against short sellers who spread false information to depress stock prices. Tesla has been a frequent target of these tactics, with Musk stating that short sellers have made billions off manipulated stock prices, all while regulators took no meaningful action.

His criticism extends beyond personal grievances. Musk has argued that the SEC’s pattern of allowing companies to settle without admitting wrongdoing, combined with the failure to enforce existing laws on market manipulation, creates an environment where bad actors thrive. He has stated that regulatory agencies like the SEC serve the interests of the “big players”—hedge funds, large banks, and market makers—while the companies they target are left with no real recourse.

Tesla CEO @elonmusk talks on the Lex Fridman podcast about how the SEC never pursued the hedge funds that were shorting and distorting Tesla, and he discusses the personal interests that explain why they won't. pic.twitter.com/XC1mKb3ebZ

— InvestorTurf (@InvestorTurf) November 10, 2023

Musk’s experiences with short sellers and the SEC make him a likely ally in any future Trump administration’s effort to reform financial regulation. If Musk were to hold any advisory or official role, his influence could lead to stronger enforcement against predatory practices like naked short selling. With Musk’s deep-seated frustration over how the SEC operates, a Trump administration might push for radical reforms, potentially tightening regulations on short sellers or even exploring measures to dismantle the systemic bias Musk alleges exists within regulatory bodies.

What Are the Chances Trump Will Act?

If Trump wins the 2024 election, the probability that he will take action on short selling and market manipulation is high. His personal ties to the DJT case, combined with his populist leanings, suggest that he could push for stricter enforcement or even ban short selling outright. Trump has historically favored actions that resonate with his voter base, which includes retail investors who see short selling as a predatory practice.

It is also possible that Trump’s administration could aim for broader financial reforms targeting market manipulation. Trump has criticized the SEC in the past, and a second-term Trump might move to overhaul the regulatory framework to prioritize enforcement of market manipulation cases. With Nunes’ ongoing complaints and the potential for more evidence to emerge around DJT’s stock manipulation claims, Trump could justify sweeping reforms as protecting the “little guy” from Wall Street abuses.

Additionally, Trump’s focus on economic populism could lead to legislative proposals to hold institutions like Citadel Securities and Virtu Financial more accountable. The fines issued to these firms for market manipulation have been relatively small compared to the billions they generate in profit each year. Under a Trump presidency, fines could increase dramatically, or regulators might focus on criminal prosecutions for repeat offenders—a shift from the “neither admit nor deny” settlements that have dominated Wall Street’s regulatory landscape.

Conclusion: A Future of Accountability?

The combination of Trump’s personal interests, Musk’s influence, and the growing public frustration with market manipulation could lead to a regulatory crackdown on short selling. For firms like Citadel Securities and Virtu Financial, which have been named in market manipulation claims, a Trump presidency might mean facing increased scrutiny and harsher penalties.

While it remains to be seen how exactly Trump would tackle the issue, the DJT case and the accusations made by Devin Nunes could serve as a flashpoint for broader financial reform, one that could finally hold Wall Street accountable for practices that have long gone unchecked. Whether through executive orders, SEC reform, or legislative changes, the next four years could see significant changes in how short selling and market manipulation are regulated—especially if they align with Trump’s personal agenda.

The Problem: Fines That Barely Register

Market manipulation undermines trust in the financial system. When firms manipulate markets—whether through front-running trades, spoofing (placing orders they never intend to execute), or misleading investors—it creates an uneven playing field. Retail investors, pension funds, and small businesses often suffer, unaware they are participating in a rigged game. Meanwhile, large firms view the occasional fine as a minor inconvenience, far outweighed by the profits such behavior generates.

Take Citadel Securities as a prime example. In 2017, Citadel Securities paid a $22.6 million fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for misleading clients about trade execution. The SEC found that Citadel was not offering the best possible prices for customers, effectively front-running trades. At the time, Citadel Securities’ estimated revenue was around $3.5 billion for 2016.

This fine represented approximately 0.65% of Citadel Securities’ annual revenue, still a relatively trivial amount given the scale of the operation. Fast forward to 2020, and Citadel Securities generated $6.7 billion in revenue, illustrating how rapidly the firm has grown. Even if the 2017 fine were applied to 2020 revenues, it would represent just 0.34%—a drop in the bucket for a firm of Citadel’s size and influence.

This isn’t an isolated case. Between 2014 and 2022, Citadel Securities faced multiple fines for various infractions, totaling around $60 million. While that may seem significant, Citadel Securities generated $7 billion in profit in 2021 alone. The fines, which amount to less than 1% of their annual earnings, barely register as a cost of doing business. And Citadel is not alone. Many other large financial institutions have used the same playbook.

Citadel Securities, a part of Ken Griffin’s broader Citadel empire, plays a critical role in the financial markets, executing a staggering 40% of all U.S.-listed retail trading volume in 2022. That kind of influence means their actions can have a profound impact on market stability, price fairness, and investor confidence.

A Widespread Problem Across Wall Street

Citadel Securities’ example reflects a larger, systemic issue. Other financial giants, including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America, have faced similar fines for market manipulation, yet none of them have seen their executives face meaningful criminal consequences.

Consider JPMorgan Chase, which in 2020 agreed to pay a record $920 million fine to settle charges that its traders manipulated precious metals and U.S. Treasury markets for nearly eight years through spoofing. The fine, while large, accounted for only about 3% of JPMorgan’s net income in 2020, which was $29.1 billion. Even more egregiously, none of the traders involved faced criminal prosecution, and the bank, as is standard, did not admit or deny guilt.

Goldman Sachs, too, has a long history of paying large fines while avoiding deeper accountability. In 2020, the bank agreed to pay $2.9 billion to settle charges related to its involvement in the massive 1MDB bribery scandal. While the fine was one of the largest ever levied against a Wall Street bank, Goldman’s net income for 2021 was $21.64 billion. The firm simply moved forward, with no significant consequences for senior executives.

The Precedent It Sets

When institutions like Citadel Securities or JPMorgan Chase can repeatedly pay fines without admitting guilt or facing criminal prosecution, it sends a dangerous message: for those with enough money and influence, breaking the law carries little personal or corporate risk.

The practice of “neither admitting nor denying” guilt has become a regulatory norm, designed to resolve cases quickly and allow regulators to claim victories. Yet, it fails to deliver justice or deter future wrongdoing. For large financial institutions, these fines are calculated into the cost-benefit analysis of their actions. If the profits from illegal activities far outweigh the potential fines, there is little reason to change course.

As former SEC Chair Mary Jo White once noted, “When misconduct occurs, companies may seek to treat financial penalties as a cost of doing business, one that can be calculated and managed.” This reality fosters a culture of impunity, where financial giants take calculated risks, knowing that any punishment will be financial and not personal.

Why Criminal Prosecution Matters

One of the most glaring failures in the current system is the lack of criminal prosecution for executives responsible for market manipulation. In almost all major cases of financial misconduct, individuals at the top remain untouched, while their firms pay off fines from company coffers.

Imagine a different scenario: a Wall Street executive who orchestrates a scheme that defrauds investors isn’t simply allowed to pay a fine and walk away. Instead, they face the same consequences that would befall anyone else caught committing a serious crime—criminal charges and prison time. Suddenly, the calculus changes. When personal freedom is at stake, the risks become far more real.

The financial system’s credibility hinges on trust, and that trust erodes every time an institution can buy its way out of accountability. Jail time for executives involved in market manipulation would restore faith in the system. It would send a strong message: that no one, no matter how wealthy or powerful, is above the law. While fines may be seen as a cost of doing business, the prospect of incarceration is far more sobering.

The 2008 financial crisis is a poignant reminder of this trend. Not a single senior executive from the major institutions that contributed to the crash—Lehman Brothers, AIG, Bear Stearns—faced criminal charges, despite evidence of widespread fraud and deception. The absence of personal consequences for those responsible has led to a system where executives feel insulated from their own misdeeds.

Contrast this with the few instances where criminal prosecution did take place, such as the case of Enron. Top executives like Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay were convicted of multiple felonies and faced prison time. The Enron case was a rare instance of accountability that showed how criminal prosecution can act as a true deterrent. Executives, when faced with the potential of going to prison, are far less likely to engage in market manipulation or fraud.

The Call for Stronger Measures

The data clearly shows that fines alone are insufficient to curb market manipulation. In 2022, the SEC collected a total of $4.2 billion in penalties and disgorgements. Yet, the overall scale of the U.S. financial markets—where trading volumes often exceed $500 billion per day—suggests that these fines are but a drop in the bucket.

To restore trust in the financial system, regulators need to step up enforcement efforts. This means not only imposing fines large enough to truly impact a firm’s bottom line but also pursuing criminal charges against individuals responsible for market manipulation. There is a growing chorus of experts and lawmakers calling for such reforms. For instance, Senator Elizabeth Warren has long advocated for stricter oversight and tougher penalties for financial crimes, including personal accountability for executives.

Moreover, the focus should shift to the real deterrent: prison time. Financial fines, no matter how large, are simply not enough to deter institutions whose profits reach into the tens of billions. Personal liability, including criminal prosecution, must become a serious consideration for executives. Without this, the same pattern will continue—firms will pay their fines, deny wrongdoing, and go back to business as usual.

Conclusion: Time for Change

The pattern of settling cases with a checkbook and no admission of guilt has outlived its usefulness. It’s a system designed to protect the powerful at the expense of the public. Without fundamental change—without making market manipulators face criminal consequences—Wall Street will remain a playground for fraudsters, while ordinary people bear the cost.

Regulators and lawmakers need to take a stronger stand. That means not only pushing for larger penalties that hit firms where it hurts—their bottom line—but also pursuing criminal charges against individuals when there is clear evidence of wrongdoing. Market manipulation is not just a violation of financial regulations; it is a crime, and it should be treated as such. It’s time to stop letting these institutions off the hook with settlements that amount to little more than a cost of doing business. If we are to truly restore faith in our markets, we must demand real accountability—and that means prison time for the worst offenders.

For too long, the financial elite have played by their own rules, and it’s time for that to change. Only by making the punishment fit the crime can we hope to deter the next generation of market manipulators. The stakes couldn’t be higher—for our markets, for investors, and for the future of our economy.

The U.S. Department of Justice stated that TD Bank had “long-term, pervasive, and systemic deficiencies” in its transaction monitoring procedures. Between January 2018 and April 2024, over 90% of transactions were left unmonitored, allowing three money laundering networks to move more than $670 million through TD Bank accounts, according to court filings.

In one case, TD Bank employees accepted over $57,000 in gift cards in exchange for processing more than $470 million in cash deposits from a money laundering network, deliberately bypassing required reporting, according to the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ). The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) added that TD Bank processed hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions that clearly showed signs of highly suspicious activity.

As part of the settlement, TD Bank will undergo four years of monitoring by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to ensure compliance with the agreement. “While most financial institutions have worked with FinCEN to protect the integrity of the U.S. financial system, TD Bank did the opposite,” stated Wally Adeyemo, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. He highlighted that the bank’s failures enabled a range of illicit activities, from narcotics and fentanyl trafficking to terrorist financing and human trafficking.

The U.S. Federal Reserve has also fined TD Bank and will require it to relocate its anti-money laundering compliance office to the U.S. In a notable part of the agreement, the OCC is placing restrictions on TD Bank’s growth within the U.S., a rare but not unprecedented measure. Wells Fargo faced similar restrictions in 2018 after being fined for widespread consumer abuses, including creating millions of fake accounts, and continues to operate under those restrictions today.

E-Trade Financial Corporation, now part of Morgan Stanley, is a financial services company offering an electronic trading platform for stocks, preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, options, mutual funds, and fixed-income investments. Additionally, E*Trade provides services such as employee stock ownership plans, student loan benefit administration, advisor services, margin lending, and online banking. The firm generates revenue through interest income on margin balances, commissions from order executions, and payments for order flow.

ETrade and RoaringKitty

ETrade has recently considered removing RoaringKitty, also known as DeepFuckingValue, from its platform. This consideration stems from concerns about potential stock manipulation related to his recent purchases of GameStop ( $GME) shares. RoaringKitty, a well-known figure in the trading community, gained significant attention during the GameStop trading frenzy. His posts and analysis have influenced many retail investors. ETrade’s move reflects the broader scrutiny and regulatory concerns about the impact of social media and influential traders on market dynamics.

E*Trade is considering removing RoaringKitty, also known as DeepFuckingValue, from the platform due to reported concerns about potential stock manipulation related to his recent GameStop ( $GME) purchases.

— InvestorTurf (@InvestorTurf) June 3, 2024

ETrade Violations

• In 2016, ETrade Securities LLC was censured and fined $900,000 by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for failing to review the quality of execution of its customers’ orders and for supervisory deficiencies regarding the protection of customer information.
• ETrade agreed to pay a $350,000 fine to FINRA after allegations that it allowed manipulative customer trading to occur.
• A consent letter signed by FINRA and E*Trade stated that the company failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system for detecting potentially manipulative trading by its customers from February 2016 through November 2021.
• ETrade paid $2.5 million to settle SEC charges for ignoring red flags and improperly selling billions of unregistered penny stock shares on behalf of customers. The SEC claimed that ETrade Securities and E*Trade Capital Markets (later G1 Execution Services LLC) failed in their role as a “gatekeeper” of securities and sold shares without verifying if they met the required exemptions.

Key Highlights from Q1 2024:

• Revenue: The company reported revenues of $951.4 million, slightly down from $954.4 million in Q1 2023.
• Net Loss: AMC reduced its net loss to $163.5 million from $235.5 million in the previous year.
• Earnings Per Share: Loss per share improved significantly to $0.62 from $1.71 last year.
• Adjusted EBITDA: This metric, which helps understand the company's operational performance, was negative at $31.6 million, a drop from a positive $7.1 million last year. This includes a special benefit the company had last year.
• Cash Flow: Cash used in operations was slightly less at $188.3 million compared to $189.9 million last year.
• Cash Reserves: As of March 31, 2024, AMC's cash on hand was $624.2 million.

Comments from CEO Adam Aron:

Adam Aron, Chairman and CEO of AMC, stated, "We're pleased to report that AMC outperformed in the first quarter. Despite challenges from the Hollywood strikes in 2023, we saw a strong turnout in March indicating a robust future for moviegoing."

Aron highlighted that AMC maintained its revenue levels and saw an increase in its domestic market share despite a 6% drop in the North American box office from last year. He credited this performance to strategic cost management and improved profitability per customer.

Financial Strategy and Future Outlook:

AMC has continued to reduce its debt, lowering the principal by $17.5 million early in the quarter by exchanging debt for equity. Since the beginning of 2022, AMC has reduced its debt and deferred rent by nearly $975 million.

Looking forward, Aron expressed optimism about the second half of 2024 and beyond, citing an exciting upcoming film lineup. He also noted AMC's ongoing discussions with major musical artists, announcing a special event with Billie Eilish scheduled for May 16 and 17 to coincide with her next album release.

Overall, AMC remains committed to reducing its debt further, extending debt maturities, and strengthening its financial position to ensure sustained growth and resilience in the evolving entertainment landscape.

Doing my part.
byu/standardkillchain inamcstock

According to standardkillchain, the logic behind this gamble hinges on the historical performance of meme stocks like AMC, which are known to experience sudden price surges due to speculative trading. "Always buy meme stocks 99% down off highs. They tend to pump for random reasons," the user advises, reflecting a sentiment popular among certain segments of retail traders who frequent forums like Reddit's AMC subreddit, which boasts 500,000 members.

The trader also pointed to the asymmetrical nature of market evaluations in such scenarios, suggesting that AMC's current market cap is "sub billion," which is "vastly undervalued for such a crowd." This reference to the 'attention economy' echoes a broader trend where market movements are increasingly influenced by social media and collective retail investor actions rather than traditional fundamentals.

Adding a technical analysis perspective, standardkillchain noted that AMC's Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) indicator on the 1-month chart is nearing a bullish crossover, hinting at potential upward momentum. This observation is tied to broader market patterns, where recently, AMC followed GameStop Corporation in a significant price increase, reminiscent of past meme stock rallies.

Further, the Reddit user speculated on potential outcomes related to AMC's financial health, suggesting a possible acquisition by a major Hollywood entity should the company face bankruptcy. "If AMC does go into bankruptcy then a major Hollywood player will buy. Hollywood still needs theaters to release movies," they argued, indicating a strategic but speculative long-term view on the stock's prospects.

This $170,000 investment epitomizes the high-risk, high-reward strategies embraced by a subset of retail investors, who often gather in online communities to exchange predictions and trading strategies. As AMC navigates its challenging financial landscape, the actions of investors like standardkillchain will likely continue to influence its stock performance in unpredictable ways.

The FSS's recent findings are part of an ongoing probe into 14 foreign banks, revealing unauthorized transactions now implicating nine banks with combined irregularities worth 211.2 billion won ($154.76 million). The investigation is still ongoing for five other banks, details of which remain undisclosed by the FSS.

In related news, South Korea's Chosun Ilbo daily reported that Credit Suisse AG had been informed of a potential 50 billion won fine for non-compliance with short-selling regulations. This notice involves the bank's South Korean and Singaporean branches, although both FSS and UBS, which acquired Credit Suisse in 2023, have not commented on the matter.

Amidst these developments, the FSS is collaborating with Hong Kong authorities and will be discussing South Korea's short-selling laws there later this month. In response to these breaches, South Korea has extended its ban on "naked" short selling – selling shares without securing them beforehand – and is developing new monitoring systems to better identify and prevent such violations in the future.

In a recent statement, Gurbir Grewal, the SEC’s enforcement director, highlighted the critical importance of auditors in maintaining the integrity of financial markets, stating that Borgers and his firm failed significantly in their duties. This lapse has led to what he described as "one of the largest wholesale failures by gatekeepers" in the sector.

While the settlement did not specify if Trump Media was directly implicated in the fraud accusations against BF Borgers, the connection raises concerns due to the firm's ongoing role with Trump's company post its public merger with Digital World Acquisitions Corp. Notably, Trump Media is the most prominent client of BF Borgers by market capitalization. Despite its size and client base, BF Borgers has been critiqued for insufficient staffing during a period of rapid client growth, a concern echoed by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in its recent inspections revealing a 100% deficiency rate in the firm's audit practices.

This situation underscores the vital role of rigorous auditing and regulatory oversight in protecting investors and maintaining trust in the financial statements of publicly traded companies.

According to the OCC, from October 2021 to March 2022, Desembrana intentionally concealed a significant backlog of unprocessed customer checks at the bank’s Philadelphia Lockbox facility. He reportedly failed to report the backlog during internal meetings and directed employees under his supervision to produce false bank reports to hide the extent of the unprocessed checks.

When bank customers raised concerns about the delays, Desembrana allegedly provided misleading explanations to placate both customers and bank employees. The OCC stated, “These violations and practices were part of a pattern of misconduct that resulted in more than minimal losses for the bank and harmed the interests of its depositors.”

The OCC’s findings highlighted that Desembrana’s actions showed “personal dishonesty, willful or continuing disregard for the safety and soundness of the bank, and reckless disregard for the law or applicable regulations.” Despite not admitting to or denying the allegations, Desembrana consented to pay the civil penalty and agreed to a ban from working in the U.S. banking industry, unless he obtains prior written approval from the OCC and a financial institution willing to employ him.

Specifically, the amount of bad debt has nearly doubled compared to the same period last year. Bank of America reported net charge-offs of $1.5 billion, a significant rise from $807 million the previous year. The majority of these losses are attributed to credit card debts unlikely to be recovered.

Alastair Borthwick, Chief Financial Officer of Bank of America, highlighted during an earnings call that the bank is observing financial strains among borrowers with subprime credit ratings, exacerbated by rising interest rates and inflation. He explained, “While lenders profit from interest payments, their goal is to avoid situations where loans fall so far behind that they must be written off.”

Further industry trends show increasing charge-offs across other major banks, including Citigroup and Wells Fargo. This is aligned with findings from a recent Federal Reserve survey, which reported that banks are tightening lending standards across various loan types, including home equity lines of credit (HELOCs), credit cards, and auto loans. The survey also noted a decrease in demand for these credit products.

Despite these challenges, both JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America affirm that their balance sheets remain robust. JPMorgan Chase reported a profit of $49.6 billion last year, while Bank of America’s earnings were $24.9 billion.

Additionally, JPMorgan Chase reported that its net charge-offs reached $2 billion in the early months of this year, as per Reuters. These financial indicators are crucial as they reflect the broader economic pressures facing consumers and the consequent impacts on major financial institutions.

Key Preliminary Financial Highlights:

In efforts to improve its balance sheet, AMC spoke with advisors and first-lien lenders this March. Additionally, on April 19, AMC disclosed in a regulatory filing that it had secured a new letter of credit, replacing a $225 million revolving credit facility due to expire on April 22, and had cleared the outstanding balance.

The new system will electronically track all short sale transactions by big investors and check them through a central system at the stock exchange. The head of the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), Lee Bok-hyun, explained that illegal short selling has been a key reason for the “Korea discount,” which makes Korean companies appear less valuable compared to global firms due to issues like low dividends and unclear management.

Lee hopes that this thorough checking system will eliminate illegal short selling. He shared these details ahead of a briefing about the new system to experts and individual investors. The regulator noted that the final checks on the new system are almost done but did not specify when the short selling ban would end. The ban has been in place since last November when illegal trading by some foreign banks was discovered.

Authorities have decided to keep the ban until they are sure the new system works well. Lee mentioned that it’s unclear when the ban will be lifted as they need to see how well the new system functions. Most big and foreign investors agree that using the electronic system to regain trust from local individual investors is important, even if it costs them.

To make trading fair, South Korea also plans to ease short-selling rules for individual investors and set new borrowing limits for big and foreign investors once the ban is removed

Wells Fargo experienced a $15.1 billion drop in deposits during the same period, from $1.3567 trillion to $1.3416 trillion.

JPMorgan Chase reported a 7% drop in deposits in its Consumer & Community Banking division for the first quarter of the year, not counting its recent acquisition of First Republic Bank. Excluding First Republic, JPMorgan’s overall deposits remained unchanged.

Looking ahead, JPMorgan’s Chief Financial Officer Jeremy Barnum anticipates deposit levels to stay the same or possibly decrease slightly. He noted, “We expect deposit balances to be sort of flat to modestly down. So that’s a little bit of a headwind at the margin… in a world where we’ve got something like $900 billion of deposits paying effectively zero, relatively small changes in the product-level reprice can change the NII run rate by a lot.”

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has warned that US banks could face another crisis if the Federal Reserve raises interest rates. In his latest annual shareholder letter, Dimon expressed concern that persistent inflation might force the Fed to tighten monetary policy further, putting banks and leveraged companies at risk.

He reflected on the acquisition of First Republic Bank in May 2023 after the collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. Dimon stated, “When we purchased First Republic… we thought that the current banking crisis was over. Only these three banks had the toxic combination of extreme interest rate exposure, large unrealized losses in the held-to-maturity (HTM) portfolio, and highly concentrated deposits. Most of the other regional banks did not have these problems. However, we stipulated that the crisis was over provided that interest rates didn’t go up dramatically and we didn’t experience a serious recession.”

Dimon warned that if long-term interest rates rise above 6% accompanied by a recession, it would cause significant stress not only in banks but also among heavily indebted companies. He reminded, “A simple 2 percentage point increase in rates essentially reduced the value of most financial assets by 20%, and certain real estate assets, specifically office real estate, may be worth even less due to the effects of recession and higher vacancies. Also remember that credit spreads tend to widen, sometimes dramatically, in a recession.”

The verdict highlighted that the accused’s actions severely undermined public trust in the leadership of the Communist Party and the state government. Despite Lan’s denial of the charges and attributing the blame to her subordinates, the trial in Ho Chi Minh City, a major southern commercial center, concluded after five weeks. Alongside Lan, 85 other individuals were judged and sentenced on various charges, including bribery, abuse of power, embezzlement, and violations of banking laws.

Lan was specifically found to have embezzled over $12.5 billion. However, the prosecutors have assessed the total damages from the fraud to be $27 billion, equivalent to 6% of Vietnam’s GDP in 2023, marking an extraordinary loss to the nation’s economy. The death sentence handed to Lan is notably harsh for such crimes.

Her arrest was part of a wider national anti-corruption initiative that has implicated many officials and members of Vietnam’s business elite recently. In her last statement to the court, Lan mentioned contemplating suicide due to her desperation and frustration with her involvement in the banking sector, which she admitted knowing very little about.

Following Lan’s arrest in October 2022, protests broke out in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, which is uncommon in the one-party communist state. The police have identified around 42,000 victims of this scandal, which has deeply shocked the nation. Lan, who is married to a wealthy businessman from Hong Kong also facing trial, was accused of creating false loan applications to siphon money from SCB, a bank in which she held a 90% ownership.

Victims of the scam include SCB bondholders, who have been unable to access their funds or receive any interest or principal payments since Lan’s detention. It was revealed at the trial that prosecutors seized over 1,000 properties linked to Lan.

Additionally, nearly $5.4 million allegedly offered by Lan and some SCB bankers as bribes to state officials to cover up the bank’s regulatory violations and poor financial health represents the biggest bribe ever recorded in Vietnam. Do Thi Nhan, who was offered the bribe and formerly led the State Bank of Vietnam’s inspection team, testified that the money was delivered to her in Styrofoam boxes by SCB’s former CEO, Vo Tan Van. Nhan refused to accept the boxes upon discovering they contained cash, but Van refused to take them back.

The crackdown on corruption in Vietnam has led to more than 4,400 people being indicted in over 1,700 cases of graft since 2021. Another high-profile case involved Do Anh Dung, the head of the luxury property group Tan Hoang Minh, who was sentenced to eight years in jail last month after being found guilty of defrauding thousands of investors in a bond scam worth $359 million.

Aron points out AMC’s creative and effective response to these challenges, distinguishing it from other exhibitors. Despite a $4.5 billion debt, AMC has substantial cash reserves, amounting to $885 million as of the end of 2023, which Aron believes will support the company through 2024. He is optimistic about the box office potential in 2025 and 2026, expecting significant earnings improvements.

To navigate the pandemic’s impact, AMC took several unconventional steps, including distributing Taylor Swift’s concert film, which became the most successful concert film ever, earning more than $261 million globally. AMC also released Beyoncé’s “Renaissance: A Film by Beyoncé,” which, while less lucrative, served as an effective branding move. Aron highlights AMC’s capacity for innovation, not just in terms of content but also through initiatives like launching a retail popcorn business that has expanded its presence to approximately 6,000 stores, without disclosing specific sales figures. Additionally, the company’s venture into selling custom popcorn holders has generated substantial revenue.

Aron’s leadership reflects a strategic approach to overcoming the challenges faced by the cinema industry, focusing on innovation, diversification, and optimism for the future. He assures that AMC is not only surviving but also preparing for a strong comeback in the coming years.

This economist had been sending emails to these companies, explaining parts of the consumer price index (CPI), which helps us understand inflation by looking at prices of things like housing and used cars. This CPI is very important because it can affect decisions made by businesses and the government.

The story first came out when the New York Times reported that the economist was calling this group of companies and investors “my super users.” The BLS said they don’t have an official list of “super users,” but it was found that the economist had indeed invited someone to join this email list.

The situation got more attention when an email mistakenly sent in February hinted at a change in how they calculate the cost of renting in the CPI. This mistake caused a lot of confusion, and the BLS had to tell people to ignore the email and later tried to explain the mistake on their website.

Because of this incident, there will likely be more checks on how the BLS shares its economic data. This data is very powerful and can influence the stock market and decisions made by the Federal Reserve, which helps manage the U.S. economy.

The BLS is now trying to fix the trust that was damaged by this incident. They want to make sure everyone believes they are sharing information fairly. Emily Liddel, an official at the BLS, said they are embarrassed and are working on being more trustworthy. The economist has been stopped from answering people’s questions for now as they review what happened, especially looking at whether he shared information that wasn’t supposed to be public yet.

The main fund managed by Antara Capital, led by Himanshu Gulati, experienced a 14% loss in 2022 and is estimated to have a further 18% loss in 2023. Interestingly, if the hard-to-sell private investments were not considered, the fund would have actually made gains in 2023. This fact highlights how much these assets have affected the fund's financial performance recently. Despite these difficulties, investors who have been with the fund from the start have seen over 50% gains, showing the potential advantages of remaining invested in Antara during its challenging times.

The idea of side pockets is not a new concept in the hedge fund world. These special sections were especially used during the 2008 financial crisis, allowing funds to keep their hard-to-sell assets separate from those that are easier to sell. This approach helps avoid selling assets at lower than their worth and offers a way to handle investments that aren't easy to liquidate. It's believed that during 2008, about $200 billion to $360 billion were moved into side pockets, making up to 20% of the industry's assets at the time. Although most side pockets from that period have been dealt with, some can last for a long time, underscoring the difficulties and complexities of managing hard-to-sell assets in a hedge fund's portfolio.

The analysts pointed out that this positive variance was not attributed to any singular blockbuster release but was rather the result of a series of films collectively performing beyond expectations. This trend underscores a robust and enduring consumer interest, expected to extend into the following year.

A significant emphasis was placed on Cinemark’s operational efficiency as a pivotal reason for the stock’s perceived undervaluation, despite its appreciation since the start of the year. Moreover, Wells Fargo has adjusted its projections for Cinemark’s adjusted EBITDA for the years 2024 and 2025, positioning these figures ahead of the general consensus among Wall Street analysts.

Wells Fargo arrived at the new $23.00 price target by applying a 7x multiplier to the combined adjusted EBITDA estimates for 2024 and 2025. This analysis suggests a potential 50% growth in Cinemark’s market value, based on its projected earnings capacity for 2025. Additionally, the report discusses an in-depth analysis of the film slate dynamics that informed Wells Fargo’s revised stance on Cinemark.

The banker, who served as a board member at a small private bank in Geneva, is accused of depositing significant sums of money into his own account in 2008. However, this money actually belonged to a third party who wanted to keep their ownership hidden from authorities.

Authorities claim that the banker betrayed the trust of his client and used the money for personal purposes, including providing loans to associates, family, and friends. The prosecutor stated that the funds were primarily used to support the lavish lifestyle of the accused and his family.

The fraudulent activities came to light when authorities in Switzerland raised concerns about large transfers made by the banker to businesses in the Dominican Republic. Investigators found that these funds had a criminal origin.

Additionally, the banker is accused of forging bank statements to deceive his client. Prosecutors allege that he attempted to use at least SFr1 million of the client’s funds to keep his bank afloat, even after being notified of a criminal investigation against him.

The individual, whose identity is protected by Swiss law, is accused of being involved in a complex criminal conspiracy that led to the misappropriation of over SFr14 million ($15.4 million) over seven years until 2015.

There is a theory that has emerged within the cryptocurrency landscape blaming BlackRock, a notable entity. As the largest global investment manager, the possibility of BlackRock spearheading this monumental Bitcoin accumulation sends ripples of speculation through the industry. 

There are Blockchain analysts who have reported that the bitcoin transfers to the address are coming from Gemini and noted that the first major transaction occurred exactly one month after BlackRock filed for its spot bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF), causing speculation that BlackRock is behind this rapid accumulation.

As an OTC trading platform for Bitcoin, Gemini would most likely send BTC to a wallet address to fulfill major purchases. However, it is unusual for $3 billion worth of Bitcoin to be moved from their cold wallet to a new ho wallet without any reason. One theory is that someone was buying Bitcoin, and Gemini gradually transferred it to this new address.

The protagonist of this story is BlackRock, which is pursuing the ambitious goal of creating a spot Bitcoin ETF, which requires large ownership of the underlying asset. A substantial Bitcoin treasury must be safely held by the company to comply with regulatory requirements. 

Many ETF issuers have tried. Invesco, Valkyrie, and ARK are among the ETF players that have filed to launch spot bitcoin ETFs, but all got rejected by the SEC.

But everything changed when BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, filed to launch its own Bitcoin ETF. Over the years, there have been more than 30 different Bitcoin ETF filings, and none of them have been approved.

The reason for bitcoin ETF rejections has always been the same. The SEC does not like the unregulated nature of the crypto space and claims it's rife with the potential for fraud. Their position isn't entirely unwarranted since there have been hacking incidents and many other fraudulent activities, but there's been no evidence that existing Bitcoin exchange-traded products have had problems.

Griffin has also attracted much criticism due to his political donations, being one of the largest political donors during recent U.S. elections and contributing significantly to Republican candidates. Furthermore, his activities related to opposing an increase in taxes for wealthy Illinois residents have come under scrutiny and caused considerable debate.

However, these criticisms and controversies should not translate to criminal charges or convictions; it's vitally important to differentiate between public opinion, particularly via social media outlets, and legal determinations of illegal behavior. As of yet, Ken Griffin has yet to face official criminal charges or convictions for financial crimes; we will go over any situations or accusations made against Citadel/Ken Griffin here in this article.

Citadel's Aggressive Recruitment Practices

Citadel Securities, a prominent market-making firm, has faced allegations of aggressive and hypocritical recruitment practices, with former employees accusing the firm of disproportionate aggression and hostile litigation against those who leave or threaten to leave the company. These accusations have been the subject of legal disputes and have drawn attention to the firm's approach to employee departures and competition in the financial industry.

Citadel Securities filed a suit against Leonard Lancia and Alex Casimo, alleging they illegally started raising capital for Portofino Technologies while still having access to Citadel Securities' proprietary information. According to Lancia and Casimo's response, they left due to dissatisfaction over resources allocated and priority given in business operations, as well as considering starting up another firm to engage in high-frequency cryptocurrency trading—something Citadel had publicly pledged it wouldn't enter—further accusing Citadel Securities of trying to intimidate employees into staying put.

Citadel Securities has also become embroiled in legal wrangles with former employees regarding alleged theft of trade secrets when setting up their market-making firm for cryptocurrency market trading. Citadel has sought trials to determine potential damages, while those accused have denied all allegations and voiced their intent to challenge this lawsuit.

Legal battles and allegations between Citadel Securities and former employees have shed light on the contentious nature of employee departures in financial industry competition, prompting public scrutiny as well as legal proceedings regarding recruitment practices and the handling of departing staffers at Citadel Securities. Citadel remains an influential player within financial circles despite this controversy, and its retention practices continue to be closely monitored within financial communities around the globe.

Public Dislike of Ken Griffin

Ken Griffin has played an essential part in shaping Citadel into one of the premier global market makers and alternative investment firms since it opened for business in 2002 by him and his partners. Citadel serves over 1,600 clients, such as major sovereign wealth funds and central banks, through trading, research, and technology services. 

Griffin started trading aggressively while an undergraduate at Harvard in 1986, which soon led him to found Citadel four years later. Thanks to this early success and entrepreneurial drive, Citadel Securities quickly established itself as a top global market maker, providing substantial benefits for investors worldwide.

Despite his success, Ken Griffin has faced controversies and criticism, particularly about his public statements and philanthropic activities. He has been vocal about various issues, including criticizing Chicago crime and expressing his views on the potential of Miami replacing New York City as a financial capital. Additionally, Griffin's wealth and influence have made him a subject of public interest, with Forbes estimating his fortune at $26.5 billion.

These factors have contributed to a mixed perception of Griffin, with some viewing him as a financial prodigy turned industry giant, while others have expressed dislike and criticism, as evidenced by the poll conducted by InvestorTurf. Thus, it's important to consider both aspects when evaluating his impact on the financial industry.

In your opinion, who do you believe could be considered the most significant financial criminal in history, and what are the reasons for your choice?

— InvestorTurf (@InvestorTurf) November 5, 2023

Citadel's Role in the 2021 Meme Stock Rally

According to court documents, Citadel was involved with Robinhood, advising it to restrict the buy button during the 2021 meme stock rally, leading to widespread controversy and accusations of market manipulation.

While Citadel Securities and Robinhood have consistently denied any involvement in advising or limiting trading on GameStop and other "meme stocks" during the retail-driven trading frenzy in January 2021, recent court documents suggest that there were indeed communications between the two entities. These documents detail conversations within Robinhood and between Robinhood and Citadel Securities on January 27, 2021, one of the days trading on GameStop was halted by various brokerages.

The lawsuit alleges that high-level employees at Citadel Securities and Robinhood engaged in numerous communications that indicated pressure from Citadel on Robinhood. Robinhood COO Gretchen Howard told CEO Vlad Tenev in a Slack conversation that she and other Robinhood executives would soon join a call with Citadel Securities; later that same day, Jim Swartwout of Robinhood Securities tweeted, "You wouldn't believe what convo we had with Citadel, total mess." The lawsuit also alleges that a call was set up between Tenev and a redacted person at Citadel Securities later that night.

While court documents suggest that there were communications between Citadel Securities and Robinhood during the GameStop trading frenzy, the nature and impact of these communications are still under dispute.

Additionally, a U.S. federal court dismissed Robinhood's lawsuit accusing them of breaking state laws by restricting trades on meme stocks during January's rally, ruling retail investors cannot pursue negligence and breach-of-fiduciary duty claims against Robinhood as commission-free brokerages do not afford relief to unfulfilled expectations under law. Although traders were disappointed at seeing stock prices plunge after trade restrictions were placed into effect, the law cannot offer relief in every instance.

Citadel Securities and Robinhood won the dismissal of a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by retail investors who accused the firms of colluding during January’s meme-stock frenzy. U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga in Miami stated that plaintiffs failed to show there was any agreement between Citadel Securities and Robinhood to act together; she granted this investor group until December 20, 2021, to file any amendment to their complaint if needed.

There have been allegations against Judge Altonaga of having an apparent conflict of interest. Reports state that Altonaga's husband, George Mencio, works at the Holland and Knight law firm, which represents one or more defendants involved in this lawsuit, leading some observers to raise suspicions of potential collusion or conflict of interest on her part.

These developments demonstrate the complexity and legal scrutiny surrounding allegations of market manipulation and trading restrictions during the 2021 meme stock rally. Legal dismissals or denials by Citadel Securities and Robinhood have only added fuel to the ongoing discussion about what happened during that eventful weekend.

Allegations of False Statements Under Oath

Citadel Securities CEO Ken Griffin has been accused of making falsified statements under oath during a GameStop hearing. Allegations indicate he made false claims regarding communication between Citadel and Robinhood during trading halts on AMC and GameStop stores during January 2021.

Griffin stated under oath that no contact existed between Robinhood and Citadel Securities with respect to trading restrictions on GameStop; however, court documents and congressional reports have revealed otherwise. Griffin claims he never spoke with Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev about these trading restrictions were false statements; furthermore, court records from a class action lawsuit against Robinhood and Citadel Securities reveal conversations within Robinhood as well as between Robinhood and Citadel Securities during trading restrictions for GameStop on January 27, 2021, and these conversations suggest communications occurred between these entities, thus refuting Griffin's statements made under oath.

Citadel's Illegal Market Manipulation 

Citadel Securities has come under several allegations for unlawful market manipulation and other unethical behavior, some of which include:

1. Spoofing: Northwest Biotherapeutics accused Citadel Securities and other Wall Street firms of engaging in spoofing, a practice where traders place orders with the intent to manipulate stock prices.
2. Mismarking orders: The SEC fined Citadel Securities $7 million for mismarking short sale and long sale orders over five years due to a coding error in the company's automated trading system.
3. Misleading clients about pricing trades: Citadel Securities agreed to pay $22.6 million to settle charges that it made misleading statements to clients about the way it priced trades.

A former Citadel Securities engineer has come forward with allegations that the company and other high-frequency trading (HFT) firms are engaging in a number of manipulative practices that are giving them an unfair advantage in the market. These practices include:

• Using order types that are not available to retail investors. High-frequency trading (HFT) firms use order types that are unavailable to retail investors in order to execute trades faster, giving them an unfair edge over investors who cannot use these same order types. This provides HFT firms with a significant competitive edge versus retail investors, who are unable to use similar order types for trading purposes.
• Engaging in "latency arbitrage." This practice takes advantage of disparities between market data transmission times between various exchanges. High-frequency trading firms use sophisticated technology that enables them to do this successfully, giving them an advantage over market participants without this technology.
• Creating artificial liquidity. Artificial liquidity refers to creating artificial demand or supply in particular securities by placing multiple buy or sell orders for that security in an effort to make it appear that there is more interest or supply in that security than actually exists, thus making HFT firms able to execute trades at more favorable prices.

These practices may not necessarily violate the law, but they do raise concerns about fairness in the market. Retail investors tend to suffer since HFT firms often possess superior technology and resources that make getting an equal trade price difficult for retail investors.

The allegations against Citadel Securities and other HFT firms have sparked a debate about whether there need to be new regulations to level the playing field for retail investors. Some regulators are considering whether to ban HFT firms from using certain order types or engaging in latency arbitrage.

Noteworthy is how allegations and regulatory actions against Citadel Securities have contributed to creating a negative perception among certain sectors of society and investors, specifically among investment professionals, leading to calls for further investigations of their practices as well as protective measures being put in place for investors' best interests.

Citadel Securities has denied all allegations and fines levied against it and continues to operate under all relevant laws, regulations, and rules in all markets where it trades. Citadel has stated in settlement documents that their employees adhere strictly to laws, regulations, and rules in each of their trading locations.

Additional Controversies

Ken Griffin's Political Donations

Griffin has been a longtime Republican donor, giving almost $60 million to Republicans in the 2022 midterm elections. His support for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has drawn criticism, particularly due to DeSantis' controversial policies, such as the "Don't Say Gay" law. However, Griffin has also broken with DeSantis on certain issues, opposing the law's expansion.

Citadel's Bailout of Melvin Capital

Citadel's involvement in the GameStop short squeeze event, wherein they bailed out Melvin Capital with a $2 billion capital infusion, drew attention and criticism. This event further fueled the public's negative perception of Griffin and Citadel.

Ken Griffin's Portrayal in "Dumb Money" Movie

Griffin's portrayal in the recent blockbuster film "Dumb Money," which focuses on the GameStop short squeeze, has reportedly left him unhappy. The movie highlights the controversies surrounding Citadel and Griffin's role in the 2021 meme stock rally.

SEC's Inaction on Market Manipulation Allegations

Retail investors have been frustrated by the SEC's perceived inaction on allegations of market manipulation by Citadel and other market participants. Despite the numerous controversies and fines, many feel that the SEC has not done enough to protect retail investors and ensure a fair market.

Conclusion

Ken Griffin and Citadel Securities have been embroiled in multiple controversies that have generated public anger against them, such as aggressive trading practices, regulatory fines, alleged false statements under oath, and participation in the 2021 meme stock rally.

Citadel Securities' aggressive trading practices have long been the subject of much discussion and dispute. Citadel has been accused of overly aggressive recruitment practices and dealings with employees who either leave or threaten to leave, as well as being one of the most aggressive in using rebates to secure retail orders.

Regulator fines have also played a prominent role in these disputes. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fined Citadel Securities $7 million for violating short sale order marking requirements due to incorrectly marking millions of orders over five years due to a coding error in its automated trading system.

Alleged false statements under oath have also contributed to public animus towards Citadel Securities CEO Ken Griffin, who stands accused of lying under oath about having any communication with Robinhood during trading halts on AMC and GameStop in January 2021.

Participation in the 2021 meme stock rally has also generated considerable debate. Citadel Securities and Robinhood were accused of colluding to manipulate market conditions on the day prior to trading halts, sparking widespread outrage. Citadel executed orders alongside Virtu, prompting Ken Griffin of Citadel Securities to appear before a House committee for testimony in February 2021.

These controversies, coupled with Griffin's political donations and public perception of SEC inaction, have significantly contributed to public animus against Citadel Securities and its founder.

This dеmand stеms from thе significant financial lossеs еxpеriеncеd by invеstors, amounting to millions of dollars, attributеd to nakеd short sеlling. Furthеrmorе, companiеs arе facing dirе consеquеncеs, bеing pushеd toward bankruptcy and forcеd to dеlist from еxchangеs duе to thеsе еxploitativе practicеs.

In thе yеar 2023 alonе, morе than 30 publicly listеd companiеs havе takеn proactivе mеasurеs by conducting invеstigations into thеir stocks to uncovеr instancеs of abusivе nakеd short sеlling. A majority of thеsе invеstigations rеvеalеd imbalancеs in sharе quantitiеs, highlighting thе sеvеrity of thе issue. Notably, in Junе 2023, thе SEC acknowlеdgеd thе pеrsistеncе of nakеd short sеlling as еvidеncеd by charging an Invеstmеnt Advisеr for orchеstrating an "Abusivе Nakеd Short Sеlling Schеmе." 

“The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged investment adviser Sabby Management LLC and its managing partner, Hal D. Mintz, with fraud in connection with a long running scheme involving misrepresentations and violations of rules for short selling and order making, as well as other violative trading, that generated more than $2 million in illegal profits.”

Elon Musk references a short-selling investigation with CNBC, stating, “This is something the SEC should have done, but, curiously, did not.”. Many retail investors have been suggesting that naked shorting is occurring in their investments. AMC dramatically dropped from $70+ to under $1 (pre-split), MMTLP abruptly halted days prior to the company's record date, and a large number of companies proved a share imbalance in their stock.

South Korea officially banned short selling in November 2023 through June 2024 after regulators found “routine” abuse of naked short selling from foreign and institutional investors. In October of 2023, South Korea fined two Hong Kong banks for naked short-selling “The two unnamed investment banks made naked short-selling transactions of a total of 40 billion won ($29.58 million) and 16 billion won”, the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) said in a statement.

This directive springs forth in the context of an ongoing scrutiny entailing HSBC and BNP Paribas. Allegations loom over their involvement in short selling stocks valued at a staggering 50 billion won ($37 million) during the timeline spanning 2021 to 2022.

The regulatory radar in South Korea flagged potential occurrences of naked short selling subsequent to uncovering such practices perpetrated by global banking entities.

Vocal opposition emanates from South Korean retail investors, denouncing short selling as it allegedly bestows undue advantages upon foreign and institutional investors.

The petition states: "Naked short selling is still occurring. We demand a temporary halt of ALL short selling until there is a resolution. We suggest all readers sign this petition and share it with as many people as possible."

 SIGN THE PETITION

The study, which gathered opinions from a cross-section of 250 institutional investors, highlighted a notable shift in outlook compared to previous evaluations. Impressively, 57% of the participants foresee an upward trajectory in crypto prices over the next 12 months. This marks a stark contrast from the preceding year, where a mere 8% held similar optimistic perspectives, according to Coinbase's previous study. Conversely, only 2% of respondents predict a downward trend, with 41% anticipating stability or a range-bound movement in crypto values.

Furthermore, the survey accentuates a significant inclination towards bolstering crypto holdings among respondents in the near future. Almost 60% of those surveyed expressed intentions to increase their crypto assets within the next three years. Interestingly, none of the participants plan to reduce their digital asset portfolios. Moreover, nearly half of the institutional investors currently absent from the crypto sphere express their intent to venture into this domain within the upcoming three years.

Diving into the preferences concerning asset classes poised for appealing risk-adjusted returns over the following three years, the survey unveils intriguing findings. While 54% of institutional investors perceive private equity as a substantial opportunity, 48% favor U.S. equities, and 41% acknowledge the potential of cryptocurrencies in this regard. Additionally, 35% of respondents identify emerging market equities as promising, while only 31% and 26% consider commodities and real estate, respectively, as lucrative avenues for returns.

Overall, the survey emphasizes an expanding confidence and interest among institutional investors in cryptocurrencies. It underscores an evolving investment landscape where digital assets are increasingly recognized as feasible and promising elements of diversified portfolios.

Thе incidеnt unfoldеd whеn Indiana rеsidеnt Robеrt Wolfе rеcеivеd a tеxt mеssagе that sееmingly originatеd from thе banking giant, inquiring about two significant transactions from his account, as pеr rеports from thе CBS-affiliatеd nеws station WKMG.

Upon rеsponding nеgativеly, Wolfе rеcеivеd a phonе call from a scammеr posing as a Chasе rеprеsеntativе. Wolfе fеll victim to thе scam as thе pеrpеtrator еxploitеd Chasе's systеm, lеading him to bеliеvе thе impostеr was from Chasе sеcurity.

Thе scammеr cunningly sеnt a onе-timе passcodе to Wolfе's phonе and pеrsuadеd him to disclosе thе numbеr. Rеalizing thе dеcеption, Wolfе promptly contactеd thе bank. Howеvеr, dеspitе his quick action, $11,000 was siphonеd from his account, and Chasе dеclinеd his claim for rеimbursеmеnt.

Exprеssing frustration ovеr thе lack of support from Chasе, Wolfе еxprеssеd his doubts about thе sеcurity of kееping monеy in thе bank rathеr than in his own pockеt.

JPMorgan issuеd a statеmеnt acknowlеdging thе unfortunatе situation and еmphasizеd thе sеvеrity of scams targеting consumеrs. Thеy rеitеratеd that banks would nеvеr solicit sеnsitivе information likе account dеtails, passwords, or passcodеs through phonе calls, contrasting it with thе dеcеptivе tactics еmployеd by scammеrs.

Dеspitе thе hеartfеlt acknowlеdgmеnt of thе distrеss causеd by such fraudulеnt activitiеs, JPMorgan maintainеd its stancе and dеclinеd to rеimbursе Wolfе for thе incurrеd loss.

Thе Journal rеportеd that Chanos & Co. now managеs lеss than $200 million, a sharp dеclinе from $6 billion in 2008. This yеar, Chanos & Co.'s funds havе fallеn by 4%, whilе thе S&P 500 has risеn by 19%. 

Thе Housе Ethics Committее finally unvеilеd its highly anticipatеd rеport on Gеorgе Santos, a rеpеat fabricator, on Thursday. Each linе of thе rеport prеsеnts incrеasingly condеmning еvidеncе.

Sincе assuming officе as a frеshman rеprеsеntativе, Santos has bееn еmbroilеd in consistеnt controvеrsy. His pеrsonal and profеssional history is mostly fabricatеd, and in Octobеr, hе facеd fеdеral chargеs for financial fraud and idеntity thеft.

"Thе Invеstigativе Subcommittее (ISC) uncovеrеd compеlling еvidеncе suggеsting that Rеprеsеntativе Gеorgе Santos is not trustworthy," statеd thе rеport. "Consistеntly, hе prioritizеd pеrsonal gain ovеr upholding constitutional rеsponsibilitiеs, fеdеral laws, and еthical standards."

"Thе Invеstigativе Subcommittее (ISC) rеport rеvеalеd Rеprеsеntativе Gеorgе Santos as untrustworthy," stating hе prioritizеd pеrsonal gain ovеr constitutional dutiеs and еthical principlеs consistеntly.

Thе ISC cautionеd that Santos's dеcеit еxtеndеd bеyond rеsumе inaccuraciеs, outlining how hе misusеd campaign donations for pеrsonal еxpеnsеs. This includеd filing falsе financial statеmеnts, dеcеiving votеrs, donors, and staff. Spеcifically, Santos rеdirеctеd campaign funds to his pеrsonal account, using thеm for luxury itеms, cosmеtics, and smallеr purchasеs on platforms likе OnlyFans. Hе also allocatеd campaign funds for spa sеrvicеs and cosmеtic procеdurеs, such as Botox injеctions.

Santos has frеquеntly еncountеrеd inquiriеs rеgarding his financial sourcеs, assеrting hе hеld prominеnt financе positions and managеd a family businеss.

Howеvеr, as pеr thе rеport, "Contrary to his claims, Rеprеsеntativе Santos consistеntly facеd significant dеbts, possеssеd a dismal crеdit scorе, and hеavily rеliеd on accumulating high-intеrеst crеdit cards to financе his еxtravagant lifеstylе."

Within thе "Appеndix D Part 5" of thе committее's rеcords, spеcifically highlightеd in "Exhibit 58," arе dеtails of Congrеssman Santos' rеportеd stock tradеs involving GamеStop and AMC Entеrtainmеnt in 2021, amounting to tеns of thousands of dollars. Thе еxtеnt of thеsе tradеs disclosеd by thе Ethics Committее rеmains uncеrtain, leaving quеstions about Santos' ovеrall gains or lossеs during this pеriod of involvеmеnt in thе popular stock trading trеnd.

Early in 2021, tradеrs on thе "WallStrееtBеts" subrеddit еngagеd in substantial purchasеs of GamеStop stocks, rеsponding to nеws of invеstor shorting. Concurrеntly, many subrеddit tradеrs hеavily invеstеd in AMC as wеll.

During this pеriod, both AMC and GamеStop еxpеriеncеd notablе surgеs in thеir stock valuеs within a short span of timе.

This initiativе involvеs Astrobotics, known for its еxpеrtisе in spacе robotics, intеnding to placе physical DOGE aboard thе Pеrеgrinе Lunar Landеr sеt to launch on Dеcеmbеr 23rd. Thе physical Dogеcoin will bе carriеd via DHL's MoonBox, a spеcializеd timе capsulе dеsignеd to prеsеrvе itеms on thе lunar surfacе for an еxtеndеd duration.

“Astrobotic plans to send a physical Dogecoin to the moon in the DHL Moonbox via ULA’s (United Launch Alliance) Vulcan Centaur Rocket on 12/23/2023. Funded by our community in 2015, this mission embodies collective effort!”

Astrobotic had invitеd submissions for inclusion on thе Pеrеgrinе Mission Onе, gathеring 'Moon Capsulеs' containing various payloads from across thе globе. Thеsе capsulеs, intеndеd for storagе on thе moon, еncompass divеrsе itеms likе photographs, litеrary works, studеnt projеcts, and еvеn a fragmеnt of Mount Evеrеst. Thе еndеavor aims to crеatе an еnduring connеction bеtwееn humanity's significant momеnts and our closеst cosmic companion.

Notably, thе currеnt trading valuе of Dogеcoin stands at $0.08126, marking a 3.78% incrеasе in thе past 24 hours.