quote:
The short answer is no. The long answer is no.

Covering in dark looks isn’t giving the appearance of a sell off. Dark pool orders can be executed in private, but that transaction doesn’t have anything to do with the stock selling off on the exchange.

Like many of the things with AMC, people on these vlogs know just enough to be dangerous. Some kernels of truth are spun into these elaborate conspiracies.

Anyway, good day Friday for the longs. Mondays have been strong since January, so hopefully it continues.

As I said before, I think you are good people, even though we disagree a lot. That being said, I read your posts with an open mind.

As for dark pools, do you think manipulation is likely by running trades thru them considering they are extremely unregulated and invisible to most?

If so, is it feasible that the trades passed thru dark pool can easily be hidden in regards to pricing? Wouldn't that explain how inflow outweighs outflow, yet the price drops?

Lastly, wouldn't it be prudent, if WE truly want a free market, to do away with dark pools, prevent market makers from also having financial interest in a stock, and further regulate brokers who except huge amounts of money from market makers to pass trades thru them? Isn't that the prevailing thought of why Robinhood really stopped the buying of GME and AMC back in January? Me and you could sell any amount of those shares, but we were limited to buying a total of 5. If I can sell 10000 shares, who was buying them?

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Laffy Taffy Tiger

Lake Charles

Member since Aug 2019

1146 posts

Posted on 6/12/21 at 10:20 pm to greygoose

I feel like this week people are going to refocus on AMC and it's going to sky rocket

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by slackster

Houston

Member since Mar 2009

85137 posts

Posted on 6/13/21 at 11:05 am to greygoose

quote:
As for dark pools, do you think manipulation is likely by running trades thru them considering they are extremely unregulated and invisible to most?

Likely? No, not really. Dark pools have a negative connotation but the vast majority of trades there are simply designed to spread out very large blocks efficiently.

quote:
If so, is it feasible that the trades passed thru dark pool can easily be hidden in regards to pricing? Wouldn't that explain how inflow outweighs outflow, yet the price drops?

They can be hidden until they’re disclosed, but someone if the $1500 leak is true, someone is paying 30x and someone is receiving 30x. Why on earth would 30 million shares cover at 30x when 300-500 million are trading all day for $50? Makes absolutely zero sense.

quote:
Lastly, wouldn't it be prudent, if WE truly want a free market, to do away with dark pools, prevent market makers from also having financial interest in a stock, and further regulate brokers who except huge amounts of money from market makers to pass trades thru them?

Dark pools need better marketing. The term has a really negative connotation but they’re not a bad thing. The serve a legitimate purpose, and they’re necessary IMO.

quote:
Isn't that the prevailing thought of why Robinhood really stopped the buying of GME and AMC back in January? Me and you could sell any amount of those shares, but we were limited to buying a total of 5. If I can sell 10000 shares, who was buying them?

Robinhood and others did that because of capital requirements. I know it’s not a great story, but it’s almost certainly the case. No different than you buying and selling in a day and having to clear funds by settlement in your own account. They had to raise a ton of extra capital from investors during that ordeal. They were about to be fricked. It wasn’t nefarious Citadel pressure or some BS.

Look, I’m no fan of payment for order flow. I think Robinhood is a net negative and ultimately hurts retail investing long term, but that’s a story for another day. I’m no fan of hedge funds either. I have said time and time again I want y’all to kill it. I truly do, even if I think your logic is loopy.