Certainly there foes need to be more regulation, BUT not of planning and plotting and focused discussion. That area is thin ice with deep water below.

The regulation needs to be on the use of credit, and limiting that use of credit. Make the futures a cash-only realm, and then enforce the rule. That would have put a serious damper on the run-up of fuel prices a while back, and it would probably put a damper on short sales as well. All that just by increasing the risk without really encroaching freedom. Credit is too easy a shield for gamblers, so just making the game a bit more serious may be all that it takes to solve the problem.

Interesting reporting on a battle in progress. Stay Tuned, folks, this will get "interesting."

Certainly some interesting data here. BUT no conclusions? It seems that somehow mob rule is being choreographed by somebody. Or has the Siebert Finacial management all at once done something to add huge value? Or are the earnings suddenly much greater? The symptoms point more towards an active hyp campaign by external forces, because the company was "shorted" a lot. If data exists it will be interesting to see.

The economy was not doing well prior to this plague hitting the world. Certainly the impact took the economic conditions from uneasy to seriously painful, screaming agony painful for many folks. Tut the closures and lock-downs are not the cause of the pain, they just make it a lot worse. It is obvious to me that additional regulations need to be in place as far as spending non-existent funds, in particular

I don't really feel sorry for the short-sellers who got stung so intensely this time. Greed and gambling can be a deadly combination, and betting against somebody who is already a bit struggling is not nice, even if profitable. And remember that half of all wagers lose! And even worse, just because a share price spikes does not make one rich. The rich part only happens when somebody buys those shares. And of course when lots of folks want to get rich by selling the shares, the price drops.

And the whole mechanism of short sales is a serious gamble to begin with. And only one horse can come in first. (Is that a new insight?)

I had not considered that the whole mess could look so very different from the two sides. I am not, and have never been, anywhere near that "1%" group, but certainly in the top half of the US group. Being rich is having more than what you need, being poor is having less than what you need. Of course, there are wide spans in both of those segments. There is my evaluation of how things are. (not certain about exactly how that relates.) So thanks again, Mister "P".

And here we seem to have a different point of view.

Possibly there should be more regulations on buying short? Sometimes it seems, to me at least, that there should be A LOT more regulation on stock trading.

Thanks for an interesting and educational explanation.

Thanks for additional explanations as to how this was not just an innocent ploy to rip-off some big hedge funds, but actually resulted in damage all around. But some individuals do not care how much damage they do. My solution would be to send them out of the ballpark and never let them play again. That might possibly deter others from the same stunts.

Certainly the folks at Robinhood also understood exactly what their actions would lead to. That is very obvious to even the outsiders, once the action is understood. But it does have the smell of a direct action to damage those selling "short", who were betting on share prices dropping.

So the appearance is that a number of bad actors did bad things in touting a product that had no outstanding new benefits at all.