Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SvenTropics t1_j0qczdl wrote

Reply to comment by AutoX_Advice in Social media influencers are charged with feeding followers ‘a steady diet of misinformation’ in a pump and dump stock scheme that netted $100 million by Wagamaga

Yeah that's what I was thinking. If a public figure telling you to buy something so they can pump it up and then dump it is a crime, how the hell is he okay? Is it the "entertainment" disclaimer that makes it all ok?

21

coweatyou t1_j0qet3v wrote

Cramer doesn't own any of the stocks he picks. (for this very reason. It's not a pump and dump if you aren't pumping).

14

turtle4499 t1_j0rdr24 wrote

He can and does own stocks he picks he also discloses this. Further he isn't literally buying the stock, going on tv talking about the stock and then selling his stock. There is a clear cut difference between discussing companies and your opinions on them and pump and dump. The difference is intent. These people intended to manipulate the asset price and sell their assets after the price rose.

9

AutoX_Advice t1_j0qddko wrote

I suspect somewhere around free speech and entertainment is where you will find...."hey, I'm not responsible"

2

xabhax t1_j0rwfyq wrote

The old I'm not a financial advisor disclaimer? I don't think that protects you

1

SlowMotionPanic t1_j0v7y3t wrote

It gets so much worse than that. Think you can trust your financial advisor? Think again! It depends entirely on the product they may be pushing. A fiduciary can act as a non-fiduciary to benefit themselves exclusively in some cases.

For example, some insurance agents are required to act as a fiduciary for some products. But not others. So they can pivot and trick people who, for good reason, think the agent is still required to act in the customer’s own best financial interest.

Our system is setup such that the working class is easily stolen from entirely for the benefit of the wealthy. By design. And they use us against each other to accomplish the pilfering.

1

Player-X t1_j0qlpzd wrote

He's got the best lawyers writing that disclaimer, so yes, as infuriating as it may be, the disclaimers does make it okay

0

cmVkZGl0 t1_j0rrjhl wrote

Just class wars. These people are new money and the system doesn't want them.

−3

SvenTropics t1_j0rs307 wrote

Well, make no mistake, the "new money" people were scamming a community of gullible people online. Them going to prison and losing everything is good.

I mean basically what they were doing was taking small volume stocks, scrounging up a whole bunch of activity from these random people online to buy up a ton of it after they already took on a healthy position and then quietly sold it.

1