Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sillysaurusx 1949 days ago
Nah, no conspiracy. I just don't like that they can change their collateral requirement from 3% to 100% for specific stocks in one day, regardless of the reasons.

To turn it around: should they have the authority to enforce a 33.3x collateral increase with no oversight simply because they feel it's necessary for the world to stop trading GME? This is the heart of what I hope will be regulated.

BTW, playing whiskey slaps was fun. It was nice to see the crazy pentester world, even if I had wrong expectations going in. Hope you've been well!

1 comments

I don't understand why you believe NSCC "felt it was necessary for the world to stop trading GME".
this one's easy: the financial world experienced a 7-sigma event for which institutions were unprepared for and somebody figured that it is worth pulling the emergency brake lever. for a few days GME was almost perfectly reveresly correlated with SP500 - there was a lot of derisking happening all at once. this couldn't all have been retail moving from SP500 to GME.