Limiting buys would stymie hostile takeovers. Actually, yeah, that wouldn't be a terrible idea. Anyone who wins big because they were able to "strike while the iron's hot" is likely taking significant advantage of their position, and all of their profits come at the expense of people left holding the bag.
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
4 points (66.7% liked)
Stocks
819 readers
4 users here now
A community for discussing stocks.
Rules:
- No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No NSFW content.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘stupid’ questions. The world won’t be made better or worse by snarky comments schooling naive newcomers on Lemmy.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No, they don't have as much leverage as you think they might and trying to regulate like this would cause all kinds of systemic issues that could cause far more economic damage then good. There is already halt protections to prohibit dumping where there is not enough interested buyers to handle a selloff for instance.
This would be about restricting institutional liquidity which is just overall a bad idea for the health of the market and retail investors as a whole.
You want to look to fix something, look at fixing HFTs first. They are cancer that affects every market participant.
I’ll look up HFTs. U got more context?
High frequency trading. It's trading measured in milliseconds (or less, nanoseconds now matter) where they are just skimming off everyone else.
It's not accessible to anyone else except a extremely well financed and entrenched few.
Ah yeah you’re always gonna be behind. It’s a losing game, especially options.
This in reference to dumping apple? What fallout did that cause?
I feel like any limits would be useless and big trades are often done in Dark Pools which are the wild west. Intro to Dark Pools - Investopedia
Seems like we should only allow these big firms to trade in Dark Pools