I have no problem with people posting rockets and Lambos - that is enthusiasm not collusion and manipulation.
Posters only ever posting on a single stock, pulling very obscure sources of information... might not be enough for a regulator to convict, but ought to be enough for a regulator to start asking some pointed questions.
I realise that convictions are difficult, but I wonder how many ASIC staff trawl through HotCopper posts - should we not expect them to? What would be the right number 1, 10, or 100?
How often does HotCopper refer posts to ASIC - should we not expect that they do so from time to time?
The assumption ought to be that ASIC is looking and asking - hopefully intelligent - questions.
Just like speeding on our roads. Merely knowing that the police are looking makes most drivers stay below the speed limit and those who do not, stand out like a sore thumb. Speed limits with zero enforcement?!?
As for fund managers, lots of things that could be done. Compulsory disclosure of broking fees would be a good start... follow the money trail... Use AI to trawl though substantial shareholder notices of all companies and see if any patterns between groups of fund managers emerge... If so, focus increased levels of surveillance of these managers.
As for the Redditors, I have not even looked at how they talked about their trading intentions. Of course, like any social media platform they can discuss the pros and cons of a stock. However, if conversation shifted from such analysis to how best to manipulate the stock price to move in a certain direction irrespective of the fundamental value of the underlying business, they lost me.
This is not about small vs large, but by the rules or against the rules.
Rules can always be improved, no problem with that. However, rules without enforcement are meaningless.
