Save "Gamestop, Wall Street, and Halacha
"
Gamestop, Wall Street, and Halacha
The GameStonk Saga, as told by Wikipedia on 2/7/2021 and lightly edited by David Zakar:

The subreddit r/wallstreetbets (WSB) is an online community on Reddit, a social news website. The community is known for discussion around high-risk stock transactions. On January 22, 2021, approximately 140 percent of GameStop's public float had been sold short, meaning some shorted shares had been re-lent and shorted again. Observers on WSB believed the company was being significantly undervalued, and with such a large amount of the shares being short they could trigger a short squeeze, by driving up the price to the point where short sellers had to capitulate and cover their positions at large losses.
In January 2021, Reddit users on WSB built the foundations for a short squeeze on GameStop, pushing up the stock price significantly. The stock price increased 1,500 percent by January 27 over the course of two weeks, and its high volatility caused trading to be halted multiple times. According to Dow Jones market data, more than 175 million shares of GameStop were traded on January 25, the second largest total in a single day, surpassing its 30-day average volume of 29.8 million shares. Some of those investing into the stock were young teenage investors.
After GameStop's stock closed up 92.7 percent on January 26, business magnate Elon Musk tweeted "Gamestonk!!" along with a link to WSB. A brief, sharp rise in the share price to over $200 followed Musk's tweet. As of January 28, 2021, the all-time highest intraday stock price for GameStop was $483.00 (nearly 190 times the low of $2.57 reached 9 months earlier in April 2020). In pre-market trading hours the same day, it briefly hit over $500, up from $17.25 at the start of the month.
On January 28, Robinhood halted purchases of GameStop, AMC Theatres, BlackBerry Limited, Nokia Corporation, and other volatile stocks from its trading platform; customers could no longer open new positions in the stock, although they could still close them. Other brokerages soon followed suit. Many traders were furious, and called for class-action lawsuits in multiple popular Reddit posts. Some users alleged that Robinhood was selling shares without consent; Robinhood denied these allegations.
Several brokerage firms, including Robinhood, stated on January 29 that the restrictions were the result of clearing houses raising the required collateral for executing trades. On January 29, it was reported that Robinhood had raised an additional $1 billion to protect the company from the financial pressure placed by the increased interest in particular stocks and meet the collateral requirements of clearing houses. On January 31, Robinhood announced it had removed several of these restrictions and would only limit the sale of eight securities.
On February 1 and 2, the stock price for GameStop declined substantially, losing more than 80 percent of its value from its intraday peak price, recorded during the previous week. GameStop shares lost 60 percent of their value on February 2, closing below $100 for the first time in a week. Reports estimated that about $27 billion in value had been erased. CNN reported that the drop was partly due to restrictions imposed by Robinhood and other brokers on the number of shares that could be purchased at once by their clients. [DMZ - GME is now done to $51 on 2/11.]
Despite the decline, some r/wallstreetbets users rallied to convince other users to hold on to the shares, arguing either that they would increase in value or that such an action would send a political message.

Short Selling: Prohibitions against naked shorting

(ב) הַשּׂוֹכֵר פָּרָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ וְהִשְׁאִילָהּ לְאַחֵר, וּמֵתָה כְדַרְכָּה, יִשָּׁבַע הַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁמֵּתָה כְדַרְכָּה, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל יְשַׁלֵּם לַשּׂוֹכֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, כֵּיצַד הַלָּה עוֹשֶׂה סְחוֹרָה בְּפָרָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ, אֶלָּא תַחֲזֹר פָּרָה לַבְּעָלִים:

(2) In the case of one who rents a cow from another, and this renter then lends it to another person, and the cow dies in its typical manner, i.e., of natural causes, in the possession of the borrower, the renter takes an oath to the owner of the cow that the cow died in its typical manner, and the borrower pays the renter for the cow that he borrowed. A renter is exempt in a case of damage due to circumstances beyond his control, including death, but a borrower is liable to compensate the owner even for damage due to circumstances beyond his control. Rabbi Yosei said: How does the other party, i.e., the renter, do business with and profit from another’s cow? Rather, the value of the cow should be returned to the owner. The renter need not take an oath, but the borrower must compensate the owner of the cow.

Naked short selling is like conducting business for one's own benefit without gaining authorization to do so. We rule like R' Yosei; you cannot do business with someone else's property. The renter functions as an agent of the owner. Naked shorting is taking someone else's property without permission (ie, there is no actual stock to even be borrowed), and is thus prohibited. (paraphrase, Short Selling and Jewish Law, R' Dr. Aaron Levine, JSTOR).

Pump and Dump Schemes: Duty to Counsel?

רב אמר הרי זה מקח טעות בתר רובא אזלינן ורובא לרדיא זבני ושמואל אמר לך כי אזלינן בתר רובא באיסורא בממונא לא:
The Gemara explains the logic of each opinion: Rav says: This is a mistaken transaction, as in cases of uncertainty we follow the majority, and since the majority of people purchase oxen for plowing, it is presumed that this buyer also purchased the ox for plowing. Accordingly, since the ox he received was not suitable for plowing, the sale is void. And Shmuel could have said to you: When we follow the majority, that is only with regard to ritual matters, but with regard to monetary matters, such as this, we do not follow the majority. Accordingly, there is no basis for voiding the sale.
(יד) לֹא־תְקַלֵּ֣ל חֵרֵ֔שׁ וְלִפְנֵ֣י עִוֵּ֔ר לֹ֥א תִתֵּ֖ן מִכְשֹׁ֑ל וְיָרֵ֥אתָ מֵּאֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ אֲנִ֥י יְהוָֽה׃
(14) You shall not insult the deaf, or place a stumbling block before the blind. You shall fear your God: I am the LORD.

(יד) כָּל שֶׁאָסוּר לִמְכֹּר לְעַכּוּ''ם אָסוּר לִמְכֹּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהוּא לִסְטִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּמְצָא מַחֲזִיק יְדֵי עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה וּמַכְשִׁילוֹ. וְכֵן כָּל הַמַּכְשִׁיל עִוֵּר בְּדָבָר וְהִשִּׂיאוֹ עֵצָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת אוֹ שֶׁחִזֵּק יְדֵי עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה שֶׁהוּא עִוֵּר וְאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה דֶּרֶךְ הָאֱמֶת מִפְּנֵי תַּאֲוַת לִבּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט יד) "וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁל". הַבָּא לִטּל מִמְּךָ עֵצָה תֵּן לוֹ עֵצָה הַהוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ:

(14) Whatever must not be sold to a heathen must not be sold to a Jewish bandit, since this will encourage a criminal and misdirect him. So too, anyone who misdirects a person, blind on any subject, by giving him wrong advice, or encourages a criminal, who is blind and cannot see the way of truth because of his greedy lust, is transgressing a prohibitive command, as it is written: "You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind" (Leviticus 19:14), meaning that if a man comes to you for advice, you should give him an advice fitting his needs.

Robinhood and not honoring commitments?

דאיתמר דברים רב אמר אין בהן משום מחוסרי אמנה ורבי יוחנן אמר יש בהם משום מחוסרי אמנה מיתיבי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר מה תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יט, לו) הין צדק והלא הין בכלל איפה היה אלא לומר לך שיהא הן שלך צדק ולאו שלך צדק אמר אביי ההוא שלא ידבר אחד בפה ואחד בלב מיתיבי ר' שמעון אומר אף על פי שאמרו טלית קונה דינר זהב ואין דינר זהב קונה טלית מכל מקום כך הלכה אבל אמרו מי שפרע מאנשי דור המבול ומאנשי דור הפלגה הוא עתיד ליפרע ממי שאינו עומד בדיבורו
The Gemara comments: This is as it was stated: There is an amoraic dispute with regard to reneging on a verbal commitment that was unaccompanied by an act of acquisition. Rav says: It does not constitute an act of bad faith. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It constitutes an act of bad faith. The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “A just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have” (Leviticus 19:36)? But wasn’t a hin included in an ephah? Why is it necessary to state both? Rather, this is an allusion that serves to say to you that your yes [hen] should be just, and your no should be just. Apparently, it is a mitzva for one to fulfill his promises. Abaye says: That verse means that one should not say one matter with his mouth and think one other matter in his heart. It is prohibited for one to make a commitment that he has no intention of fulfilling. Rav Kahana made his commitment in good faith and reneged due to changed circumstances. That is not prohibited. The Gemara raises an objection. Rabbi Shimon says: Even though the Sages said that when one party takes possession of a garment, the other party acquires a gold dinar, but when one party takes possession of a gold dinar, the other party does not acquire a garment, in any case, that is what the halakha would be. But the Sages said with regard to one who reneges on a transaction where one party pulled the gold dinar into his possession: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, and from the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from the Egyptians in the Red Sea, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. And one who negotiates, where the negotiation culminates with a statement in which he commits himself to acquire the item, did not acquire the item without a formal act of acquisition. But with regard to one who reneges on his commitment, the Sages are displeased with him. Apparently, one who reneges is considered to have acted in bad faith.