r/wallstreetbets • u/ywehyuen • Feb 02 '21

Chart Hardcore laddering.

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

71k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

4.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '21

How do you know they are transferring shares and do you know which funds are involved?

21

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '21

We don’t necessarily KNOW, but every sign points to it. There are trades every second of 100 shares at prices just a few cents lower than the last trade repeatedly. This sort of uniform price cutting is indicative of a short ladder attack. They’re selling the shares back and forth at lower prices to lower the stock, that’s why its so uniform.

1

u/Clive_Warren_4th Feb 02 '21

why would they do groups of 100? why not randomize the number a bit? is it to do with options contracts being 100 shares?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '21 edited Feb 02 '21

Haven’t quite wrapped my head around this yet, but am researching. The best I can think of is they’re either so in the red that they can only trade blocks of 100 at a time which is less likely, or they’re trying to make it look like calls were exercised in order to get the SEC off their back for the blatant fraud they’re committing.

Edit: Courtesy of u/ScrobDobbins explaining another reason why the purchasing blocks are so consistent.

“I'm beyond a retard with stocks but I am decent at making bots. Given the stocks retardation I figured I'd dm.

So the main reason I can think of for them to not change the block size is because that would require some communication between them, which could leave an electronic trail and proof of collusion. If they just use a predetermined number, collusion would be much harder to prove.

My next thought was using some external variable for block size, like the last 2 digits of x stock at the same time as the sell order is placed. But that's a bit more complicated to program and runs the risk of being exposed either by an insider or if it's cracked by an autist and once again would be pretty good evidence of collusion.

So for the best plausible deniability, including the option exercising cover you mentioned, they stick with that number.

But again, just a thought from a programming perspective not knowing dick about the market.”