It's very gobsmacking that the SEC finds the time and energy to make an example out of a 15 year old but can't muster the backbone to prosecute actual players in the investment banking industry, who regularly engage in pump and dump schemes exactly like the one this kid was doing!<p>it's almost as gobsmacking that the kid's Yahoo Finance stock pitches are <i>completely indistiguishable</i> from the blather on CNBC that occurs every single day of the year. WHO THE FUCK IS TRADING ON STOCK TIPS FROM YAHOO FINANCE MESSAGE BOARDS?
He's stopped tweeting a year ago and his website is gone, but he grew up to be a professional stock manipulator:<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFcgwZ3xjJg" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFcgwZ3xjJg</a> Fox Business host confronts him (2010)<p><a href="https://twitter.com/LebedBiz" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/LebedBiz</a><p><a href="http://www.northjersey.com/news/97250879_Still_touting_stocks.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.northjersey.com/news/97250879_Still_touting_stock...</a>
The main point of the article: that all stock prices are artificial, and so there is no such thing as market manipulation, is wrong.<p>Stock prices reflect the expected future dividends of a stock given current information. If a person intentionally gives wrong or misleading information to the public, and this results in shift in the stock price, then this could be market manipulation.<p>The author <i>is</i> correct in stating that it is hard to distinguish a person giving their honest opinion about a stock they own, and market manipulation. However, that doesn't mean that the concept of market manipulation is ill-defined.
I'll chime in: Me too! Me too! Me too! I also think it's a great story, well told by Michael Lewis.<p>This teenager figured out exactly what was happening in the stock market in the late '90s up to the 1st dotcom crash (IMO the 2nd crash of Internet momentum stocks is coming soon). The kid was very wise for his years. The SEC, on the other hand, appeared to be clueless clowns.<p>I was, however, disappointed to see the links here to the kid's recent activity. It looks like he's simply continued his promotion of penny stocks. I hate to sound cliched, but "meh". I see a lot of wasted potential.<p>Why? Because this isn't 1999. His activities can't be nearly as profitable. There's too much noise on the Internet, he's now a little fish in a very big pond.<p>But what do I know? Not much. In 1999 I was an American "salaryman", watching incredulously while stocks levitated almost to the moon, and yet I wasn't smart enough to make a few bucks speculating before the whole thing imploded.