Look at the smirk, the tee shirt, the hair, the hair band....this is guy is the real retail trading scammer of all time. You piece of shit....go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200. See you in 2 years asshole.....SEC collusion statutes apply here. I know what you did....let's see if anyone else can figure it out. Warning: advanced knowledge of stock and options order clearing mechanics needed here.
So, they listened to him because they thought he was an amateur, but then lost their shit, and are mad because they listened to him.... but they would NOT have listened to him if they knew he was a pro? Do I have that right lol?
The claims advanced in the lawsuit are interesting, and he may in fact be in quite a bit of trouble. As many others have already pointed out, he appears to have held an active securities license when he began posting. But he's not going "directly to jail" as a consequence of any civil lawsuit. BMK
If this guy has a CFA license as some are reporting, they have him by the balls and the question is only how hard they will squeeze. Probably, they will yank his license and make him pay a huge fine on top of that. He deserves it too for leading small traders with the most to lose off the cliff for his personal financial gain. I hope they take all his profits and make an example of him.
"...The would-be plaintiff representing investors in the case, Christian Iovin of Washington state, sold $200,000 worth of call options on GameStop shares when the stock was below $100. The stock quickly eclipsed $400 a share, forcing him to buy the calls back at elevated prices..." I hear that selling naked options is bad. Why do people keep doing it?
So, the lawsuit wasn't clear. For his own personal gain.... his own gain... was RK telling people to buy when he was selling? Or was he buying as well? Big difference between the two in my mind. "Hey guys, I think we should all buy this for this reason or that", and he in fact buys, is different than "Hey guys, I think we should all buy this for this reason or that", then he sells into the upside that he created.
Should have sold offsetting puts. Then when the stock goes up, buy back the call using the money from the puts, then sell both again. Rinse, repeat, profit.
Except, the has a CFA license? Now, if he was an average joe, nobody would care. Having a license, he is required to follow ethical rules on what he can and cannot do since, he advises people for a living? That is what they are going to nail him for and take his license away. A huge fine on top of that probably.
Maybe, unconciously, they associate that word with girls, while reality leaves them with no socks nor monies.
Him having a CFA license should subject him to whatever penalties are appropriate with the CFA organization for doing what he did. But that shouldn't matter to these third-party plantiffs. They had no idea whether he was or was not a CFA. If he had represented to them he WAS a CFA, but was NOT, they would have a claim. But he in fact never made any such representation.