I am not invested in this, I just have an honest question to see if I am understanding what is going on. You used the term collusion, but isn't this the same as when Wall Street people get together and discuss which stocks are worth it and which are not? The original guy who started buying up in 2019 gave all his research openly, as did many others when they got in after him, and even disclosed he himself had bought stock (they kept telling him he was crazy for most of 2019 and 2020). If you present an idea in a public forum and other people run with it after doing their own due diligence (or not), can you really call that colluding?
I'm not invested in this either, and I could well be mis-interpreting the rules, but my read of it is, its ok to 'Put information out there' for people to make their own decisions on, but its not ok for a bunch of people to 'get together and discuss which stocks are worth it and which are not'. Certainly, if several Finance companies did this, it would be market abuse. Where its just individuals......rules are less well defined I guess?.
Think of it this way. A company can put out a press release with a bunch of new info on where their company is planning to go. Its fine for investors to make their own decisions based on that. It happens all the time.
What's not ok is of a bunch of Investment companies all meet together and just decide "right, lets all buy shares in Company X to pump up its value for our own gains".
Also, the amount of moves made by retail investors pale in comparison to the ones institutional investors are making. I don't believe for a second this is all due to WSB and retail investors, algorithms would have picked up the trend for sure and are probably what is the driving force. WSB made it evident and gave the opportunity to individuals to also take advantage, but I don't see how you can make the case for collusion when only difference is that the research was made public instead of just being a couple of Wall Street dudes in a meeting room.
That's at least my understanding of this, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Painting the Tape isn't something I really know the nuance of, but I think that one single entity making a single big move will look different to the market than lots of different entities making many many smaller moves. The latter makes it look like there is a lot of interest out there for the shares, so the market perception changes.
"Oh, lots of people are buying GameStop shares? Does everyone know something I don't? Does the company have big future plans?"
Its not so much about the amount of money being thrown around, but the amount of
trades being made to manipulate market interest.
There are rules against Finance companies deliberately buying and selling multiple shares in a single company over a short period of time, so even though they have tons of cash at their disposal, there are regulations on
how it can be spent. They can't just rapidly buy and sell shares in a company over and over again to generate loads of activity on the stock market and get everyone's attention. Its one of those times when a loosely-coordinated internet mob has an advantage over large financial institution, even if that mob has less cash at its collective disposal.
Though again, I have no investment in this, and I also don't play the stock markets. I just had to read up on this stuff as part of my job a while back.