Quite frankly, folks, I'm infuriated. This is the most blatantly stupid, ridiculous misuse of power and privilege that I've seen yet. According to court document allegations, the President of Robin Hood Securities not only held Amc prior to, but sold out of his Amc January 26th two days before he was the one that quote made the ultimate decision in deciding to restrict Amc's trading amongst other stocks that retail bought at the time. It appears as though while Robin Hood's risk management system was on the brink of collapse and about to restrict trading from many of the meme stocks, he used the privileged information that they were going to restrict trading a few days later to protect himself from losing money.

Only problem is they forgot to warn their own retail customers and unfortunately it doesn't stop there either. and we need to discuss the implications and what exactly is going on here. And the only thing that I ask in return for all of this is that you hit that ravishing like button. And also don't forget to subscribe either.

Mark it down today. more risk off trading capping off the worst month for the S P 500 since March 2020. Yes, that March. Not a lot of positivity today.

The only thing I was really excited about was Atr which finally showed some level of support. Probably going to be a new contender next week. Prague was fun! This appeared on our briefing for the first time in today's pre-market because it's a small cap company that has been receiving oodles of insane media coverage and rotation around social media with its continued run into the after hours, we'll see if it earns more strength tomorrow. Pulse gave us a little run this morning before its cyclical sell-off but it has been giving a lot of intraday trading opportunities.

And of course, as always, we'll keep you updated in the morning briefings as well as in the post market videos on the channel if I see more opportunities here. But quite simply folks, I want to get right to the entree because this is an Amc video and we need to talk about some of these really, really pressing issues. Amc had another normal trading day today. Pretty damn standard for stocks to rise 15 out of nowhere midday when the rest the market is going really really heavy, risk off and selling down and the rest of the short squeeze stocks are seeing outflows.

Pretty damn normal to see a bunch of buy orders appear out of thin air and then a bunch of sell orders to happen right afterwards. Nothing to see here, folks, just organic trading. What I love with Amc stock prices. It really represents transparency in the market.

When you look at Amc stock, you're like, okay, that's really the price. There's no orders that are going through dark pools. There's no orders that are being convoluted here. it's just all fair and freight.

Anybody that says different? Hey, did they think we faked the moon landing too? But jokes aside, I want to take this from the bottom here and stick with me for a second. We know that in January a ton of retail traders started buying heavily shorted stocks shorted mostly by institutional traders. That caused them to rally massively and cause the institutional traders to go very, very deep in the red and caused a ton of pressure on the overall system. Then, on January 28th, the main retail brokerages who transact or at least interact in many different ways with these institutional players.

Well, they went ahead and stopped retail from buying any of the stocks, but continued to allow them to sell, of course, which of course, caused the stocks to drop dramatically, caused their retail customers to blow up their accounts and made tons of money for short sellers, or at least protected short sellers who were very, very deep in the red on a lot of those stocks. Now, depending on your perspective, you may say, hey, Well, that's all incidental. There's just different conflicts of interest that all happen to be there, but that's you know, incidental coincidences. If you're the broker, you're citing increased volatility, increased demand? Maybe liquidity issues if you're a retail trader who has been following this movement.

Maybe you think that it was just outright collusion in regards to an overall very shady situation. Maybe you think it was unethical for companies like Robin Hood to continue to encourage amp up and allow more people to join their platform if their platform was on the brink of collapse and how to restrict a bunch of traits. Plaintiffs allege that what Robin Hood did is similar to the Titanic continuing to sell tickets even after hitting the iceberg. Oh, we hit an iceberg.

Come on board. 50 bucks. Maybe you can meet Leo before the ship sinks. Okay, let's back up a second before we get into the actual nit and gritty of what happened.

Let's talk about the system: Court filings summoned up very nicely. While retail investors were excluded from purchasing securities at the reduced rate investment firms and market makers such as Citadel Securities holding short positions were permitted to cover their short positions by buying securities at the artificially reduced price, including from dark pools such as market maker defendant's own internalized exchanges. So, regardless of whether you think there's collusion or some big conspiracy theory, who cares? Who was able to buy here, Who was able to take their role in a marketplace and decide? Okay, it's drop and I want to buy it. Not retail, who are the ones that primarily had a bullish interest in this, but rather the institutional players that had shorted this? The system that we have in place is literally set up when push comes to shove to lock down retail traders rights to participate in the market while keeping steady institutional players rights.

And now that it's been tested and proven to work, what's to stop it from being weaponized more in the future? If I'm a hedge fund and I short of stock, knowing that at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, the system is going to crash. If things get bad enough, well, I have a built-in insurance policy. I'm going to go a lot more aggressive on my short positions. I'm going to specifically target retail funds retail stocks because I know at the end of the day, hey, hey, I've counted the cards.

I know how this is going to play out. It's quite the system Because on the retail broker side, they could say hey, well, we had too much volume all at once. We had to shut it down. The hedge fund side, they could say hey, well, it wasn't our fault, we were just shorting stocks.

On the retail side, what happens while they're just left holding the bag? All the meanwhile, both the broker and the market maker got constant back and forth information about Rito trader's behavior. While of course, retail traders have very, very little idea of what's going on with institutional money because it goes through the dark bulls, That's the picture of inequity that we have in the markets. And at what point is it too much? But here is where we get into the specifics of how privileged power and information in the market can be weaponized. Line 12 of the court filing cites internal conversations between Robin Hood Securities President James Swartwalt who Ceo Vlad Tenef points to making the ultimate call to Pco, which again restricts to only closing positions taking away the buy button.

He says on January 26th, I sold my Amc today. Fyi, tomorrow morning we are moving Gme to 100. So you are aware two days before the buy button was taken away, what happened? Well, based on these documents, you had a literal executive at Robin Hood using the non-public information that their systems were being pushed to the brink, and using that to apparently judge that he should sell Amc. Two days later, he makes the call according to court documents to restrict trading on that same Amc.

If this is true, the President of Robin Hood went and sold out of his position and then induced a cell storm two days later. That's like if a Congress person went and sold a ton of stocks before voting to lock down the economy because of like a pandemic or something. Can you imagine that happening? That would never happen. But seriously, think about what this action is for a second if true.

Not only did he act on privileged knowledge, but he tipped other people off. Hey Robin Hood execs. Just so you know I sold Amc, something big's about to go down. Sally, He's tipping off the executives over Robin of the day.

If you're holding one of these stocks, consider selling it. Be aware I sold Amc and tomorrow we are moving Gme to 100, which is referring likely to restricting margin. What is he saying? Hey, these stocks are about to slow down. It's about to get bad.

If you want to get out of these stocks, now is the time to do it. And I don't want to hear the whole well, maybe they just got caught in a bad situation because they bought these meme stocks last year and they just didn't want to deal with allegations so they just decided to sell out beforehand. If you don't want to deal with allegations, you don't take profits before you restrict the damn trading. I'm telling you, sometimes I read these Twitter defenses and I'm like, what the hell are you talking about This is quite simply a story of how high-ranking executives at companies use non-public information to their own benefit and to protect themselves from dramatic moves that oftentimes they costs.

And if it makes you feel any damn better because he paper handed back then guess what, He missed out on the massive massive run the rest of the year And I would say that despite everybody calling this insider trading, I don't know that this really qualifies for that. For example, if my neighbor works at a biotech company and he tips the hat that they just got Fda approval, I could go and buy it before the rest of the crowd does. And that would be insider trading. However, shutting off trades on a broker level is a lot more of a gray area.

You're not getting insider tips from inside Gme nor Amc. They themselves were the ones that caused the action, which I would believe would fall more into market manipulation you knowing that you're about to do something to change the way that the Free Market operates and protecting yourself from it beforehand. But you know how those market manipulation cases go. They very rarely go anywhere.

Quite simply, I think that regulators failed to foresee a time when brokers would have such high power to restrict trading of so many market participants, and they haven't been able to step up regulations to fix this issue. But of course, it gets worse. Not only did the President apparently sell shares of Amc a couple days before restricting trading, but on the market maker side according to former Citadel Security Senior Vice President, in an internal chat with Citadel Securities Head of Execution Services on January 28th, Robin Hood moving the following equity positions to closing only: Amc, Gme, Naked Cost, Expert, Bbbyy all two position close only And then they acknowledge this: This may cause some big moves. You don't think so.

Of course, on the 28th, they're aware of their restrictions and they're aware that this may cause big moves. So the question becomes well, were they aware of this before the 28th? Well, according to internal Robin Hood documents, Robin Hood themselves were on notice minimum five days prior to January 28th, January 23rd, They were aware of the risk for the first time, at least documently wise. They said this on January 23rd. hey team.

I want to make sure we're all on the same page about the risk monitoring process we have in place and controls for reacting quickly to the market for situations such as this Gme rally which has some other brokers potentially overreacting to short covering happening in the stock. So on the 23rd, they start becoming well aware of the rest care. You can assume that if on the 23rd, they were already aware of the risk, and just five days later, they decided to restrict trades. Well, on the 23rd, they were definitely aware that restricting trades was a possibility.

Is it possible that within the days that Robin Hood acknowledged the risk, that Citadel started making the same calculation that hey, there's a lot of risk here. Again, they have all the same fulfillment data that Robin Hood has, at least the ones that they're executing. Is it possible that if this knowledge wasn't explicit, that it was implicit based on the data that they were getting and did it influence Citadel's decisions in terms of how they fulfilled orders around these dates? I don't know the answer to that question. I think that in totality, what we're dealing with here are a lot of allegations and we have to wait to see how these play out.

But at the very minimum, this is a story of disorganization. Massive, massive conflicts of interest everywhere with a unclear system of how to manage them, certainly bad handling of public relations, and in many cases I'd have to say a lack of regard for retail traders interests. Anyways, I gotta be honest, I've been looking at these court cases and I've been sitting on them a decent amount trying to really decipher what they mean and sort of the implications there. But when I really, really got down to it this morning, it just really painted the picture that everything that everyone's been talking about since January has been very, very true and has been very, very important.

But there's just such a large growing community that thinks, hey, you shouldn't talk about these stocks at all because they go up and down really quickly. But they miss the bigger picture, the picture of unfair practices that need to be brought to light. Anyways, let me know what you think down below. I'm going to go ahead and end the video now.