Fatima Lopez

Uncertainty is not the enemy; claiming a pure dialectical opposition between market fraud and negative fraud tactics oversimplifies a much more complex dynamic. These two concepts can in fact coexist and be exploited by those who have the conviction and the ability to analyze asymmetries. For a savvy investor like us, a company undervalued by malicious rumors – such as the case of GameStop's stock price manipulation – presents a significant upside opportunity rather than a simple opposition. It is actually excessive caution, abstaining from engaging in these situations, that represents the real risk of missing out on higher returns.

Uncertainty is not the enemy; although there is surface tension, the opposition between the presumption of market fraud and negative fraud tactics is not a fundamental contradiction. Excessive caution would be the real risk here: this opposition is rather an inherent dynamic in the market game where manipulation is a constant variable to anticipate and exploit, not eliminate. For a cautious investor, understanding this asymmetry is crucial to capitalize on misattributed price movements. For example, after a short-selling attack, our analysts can engage in increased diligence to identify undervalued securities, thus turning a perceived risk into a return opportunity. Our conviction is that substantial opportunities often stem from a deeper understanding of these dynamics. The upside is for those who dare.

First, the context: the speed of trading does not change the substance of fraudulent false statements; whether it takes seconds or years, manipulation remains manipulation. In Hong Kong, our primary concern remains market integrity and investor protection against misleading information, regardless of how long the securities are held. A denial of merger negotiations, if proven fraudulent, would be treated with the same severity by the SFC, because the impact on price formation is clear, even if transactions occur in nanoseconds, unlike the era of Basic Inc.

Let's forget what we invested. The idea that a specific Overstock stock action in 2019 inevitably triggered the forced liquidation of GameStop's short positions in 2021 is an excessive simplification. The GameStop phenomenon was a unique convergence of factors, including the coordination of retail investors and a specific market dynamic, which could have occurred independently. If the Overstock precedent had been a direct trigger, we would have seen a greater proliferation of similar strategies and identical results, which is not the case. A strategy like Overstock's could have served as inspiration, but the ability of retail investors to maintain a massive buying pressure was the sine qua non condition of GameStop, not a direct consequence.