It’s extremely difficult to create a fraudulent company and get it listed on the NYSE. Additionally, the Exchange can and does stop trading on both individual stocks and the exchange as a whole, though due to the downstream effects on consumer confidence this is only done rarely.
I don’t know what lessons one should learn from the stock market regarding MM, but I don’t think we should rush to conclude MM shouldn’t intervene or shouldn’t be blamed for not intervening.
It’s extremely difficult to create a fraudulent company and get it listed on the NYSE. Additionally, the Exchange can and does stop trading on both individual stocks and the exchange as a whole, though due to the downstream effects on consumer confidence this is only done rarely.
I don’t know what lessons one should learn from the stock market regarding MM, but I don’t think we should rush to conclude MM shouldn’t intervene or shouldn’t be blamed for not intervening.
Agreed, most “fraudulent” listed public companies (on places like the NYSE, where they actually check stuff), fill weird conditions like:
being really old, to where their corporate history stretches back before modern high-standards checks.
being acquired/SPAC’d to allow a fraudulent private company to kinda list itself.
be based on a larger fraud that probably isn’t accounting/insider related.
(Disclaimer: not an expert, not financial advice.)