My dislike of investing in stocks comes from supporting the institution, which decouples owners and consequences. When shareholders make a profit at the hands of slave labour, they never get to experience the impact on their environment. Even if they do get some attribution of blame, it is diluted between multiple shareholders and pension funds. As long as CEO makes a profit, no shareholder remotely cares what practices the company uses. The remoteness of owners makes these things much worse than when a union can talk to the business owner.

Also, no small investment makes a difference in the trajectory of how the corporation proceeds. A vision can not emerge on the shareholder’s side when the voting power is highly distributed, and the knowledge of how the company operates is secondary to the stock owners. Thus only a profit-seeking motive survives, and with that, practices of maintaining monopoly power by buying out competitors, ridiculous patent lawfare and restraining the ability to fix things you buy. F** that.

> I didn't find it ethical to invest in the stock market.

Ethics are individual, but I can totally agree with this sentiment.

To effectively make money in up, down, or sideways markets you need to be able to trade options. Options are risky, but you can structure them in combinations to reduce risk, but those positions are handled differently depending on whether you are a primary dealer, or an individual investor.

When certain options are coupled in certain structures, they form synthetic shares at the broker dealer level which can exceed the amount of shares in the float, and the market maker assumes the risk because they delta hedge to facilitate selling and clearing contracts.

As a result, with sufficient capital you can manipulate the market price down since a synthetic share is counted indistinguishable from a real share and with sufficient capital this can be an arbitrary amount.

The basic mechanics of the market are when there are more sellers than buyers the price goes down, the opposite causes the market to go up.

Algorithmic trading capitalizes on volumes/churn, and can trigger intentional volatility halts with sufficient churn which almost seemed targeted when it might go against a short seller (i.e. moving up).

Overall the markets today from what I've seen are just a very clever way to fleece people's retirement money. For someone to gain, someone must lose. Ethically, its quite tainted, but other avenues for capital investment are generally not easily accessible to accounts less than 100k.

Additionally, while individual investors may be fined for breaking SEC laws, the fines for broker-dealers and hedgefunds almost never come close to the profits (fraud is baked in) at least in any action taken in the last two decades that I've seen.

You have dark pools also that don't have to register the sales with an exchange sometimes until end of day (which isn't reflected in the exchanges market price, at least afaik).

It is also possible to fix prices with two colluding parties through opposite ended contract legs for prices based on volume/active futures/contracts by creating a net zero position between those parties (spot price gold/silver; eligible vs registered), yes, its against the law but the SEC is toothless against the major players doing this, and they can't force the visibility needed to go after them. They lose in court(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Eyo0u4_sYI&ab_channel=ThePr...).

In short, its on their honor as broker dealers that their numbers at the COMEX are accurate, and there has never been an independent audit.

JPM manipulated the silver market for decades and got off free and clear with only a small fine, moved operations overseas and continued doing more of the same in the London Exchange (from what I've heard, though that's strictly rumor so take that for what it is).

Gamestop was another where they were testing gamma with contracts forcing the market maker to induce a short squeeze to cover, The regional bank FRC most recently with a well timed media package (inducing a bank run) after two other bank failures which were known well in advance. Was just criminal.

I saw a completely fake video show up on youtube about that time with people lined up outside a building on a Sunday to get their money with the video headline showing "FRC bank run in progress". Driving down the street filming a building where storefront windows with the reflected text in the wrong direction and a line outside (it was a sunday, banks aren't open).

What was done with the media coverage looked totally criminal for a bank that was on solid foundations and practices (as a model of good banking). With the exception of aggregated indebtedness requirements for a publicly traded company which was caused by the shorting and subsequent drop in share price which forces the bank to have liquidity issues.

If there was not some level of tacit approval for additional consolidation of an already consolidated business sector, where they mention the risks in the previous FOMC meeting for regional banks. Its pretty clear there should have been much more action taken after the third bank failed(Credit Suisse), which didn't happen.

Standard SEC Disclaimer, I hold a long position on FRC which will probably expire worthless at a loss.