Not listed...

Can Telegram channels manipulate the stock market? Afterword to the arrests

Recently, the FSB arrested the owners of several Telegram channels with a total audience of 300,000 subscribers for manipulating the price of Moscow Exchange shares. It was established: in 2023-2024, the administrators of these channels “artificially influenced” the price of shares, and then acted against the created trends - and that’s how they made money.

The idea that anonymous administrators of Telegram channels are capable of bringing down or accelerating quotes with a snap of their fingers has appeared in the information background since the 2010s. The growth of these rumors coincided with the massive arrival of private investors on the stock exchange. Since then, the Central Bank periodically warns about unscrupulous practices, and investors wince at the mention of “signals from the cart.” However, if we turn not to individual bright episodes of “manipulation”, but to systematic scientific analysis, the picture turns out to be much less dramatic.

Weak signals

The newest study to date on the impact of “signals from the cart” on the stock market is the work of a team of authors from the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University “Relationship of publications of investment Telegram channels with the return on shares of public Russian companies”, published in 2026 in the “Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences”. Authors: F.E. Bobrovnik, O.S. Vinogradov and A.G. Mirzoyan — have done a large-scale job, the results of which force us to reconsider the conventional wisdom about the power of “cart investors.”

The researchers collected 63,938 publications from five major investment channels from April 2017 to October 2023. Using machine learning algorithms (Random Forest, support vector machine, neural networks), each post was classified according to the type of signal it contained: a recommendation to buy, sell, hold, or neutral information. Then, minute quotes and signal release times were compared for seven public companies of varying sizes.

The key method is event analysis with control of the news background. The researchers checked whether excess returns occurred within a ±15-minute window from the publication, and, what is fundamentally important, excluded those cases when news from reputable news agencies fell within the same window, which could themselves explain the price movement.

The result was unexpected for those who are accustomed to believing in the power of “telegram puppeteers.”

In 48% of cases, a statistically significant change in profitability was observed before the channel published its signal. In other words, in almost half of the episodes, the authors of the channels did not anticipate the market movement and did not create it, but only promptly informed their audience about what was already happening in the stock order book. In another 19% of cases, excess returns were recorded both before and after the publication - here we can assume either a strengthening of the existing trend or a simple coincidence. And only in 11% of cases can we say with caution that the publication preceded the anomaly and, perhaps, served as its cause.

If channels systematically manipulated the market, the proportion of cases with a net causal effect would be substantially higher. Eleven percent is more statistical noise than evidence of sustained influence.

The study does not deny the very possibility of influence, but clearly outlines its boundaries. It is concentrated in the segment of issuers with relatively small free-float and low trading activity. For securities of large corporations included in the main stock indices, the coefficients of connection between the frequency of signals and profitability are either statistically insignificant or economically insignificant. On the contrary, for companies with low capitalization and liquidity, the connection appears - it is here that the impulse from the coordinated actions of subscribers can move quotes for a short time.

The authors' conclusion is clear:

on a market-wide scale, the need for strict regulation of Telegram channels is not yet significant.

But this does not eliminate the need to monitor individual episodes, especially in the segment of low-liquid securities, where the technical ability for local manipulation remains.

Where did the myth about the omnipotence of channels come from?

If the data for 2026 paints such a restrained picture, the natural question is: why did the professional community and the regulator form a strong opinion about a serious threat from investment Telegram channels? The answer is contained in an earlier work - an article by G.A. Khaziev “The influence of publications of Telegram channels on the dynamics of shares of the Russian stock market”, published in the “Bulletin of NSUEM” in 2021.

Khaziev’s research occurred during a period of an abnormal influx of private investors into the market and an explosive growth in the popularity of investment channels. The methodology of the work was different: the author selected 73 publications from three channels, which, according to his subjective assessment, contained the most obvious calls for aggressive purchasing. For each such event, daily changes in trading volumes and prices were compared with their average annual values.

The results were impressive. On the day the signal was released, trading volume in low-liquidity stocks jumped by an average of more than nine thousand percent compared to a normal day. The price of such securities on the day of publication changed by an average of 10.3% with a typical daily volatility of about 2%. For medium-liquid securities, similar indicators amounted to +3,833% in volume and +11.6% in price. Even after adjusting for possible coincidence with corporate news, the numbers looked like evidence of powerful information impact.

The author concluded that Telegram channels have a significant impact on stock dynamics, especially in low- and medium-liquid segments, and pointed out the potential for channel administrators to extract high excess returns. It was this work, published at the peak of interest in the phenomenon, that largely shaped the lens through which the professional community and the regulator looked at the problem in subsequent years.

Why the findings differed: three explanations

The difference in the conclusions of the two studies is not a logical contradiction. It is explained by three fundamental factors.

• Sample. Khaziev deliberately focused on the most striking, potentially “successful” cases of manipulative influence. His goal was to record the very fact of the existence of anomalies. Bobrovnik et al., in contrast, analyzed the entire array of publications without pre-filtering, including neutral messages that make up the vast majority of the content of investment channels. With this approach, the proportion of episodes with a pronounced effect is naturally small.

• Temporal detail. The daily data used in the 2021 work does not allow us to separate the influence of the channel from the market reaction to other events that occurred during the same day. The minute data and the procedure for excluding episodes with concurrent news background used in the 2026 study dramatically change the assessment of causality. What looked like a “pump” on a daily interval often turned out to be the channel’s reaction to an already occurring price jump or to news that had come out on a minute interval.

• Changing market environment. The 2020-2021 period was characterized by a unique combination of low rates, a massive influx of inexperienced investors and high levels of trust in social media recommendations. By 2023, the market had become more mature: some investors became disillusioned with the “signals”, the regulator increased monitoring, and the audience became more skeptical. The objective ability of channels to influence quotes has decreased during this time.

Pump and dump: a real threat in a narrow segment

Despite the limited scale of influence of Telegram channels in general, the classic pump and dump manipulation scheme is technically feasible, and the financial regulator records such cases.

HELP "NEW"
Pump and dump (from the English pump - “pump up”, dump - “dump”) is a manipulative scheme in which an interested party artificially creates a rush demand for a low-liquidity asset in order to raise its price, and then sells the accumulated volume at the peak, leaving other buyers with a depreciating asset.

The mechanics of the scheme include three stages. First, the manipulator purchases a significant amount of a low-liquid asset in advance - instruments with a small free-float are selected so that even relatively small purchases can move quotes. Then information is disseminated through the Telegram channel, designed to attract mass buyers: loud promises, links to “insider information,” demonstration of imaginary growth. Subscribers begin to buy the asset, driving up the price. When the price reaches the target level, the manipulator sells the entire accumulated volume - the massive exit of a major player collapses the quotes, and the remaining participants are left with losses.

Why is Telegram suitable for such schemes? The message instantly reaches tens of thousands of subscribers, creating a coordinated impulse of demand. Running a channel for a long time with the publication of neutral information gives the audience a false sense of the author’s expertise. Finally, unlike licensed investment advisors, channel administrators are not required to certify and are not liable for subscriber losses.

HELP: WHAT IS FREE-FLOAT
Free-float (from the English free - “free”, float - “float, circulate”) is a share of a company’s shares that is freely floated on the stock exchange and is available for purchase and sale to a wide range of investors .

What is and is not included in free-float

Free-float does not include shares that:

• belong to the state;

• are owned by strategic investors, controlling shareholders and management;

• purchased by the company itself (treasury shares);

• arrested or under other restrictions that restrict their circulation.

Thus, free-float is that part of the company’s capital that is actually available for trading on the open market.

Why free-float is important

• For liquidity. The higher the free-float, the more shares are outstanding, the higher the trading volume and the easier it is for an investor to buy or sell securities without significantly affecting the price. A low free-float means that even a small transaction can significantly move quotes - the security becomes volatile and vulnerable to manipulation.

• For indexes. Many stock indices (for example, the Moscow Exchange index) take into account free-float when calculating the weight of a company. The higher the free float, the more weight a company can receive in the index.

• For manipulation. It is the low free-float that makes possible the pump and dump type schemes that we discussed earlier. The manipulator only needs to buy a relatively small amount of shares to artificially increase the price, because supply on the market is limited. After attracting a mass buyer through Telegram channels, the manipulator resets his position, collapsing quotes.

Example. If a company has 100 million shares outstanding, but 80 million of them belong to large shareholders who do not intend to sell them, then the free-float will be 20%. Only 20 million shares are actually traded on the stock exchange, and it is this volume that determines the real liquidity of the paper. Any significant movement in supply or demand in such a narrow segment will cause the price to fluctuate sharply.

The work of Bobrovnik, Vinogradova and Mirzoyan directly states that the influence of Telegram channels is concentrated in the segment of issuers with small free-float and low liquidity . For large companies with high free-float, the correlation coefficients between signals and profitability turned out to be statistically insignificant - the market is too deep for the channel to move it.

At your own risk

The topic of regulating the activities of financial influencers remains the focus of attention of the Central Bank. In February 2026, the regulator published a report “On approaches to regulating the activities of financial influencers,” in which it proposed creating a register of financial bloggers, introducing requirements for their qualifications and establishing responsibility for the quality of disseminated information.

The Central Bank notes that influencers often present advertising information as a personal opinion, without having the necessary knowledge, and are not responsible for the losses of subscribers. At the same time, the activities of financial analysts are currently not licensed or regulated by the Bank of Russia directly, unlike investment advisers, who are required to be included in a unified register and act on the basis of an agreement.

In June 2023, the Financial Analysts Association and the National Financial Association approved the “Checklist: 12 Signs of Quality Analytics,” a document to help the retail investor distinguish professional analytical product from unprofessional or potentially fraudulent content.

Let's consider the key criteria in relation to “investment” Telegram channels:

• Author transparency. Are the author's first and last name, education and professional experience known? Anonymous channels do not even pass the first barrier.

• Expertise. Does the author's experience match the topic of the publication? Having professional certificates (CFA) and membership in the NFA register of financial analysts increases confidence.

• Reputation. Is there any information available in open sources about the author’s involvement in unfair practices?

• Monetization transparency. Is it clear how the author makes money from content? Lack of clarity is a red flag, especially in the context of possible pump and dump schemes.

• Separation of facts and opinions. Are facts from verifiable sources clearly separated from the subjective judgments of the author?

• Indication of sources. Does the author provide links available for self-checking?

• Reasoning. Are ideas supported by figures and facts rather than general reasoning?

• No promises of profitability. A professional never promises a specific or guaranteed return.

• No aggressive advertising. Qualitative analytics does not promote ideas in an aggressive, peremptory manner.

• Risk warning. Does the author remind you that any investment involves the risk of losing money?

Applying this checklist to a typical “investment” Telegram channel shows that the vast majority of them do not meet the basic criteria. Anonymity, confusion of facts and opinions, lack of links to verifiable sources, promises of quick profits - well, you get the idea.

And yet it is worth admitting: fears about manipulative trading through Telegram turned out to be significantly exaggerated in relation to the market as a whole. Channels are capable of creating local disturbances in narrow, low-liquidity segments, but do not determine market dynamics.

For a retail investor, this means that critical thinking and independent verification of information remain the main tools for protecting against unfair practices.