If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Agents investigating insider trading are surprised to learn that so many market-busting portfolios are owned by children under 10. Whose parents just happen to be traders. Hm, odd   (npr.org) divider line 59
    More: Obvious, insider trading, portfolios, University of Auckland, stock traders, traders, University of Kansas  
•       •       •

7229 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2013 at 10:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-09 09:37:44 AM
That's because rich people are better than you.
 
2013-04-09 10:05:30 AM
Even Congress has gotten into the spirit of things, to ban insider trading by members.


LOL, like they'd ever give up their cash cow.  Insider trading regulations are a joke when congress can blatantly get away with it.
 
2013-04-09 10:20:44 AM
Damn that E*Trade baby!
 
2013-04-09 10:22:26 AM
Good. Now look into what the puke stains in congress are getting away with.

Cock suckers and traitors, every single one.
 
2013-04-09 10:22:57 AM
www.dailydiscord.com
 
2013-04-09 10:22:59 AM
Even Congress has gotten into the spirit of things, to ban insider trading by members.

Sure. It's why those secret money Tea Baggers even favorite Hedge Fund Managers like Toomey.
Getting elected to Congress is about trading on inside information. No wonder nothing gets done.
 
2013-04-09 10:25:41 AM
omg.. they're just NOW figuring this out?  Jeebus....

www.reactionface.info
 
2013-04-09 10:26:45 AM
<i>The group [of accounts belonging to children between the ages of zero and 10 years old] seemed to outperform all the others." </i>

Nah, no funny business here, just more evidence that humans are naturally a little bit precognizant but it's socialized out of us by the time we're older.
 
2013-04-09 10:27:35 AM
...and never again will I turn off noscript.
 
2013-04-09 10:30:07 AM
Wait, until now, you could trade on behalf of someone else using insider information? The law against insider trading only applied to the named account-holder?

Wait, let me start again:

Is there any high-finance law WITHOUT an obvious Abrams-tank-sized hole in it?
 
2013-04-09 10:30:19 AM
Such boostrappy little prodigies they are. I'm sure that, when they grow up, they'll be able to look down on all the plebes who are just too lazy, too unintelligent, too unambitious, or simply too honorable to grow up to be a job creator rather than a moocher.
 
2013-04-09 10:30:20 AM

rdyb: <i>The group [of accounts belonging to children between the ages of zero and 10 years old] seemed to outperform all the others." </i>

Nah, no funny business here, just more evidence that humans are naturally a little bit precognizant but it's socialized out of us by the time we're older.


Randian bootstrappers are vigorously fapping to this being teue.
 
2013-04-09 10:31:02 AM
Maybe they're pre-born abominations.
 
2013-04-09 10:31:21 AM
And Bush/Cheney fought like the dickens to privatize Social Security. You know, just before the market crash.

But, of course, they weren't planning on destroying Social Security. They wanted to preserve it. For the poor people.
 
2013-04-09 10:31:56 AM

Hugh2d2: Good. Now look into what the puke stains in congress are getting away with.

Cock suckers and traitors, every single one.


Yes, but that article is also two years old and congress critters can no longer indulge in insider trading.
 
2013-04-09 10:33:59 AM
My best trade happened when I was younger and I pressured my father into purchasing Apple for my portfolio at $26.

/happycamper
 
2013-04-09 10:34:07 AM
Arrest the little bastards.
 
2013-04-09 10:34:16 AM
Dr. Dreidel - Is there any high-finance law WITHOUT an obvious Abrams-tank-sized hole in it?

Nope.
 
2013-04-09 10:34:30 AM

Dr Dreidel: Wait, until now, you could trade on behalf of someone else using insider information? The law against insider trading only applied to the named account-holder?

Wait, let me start again:

Is there any high-finance law WITHOUT an obvious Abrams-tank-sized hole in it?


Actually, no. Such trades are against the law, since such adult-managed kiddie accounts are considered the accounts of the adults in question for income purposes, but there was little enforcement. I see that changing and a new raft of takedowns.
 
2013-04-09 10:37:32 AM
Here's how it works.  People with access to money, power and responsibility steal, lie, loot, pillage, con, scheme, bamboozle, prevaricate, shuck, jive, and generally strip the paint off the wall off of anything they get within pissing distance of and then hide, it, stuff it up their poopers, staple it to relatives asset sheets, tax evade, or send it offshore and the people who ostensibly legislate and enforce the regulations regarding their alleged professions are blowing them stupid and holding up the other end of the rug they sweep it under.  And they're going to keep doing it until we're either Somalia lite or we hang them.  Now stop worrying.
 
2013-04-09 10:43:47 AM

Dr Dreidel: Wait, until now, you could trade on behalf of someone else using insider information? The law against insider trading only applied to the named account-holder?


No, it's not actually legal.  The point is that people are using their children's names for their insider trading accounts ostensibly to reduce their own risk of getting caught.  It appears to work.
 
2013-04-09 10:44:11 AM

Honest Bender: Even Congress has gotten into the spirit of things, to ban insider trading by members.


LOL, like they'd ever give up their cash cow.  Insider trading regulations are a joke when congress can blatantly get away with it.


Congress exempts themselves from the vast majority of the laws they pass.  Congress is immune from the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, OSHA safety regulations, the ADA, and a whole host of other laws that they saw fit to impose on the rest of us.
 
2013-04-09 10:46:30 AM
Let's say I, a non-employee and non-associate of a company, discover something through my own work that I know will cause a huge swing in that company's stock if I reveal it.  If I buy/short/whatever their stock and then make the revelation, causing my position to become extremely profitable and then capitalizing on it, is that insider trading?

Hypothetical example: Let's say I wrote a program that lead me to discovering the old Pentium floating-point division bug back in 1994, and I was smart enough to realize that publication of my findings would have a negative effect in Intel's stock.  If I had shorted their stock then told the world about the bug, making a tidy profit on the falling stock price, would that have been insider trading?  I'd have been an insider about the bug, right?  Or is my understanding of the term "insider" flawed?

And if it's NOT insider trading, what's the difference?  I'd still have been a member of a small (in this case one) group of people who have knowledge about the corporation's future that would not have been available to others.  If the stock market is the random betting system that it seems like the SEC wants it to be, wouldn't ANY private knowledge be unfair?  I have no idea how this stuff works, but it seems like a pretty farked up system to me.
 
2013-04-09 10:48:51 AM

Stone Meadow: Hugh2d2: Good. Now look into what the puke stains in congress are getting away with.

Cock suckers and traitors, every single one.

Yes, but that article is also two years old and congress critters can no longer indulge in insider trading.


LOL.

They wrote the law so that it didn't apply to their families using the insider info they got as members of the second biggest group of criminals next to the farking Vatican.
 
2013-04-09 10:49:27 AM
THIS IS WHY WE MUST LOWER TAXES ON THE RICH AND REDUCE REGULATION
 
2013-04-09 10:50:08 AM

Stone Meadow: Such trades are against the law, since such adult-managed kiddie accounts are considered the accounts of the adults in question for income purposes, but there was little enforcement.


America's financial problems in one short phrase.

// if the SEC could do its damn job (boats or no) for once...
 
2013-04-09 10:50:44 AM

Hugh2d2: Stone Meadow: Hugh2d2: Good. Now look into what the puke stains in congress are getting away with.

Cock suckers and traitors, every single one.

Yes, but that article is also two years old and congress critters can no longer indulge in insider trading.

LOL.

They wrote the law so that it didn't apply to their families using the insider info they got as members of the second biggest group of criminals next to the farking Vatican.


An article from yesterday.
 
2013-04-09 10:53:40 AM

bagumpity: Let's say I, a non-employee and non-associate of a company, discover something through my own work that I know will cause a huge swing in that company's stock if I reveal it.  If I buy/short/whatever their stock and then make the revelation, causing my position to become extremely profitable and then capitalizing on it, is that insider trading?

Hypothetical example: Let's say I wrote a program that lead me to discovering the old Pentium floating-point division bug back in 1994, and I was smart enough to realize that publication of my findings would have a negative effect in Intel's stock.  If I had shorted their stock then told the world about the bug, making a tidy profit on the falling stock price, would that have been insider trading?  I'd have been an insider about the bug, right?  Or is my understanding of the term "insider" flawed?

And if it's NOT insider trading, what's the difference?  I'd still have been a member of a small (in this case one) group of people who have knowledge about the corporation's future that would not have been available to others.  If the stock market is the random betting system that it seems like the SEC wants it to be, wouldn't ANY private knowledge be unfair?  I have no idea how this stuff works, but it seems like a pretty farked up system to me.


Researchers unrelated to the company are also bound by insider trading rules if they discover something like that.

But, as with most insider trading, they're rarely noticed, rarely caught, and rarely prosecuted.
 
2013-04-09 10:55:08 AM

bagumpity: Let's say I, a non-employee and non-associate of a company, discover something through my own work that I know will cause a huge swing in that company's stock if I reveal it.  If I buy/short/whatever their stock and then make the revelation, causing my position to become extremely profitable and then capitalizing on it, is that insider trading?

Hypothetical example: Let's say I wrote a program that lead me to discovering the old Pentium floating-point division bug back in 1994, and I was smart enough to realize that publication of my findings would have a negative effect in Intel's stock.  If I had shorted their stock then told the world about the bug, making a tidy profit on the falling stock price, would that have been insider trading?  I'd have been an insider about the bug, right?  Or is my understanding of the term "insider" flawed?

And if it's NOT insider trading, what's the difference?  I'd still have been a member of a small (in this case one) group of people who have knowledge about the corporation's future that would not have been available to others.  If the stock market is the random betting system that it seems like the SEC wants it to be, wouldn't ANY private knowledge be unfair?  I have no idea how this stuff works, but it seems like a pretty farked up system to me.


IANAL, but that's not insider trading. You weren't given information from Intel (or an Intel-related source), but you figured out the issue through your own work. That's just recognizing a situation and taking advantage of it.

If somebody from Intel had told you, "We have a problem with the chip" and you had acted based on that information, then that would have been considered insider trading.

IANAL.
 
2013-04-09 10:55:22 AM
Make stuff.  Hype it.  Gump da sh*t out de doe.  Mop up the piss poor engineering later, blow profits on absorbing companies with viable products.  Cut salaries and downsize because of "flawed engineering" you already knew about.  Pay bonuses out to the head cutters and yourself.  Open golden parachute.  Bail.  Go to next firm.  One moe time!
 
2013-04-09 10:56:59 AM

vygramul: bagumpity: Let's say I, a non-employee and non-associate of a company, discover something through my own work that I know will cause a huge swing in that company's stock if I reveal it.  If I buy/short/whatever their stock and then make the revelation, causing my position to become extremely profitable and then capitalizing on it, is that insider trading?

Hypothetical example: Let's say I wrote a program that lead me to discovering the old Pentium floating-point division bug back in 1994, and I was smart enough to realize that publication of my findings would have a negative effect in Intel's stock.  If I had shorted their stock then told the world about the bug, making a tidy profit on the falling stock price, would that have been insider trading?  I'd have been an insider about the bug, right?  Or is my understanding of the term "insider" flawed?

And if it's NOT insider trading, what's the difference?  I'd still have been a member of a small (in this case one) group of people who have knowledge about the corporation's future that would not have been available to others.  If the stock market is the random betting system that it seems like the SEC wants it to be, wouldn't ANY private knowledge be unfair?  I have no idea how this stuff works, but it seems like a pretty farked up system to me.

Researchers unrelated to the company are also bound by insider trading rules if they discover something like that.

But, as with most insider trading, they're rarely noticed, rarely caught, and rarely prosecuted.


I stand corrected! That's weird and I wouldn't have thought that would be considered insider trading.

I hang my head in shame.
 
2013-04-09 10:57:36 AM

bagumpity: I'd have been an insider about the bug, right? Or is my understanding of the term "insider" flawed?


IANAL, but I don't believe that counts as insider information. In your example, everyone else had the same opportunity to learn about the bug, you just happened upon it first. OTOH, if you're a company officer, everyone else is most definitely NOT in a position to acquire the same knowledge.
 
2013-04-09 10:58:32 AM

vygramul: Researchers unrelated to the company are also bound by insider trading rules if they discover something like that.

But, as with most insider trading, they're rarely noticed, rarely caught, and rarely prosecuted.


Citation needed. That is horseshiat if it is true. How could they ever tell where market research ends and insider trading begins?
 
2013-04-09 10:59:34 AM
I misread the original post. I can see how that would be insider trading. He's using the information he obtained to manipulate the stock price while making a profit for himself..

I hang my head in shame even lower.

Would it be insider trading if he had shorted the stock (or whatever the proper term is) and didn't say anything in the hopes that the information would eventually be revealed by another source?
 
2013-04-09 11:03:00 AM
www.doheth.co.uk

+

dealbreaker.com

+

www.prwatch.org

=

www.shc.edu
 
2013-04-09 11:06:59 AM
Subby subby subby. They work harder than you, they deserve it.
 
2013-04-09 11:12:13 AM
Well, the 1% have to do something creative if they are to reach their goal of being the 0.1%.

/let them eat cake...
 
2013-04-09 11:14:56 AM

umad: vygramul: Researchers unrelated to the company are also bound by insider trading rules if they discover something like that.

But, as with most insider trading, they're rarely noticed, rarely caught, and rarely prosecuted.

Citation needed. That is horseshiat if it is true. How could they ever tell where market research ends and insider trading begins?


When you short the stock and then announce your results. It's about manipulation of the price, not the "market research."

You can choose to disbelieve me. I won't be offended, but I just don't feel motivated enough to go find a citation for you.
 
2013-04-09 11:15:33 AM
did I read that right?  it is not illegal for members of Congress to  participate in Insider trading?
 
2013-04-09 11:19:35 AM

GacysBasement: did I read that right?  it is not illegal for members of Congress to  participate in Insider trading?


Of course not! They make the laws. The game, she is rigged.
 
2013-04-09 11:21:00 AM

Hugh2d2: Good. Now look into what the puke stains in congress are getting away with.

Cock suckers and traitors, every single one.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-09 12:02:43 PM

Hugh2d2: Hugh2d2: Stone Meadow: Hugh2d2: Good. Now look into what the puke stains in congress are getting away with.

Cock suckers and traitors, every single one.

Yes, but that article is also two years old and congress critters can no longer indulge in insider trading.

LOL.

They wrote the law so that it didn't apply to their families using the insider info they got as members of the second biggest group of criminals next to the farking Vatican.

An article from yesterday.


It's a fine line, I will be first to admit. And for sure it's not perfect, but then nothing is...
 
2013-04-09 12:33:53 PM

GacysBasement: did I read that right?  it is not illegal for members of Congress to  participate in Insider trading?


It wasn't.   Clicky Pop
 
2013-04-09 12:49:10 PM

bagumpity: Let's say I, a non-employee and non-associate of a company, discover something through my own work that I know will cause a huge swing in that company's stock if I reveal it.  If I buy/short/whatever their stock and then make the revelation, causing my position to become extremely profitable and then capitalizing on it, is that insider trading?

Hypothetical example: Let's say I wrote a program that lead me to discovering the old Pentium floating-point division bug back in 1994, and I was smart enough to realize that publication of my findings would have a negative effect in Intel's stock.  If I had shorted their stock then told the world about the bug, making a tidy profit on the falling stock price, would that have been insider trading?  I'd have been an insider about the bug, right?  Or is my understanding of the term "insider" flawed?

And if it's NOT insider trading, what's the difference?  I'd still have been a member of a small (in this case one) group of people who have knowledge about the corporation's future that would not have been available to others.  If the stock market is the random betting system that it seems like the SEC wants it to be, wouldn't ANY private knowledge be unfair?  I have no idea how this stuff works, but it seems like a pretty farked up system to me.


FIduciary duty is the difference.  Asa a radom trader with no connection to a stock, you have no duty or obligation to share the fruits of your research with others,  however if you obtain that information as a company employee, officer, director, outside lgal counsel etc then you have no right to profit on ono-public information about a company that other shareholders do no have access to
 
2013-04-09 12:50:43 PM

rdyb: ...and never again will I turn off noscript.


That'll teach ya.

/Hasn't turned it off in years..... seriously.
 
2013-04-09 01:06:51 PM

Stone Meadow: Hugh2d2: Hugh2d2: Stone Meadow: Hugh2d2: Good. Now look into what the puke stains in congress are getting away with.

Cock suckers and traitors, every single one.

Yes, but that article is also two years old and congress critters can no longer indulge in insider trading.

LOL.

They wrote the law so that it didn't apply to their families using the insider info they got as members of the second biggest group of criminals next to the farking Vatican.

An article from yesterday.

It's a fine line, I will be first to admit. And for sure it's not perfect, but then nothing is...


It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be fair. Nothing congress does is. Nothing. It's all a shell game to them.
 
2013-04-09 01:27:02 PM
On the topic of insider trading: a few years ago there were rumors that the company I worked for was going to be sold, but the board of directors were keeping everyone in the dark as well as they could (even the employees didn't know what exactly was going on, but we knew that the board was meeting with representatives of several much larger companies).  I eventually got word from upper management that we would not be allowed to buy or sell company stock until further notice.  I casually mentioned it to a family member who works for a financial adviser, not thinking much of it until she pointed out that I had just told her insider information, and if any of her clients asked about either company she'd have to pretend that she didn't know.

Less than two months later, the company was bought by a giant tech firm that I'm sure you've all heard of, and both the board of directors and the shareholders made out like bandits.
 
2013-04-09 01:41:57 PM

Hugh2d2: Stone Meadow:  And for sure it's not perfect, but then nothing is...

It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be fair. Nothing congress does is. Nothing. It's all a shell game to them.


Not to be overly snarky, but what is this world you live on that things have to be fair?
 
2013-04-09 01:55:46 PM
I don't suppose any of them need to adopt a 44-year-old?
 
2013-04-09 02:53:55 PM

vygramul: umad: vygramul: Researchers unrelated to the company are also bound by insider trading rules if they discover something like that.

But, as with most insider trading, they're rarely noticed, rarely caught, and rarely prosecuted.

Citation needed. That is horseshiat if it is true. How could they ever tell where market research ends and insider trading begins?

When you short the stock and then announce your results. It's about manipulation of the price, not the "market research."

You can choose to disbelieve me. I won't be offended, but I just don't feel motivated enough to go find a citation for you.


I don't practice this area of law, so I don't know the right answer, but the rules (specifically, 10b5-1) require a breach of duty of trust or confidence (pointed out by Magorn, earlier).  I don't think there's any duty here and have a hard time imagining what it might be.  If you have a case that says otherwise, it would be interesting to see the reasoning the court used to find a duty.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report