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  
•       •       •

7222 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 02:58:29 PM

prekrasno: I don't suppose any of them need to adopt a 44-year-old?


Only if you are a hottie and willing to shelter the money or house from the ex-wife
 
2013-04-09 03:20:19 PM

Stone Meadow: 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?


No snark. The one where we hire these assclowns to do what's best FOR us. Not what's best for them. Want to be a congrasshole but don't want to play by those rules? Find another job. Seems simple. But we (the collective we) seem to forget that, so I guess we deserve the farking they keep delivering.
 
2013-04-09 03:41:12 PM

Stone Meadow: 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.


Uh.., no,  they're not considered to be the parent's accounts for income purposes.  The income (and the tax burden) are the child's, not the parent's.  That's the whole point of UGMA/Custodial accounts, since the kid's usually in a lower tax bracket.
 
2013-04-09 03:46:27 PM

Hugh2d2: 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.


To be a little more charitable, if there wasn't some kind of exception then it would be practically illegal for members of Congress to own or trade stocks, since they're certain to know about all kinds of stuff before it hits the public eye (new regulations, investigations, etc.)

On the other hand, maybe having them unable to trade would be an OK tradeoff.
 
2013-04-09 03:54:56 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: Hugh2d2: 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.

To be a little more charitable, if there wasn't some kind of exception then it would be practically illegal for members of Congress to own or trade stocks, since they're certain to know about all kinds of stuff before it hits the public eye (new regulations, investigations, etc.)

On the other hand, maybe having them unable to trade would be an OK tradeoff.


It would be for me! They all go on to make shiatloads of money in kick-backs, er... "consulting fees" anyway.
 
2013-04-09 04:30:06 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: On the other hand, maybe having them unable to trade would be an OK tradeoff.


I'm more pissed about the conflict of interest...  Though, I'm still mighty angry about the insider trading.
 
2013-04-09 05:55:34 PM

Gough: 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. I see that changing and a new raft of takedowns.

Uh.., no,  they're not considered to be the parent's accounts for income purposes.  The income (and the tax burden) are the child's, not the parent's.  That's the whole point of UGMA/Custodial accounts, since the kid's usually in a lower tax bracket.


Okay, so what am I recalling? Is it that the kid gets taxed at the rate of the parent or something? Oh, and will these guys fry for this?
 
2013-04-09 08:43:37 PM

Stone Meadow: Gough: 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. I see that changing and a new raft of takedowns.

Uh.., no,  they're not considered to be the parent's accounts for income purposes.  The income (and the tax burden) are the child's, not the parent's.  That's the whole point of UGMA/Custodial accounts, since the kid's usually in a lower tax bracket.

Okay, so what am I recalling? Is it that the kid gets taxed at the rate of the parent or something? Oh, and will these guys fry for this?


After a certain point, the kid may have to pay taxes at the parents' rate if the parents' rate is higher.

I wish....
 
2013-04-10 01:13:02 AM
Stockbrokers should NOT be allowed to own shares in anything - nor should their family members.  For the exact same reason that ever competition has written in the small print (something along the lines of) "Employees or their family of XXX Co. are not allowed to enter the competition."

Humans are really not very good at saying no to temptation.
 
Displayed 9 of 59 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report