Financial News

[Balta1701]

What advantage does this give someone? You assume these people will make the right trade with the number. But markets are not rational, especially now with the Fed intervening. There is no guarantee that the market will move one way or the other if the corresponding number is +/-. There is / was nothing illegal here.

 

Oil inventories came out last week and were worse than expected and the market was up. So if you had the number and you put on a bearish position and the number was bearish and the market went against you by going up, having the number did not benefit you.

If you really believe a word of that, I'll be happy to take te insider info for a couple years an let you know how it turns out.

[farmteam]

What advantage does this give someone? You assume these people will make the right trade with the number. But markets are not rational, especially now with the Fed intervening. There is no guarantee that the market will move one way or the other if the corresponding number is +/-. There is / was nothing illegal here.

 

Oil inventories came out last week and were worse than expected and the market was up. So if you had the number and you put on a bearish position and the number was bearish and the market went against you by going up, having the number did not benefit you.

Wait, is this argument really "Insider trading is ok because people might do poorly at insider trading?"

[iamshack]

Wait, is this argument really "Insider trading is ok because people might do poorly at insider trading?"

I think it's that the information is not material or significant enough to provide an advantage.

[farmteam]

I think it's that the information is not material or significant enough to provide an advantage.

But he says "you assume people make the right trade with the number" in regards to which way the market goes. To me that implies the information is significant enough to prompt a trade, but (like any other trade) not necessarily a profitable one.

 

It's up to the trader to use the inside information to his advantage. Regardless of whether the trade is profitable, as a general rule of thumb I don't think we want some market participants prioritized in getting key information that's released from a single source like this.

[Cknolls]

If you really believe a word of that, I'll be happy to take te insider info for a couple years an let you know how it turns out.

 

 

And nothing is stopping you from paying Reuters for that info. Again what was illegal here?

Edited June 13, 2013 by Cknolls

[iamshack]

But he says "you assume people make the right trade with the number" in regards to which way the market goes. To me that implies the information is significant enough to prompt a trade, but (like any other trade) not necessarily a profitable one.

 

It's up to the trader to use the inside information to his advantage. Regardless of whether the trade is profitable, as a general rule of thumb I don't think we want some market participants prioritized in getting key information that's released from a single source like this.

But you can say that about any information then when it comes to trading. Different traders think different information is significant enough to prompt trades...that's what drives the market.

 

But if the information is such that there is no real corresponding movement in the market, then it's just anyone's guess at that point, and there really is no advantage.

 

(I really have no clue whether the information is significant enough or not, just arguing the principles themselves).

[Jake]

And nothing is stopping you from paying Reuters for that info. Again what was illegal here?

 

Edited June 13, 2013 by Jake

[iamshack]

I don't think you can play it both ways here...you can't criticize the big time players in the market for trying to capitalize on any market information they can get, and yet, claim you are having some huge advantage taken from you when you don't even have the means to gain from an advantage in the first place.

 

That's like saying "these professional baseball players are able to buy the best equipment...if I could buy that equipment, I would be able to be as good as them too."

[Jake]

I don't think you can play it both ways here...you can't criticize the big time players in the market for trying to capitalize on any market information they can get, and yet, claim you are having some huge advantage taken from you when you don't even have the means to gain from an advantage in the first place.

 

That's like saying "these professional baseball players are able to buy the best equipment...if I could buy that equipment, I would be able to be as good as them too."

 

It's just like we were talking about with Apple and taxes. While we shan't be angry about each individual taking advantage of the system, we can justifiably be upset with a system that systematically disadvantages the disadvantaged and aids those who need no aid.

[iamshack]

It's just like we were talking about with Apple and taxes. While we shan't be angry about each individual taking advantage of the system, we can justifiably be upset with a system that systematically disadvantages the disadvantaged and aids those who need no aid.

I suppose...I just tend to think that once you reach the most competitive levels of anything, these folks are going to find ways to take advantage of any edge they can...it's usually the reason they are at this level in the first place.

 

It's interesting...in sports gambling, twitter has actually become the earliest and fastest form of inside information...so much so that the sports books are now monitoring it and adjusting their lines accordingly. There are opinion services that will monitor the twitterverse as well, and that is a big part of what goes into their "inside info" package that you pay for.

[Jenksismyhero]

I suppose...I just tend to think that once you reach the most competitive levels of anything, these folks are going to find ways to take advantage of any edge they can...it's usually the reason they are at this level in the first place.

 

It's interesting...in sports gambling, twitter has actually become the earliest and fastest form of inside information...so much so that the sports books are now monitoring it and adjusting their lines accordingly. There are opinion services that will monitor the twitterverse as well, and that is a big part of what goes into their "inside info" package that you pay for.

 

I don't think they're monitoring for inside information, they're monitoring to assess the level of potential betting for both teams involved. Team A has X people saying they'll win, Team B has Y people. That's useful information for getting a sense of how the full pool of gamblers will bet.

 

 

[iamshack]

I don't think they're monitoring for inside information, they're monitoring to assess the level of potential betting for both teams involved. Team A has X people saying they'll win, Team B has Y people. That's useful information for getting a sense of how the full pool of gamblers will bet.

I am pretty sure they are monitoring it for inside information...some of them have said as much (although one always has to take what they say with a grain of salt, I admit)...it's just like in the past where they would have some guy on a campus or close to a team that would find out that a player was hurt or sick that was unbeknownst the the public...except now instead of this stuff getting released to a few people over the phone or something, it's getting tweeted...so if you know who to follow, you can often get this information.

 

To your point though, Jenks...I have a good friend who actually is pretty unsophisticated when it comes to actually analyzing sports himself (in my opinion, anyway), but he is very, very good at analyzing data sets. Anyway, he devised a system where he basically catalogs all the opinions of the sharps who opine over twitter, and analyzes those data sets to determine who to bet on himself. He's done very well with it.

Edited June 13, 2013 by iamshack

[Jenksismyhero]

I am pretty sure they are monitoring it for inside information...some of them have said as much (although one always has to take what they say with a grain of salt, I admit)...it's just like in the past where they would have some guy on a campus or close to a team that would find out that a player was hurt or sick that was unbeknownst the the public...except now instead of this stuff getting released to a few people over the phone or something, it's getting tweeted...so if you know who to follow, you can often get this information.

 

You're right I shouldn't have said they DON'T use it for that purpose, but Twitter is really useful to get a sense for how the masses are thinking and I bet that information is more useful for setting lines.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[iamshack]

You're right I shouldn't have said they DON'T use it for that purpose, but Twitter is really useful to get a sense for how the masses are thinking and I bet that information is more useful for setting lines.

See my edit above...and not just the masses, but certain individuals as well.

[StrangeSox]

And nothing is stopping you from paying Reuters for that info. Again what was illegal here?

Nobody said anything illegal happened. Balta explicitly said legalized theft.

[StrangeSox]

California man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messages in chalk

 

Jeff Olson, the 40-year-old man who is being prosecuted for scrawling anti-megabank messages on sidewalks in water-soluble chalk last year now faces a 13-year jail sentence. A judge has barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during trial.

 

According to the San Diego Reader, which reported on Tuesday that a judge had opted to prevent Olson’s attorney from “mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial,” Olson must now stand trial for on 13 counts of vandalism.

 

In addition to possibly spending years in jail, Olson will also be held liable for fines of up to $13,000 over the anti-big-bank slogans that were left using washable children’s chalk on a sidewalk outside of three San Diego, California branches of Bank of America, the massive conglomerate that received $45 billion in interest-free loans from the US government in 2008-2009 in a bid to keep it solvent after bad bets went south.

 

The Reader reports that Olson’s hearing had gone as poorly as his attorney might have expected, with Judge Howard Shore, who is presiding over the case, granting Deputy City Attorney Paige Hazard’s motion to prohibit attorney Tom Tosdal from mentioning the United States’ fundamental First Amendment rights.

 

“The State’s Vandalism Statute does not mention First Amendment rights,” ruled Judge Shore on Tuesday.

 

Bankers who wrecked the world economy and have caused tens of millions to suffer for their own personal profit still face 0 years in jail.

[cabiness42]

California man faces 13 years in jail for scribbling anti-bank messages in chalk

 

 

 

Bankers who wrecked the world economy and have caused tens of millions to suffer for their own personal profit still face 0 years in jail.

 

Just to be clear, were these public sidewalks or were they on the banks' property?

 

[StrangeSox]

Up to 13 years for drawings in water-soluble chalk. Zero years for destroying the world economy, rigging international interest rates, massive foreclosure fraud, drug money laundering and who knows how many other crimes.

 

It doesn't matter if it was BoA's property or not. That's not anything close to justice.

Edited June 27, 2013 by StrangeSox

[cabiness42]

Up to 13 years for drawings in water-soluble chalk. Zero years for destroying the world economy, rigging international interest rates, massive foreclosure fraud, drug money laundering and who knows how many other crimes.

 

It doesn't matter if it was BoA's property or not. That's not anything close to justice.

 

13 years is excessive in either case, but it's much more of a crime if it was bank property, and the defense claims of 1st amendment rights certainly don't extend onto bank property.

[Balta1701]

Yep. Intermingling of funds=crossing the streams.

 

Bad things and jail time for sure. I really hope Corzine didn't want to go into politics again, because his career is ova.

 

 

CME Group now saying publically, MF Global is in violation of the CFTC and CME rules pertaining to seperation of customer and proprietary funds. This was not an accounting mistake - the money was mixed. People will be going to jail.

 

 

Yes, there is a big problem here. And it has to be at the executive level.

 

 

I'll believe it if I see it, but if you're right, that would mean at least 1 former Goldman exec is finally there.

 

 

Listen to the video. There is pretty much no chance that Corzine didn't know about this. There is a very small chance that this accounting fraud has been short term. That means he has probably lied to regulators repeatedly, and it means he seemingly lied to the companies who were looking to buy the company, such as Interactive Broker and Jefferies. All of those are securities crimes, and doing them willfully is a slamdunk for jailtime.

 

 

Yes that's right folks its "Go back to October 2011 and find the posts where the financial employees insisted up and down that people from MF Global and John Corzine in particular would be going to jail for stealing several billion dollars in customer funds and using it to cover investment losses.

 

There finally has been legal action in the case. The CFTC has filed a lawsuit against MF Global and Corzine.

 

At worst, Corzine and a couple others might lose their licenses to participate in trading, in addition to financial penalties.

No one will be going to jail. I declare my initial skepticism at there being anything a financial industry professional can do to wind up in jail to be 100% justified.

[StrangeSox]

But deface a bank's property with sidewalk chalk and you can face over a decade in prison!

[Y2HH]

Up to 13 years for drawings in water-soluble chalk. Zero years for destroying the world economy, rigging international interest rates, massive foreclosure fraud, drug money laundering and who knows how many other crimes.

 

It doesn't matter if it was BoA's property or not. That's not anything close to justice.

 

While a valid point, how is this the bank's problem? The bank wasn't the administration that decided to not prosecute these criminal bankers.

[StrangeSox]

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/business...rt-workers.html

A growing number of American workers are confronting a frustrating predicament on payday: to get their wages, they must first pay a fee.

 

For these largely hourly workers, paper paychecks and even direct deposit have been replaced by prepaid cards issued by their employers. Employees can use these cards, which work like debit cards, at an A.T.M. to withdraw their pay.

 

But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.’s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.

 

These fees can take such a big bite out of paychecks that some employees end up making less than the minimum wage once the charges are taken into account

[bigruss]

From what I've read, it's illegal for companies to only be able to pay with those prepaid cards. They must first get approval from the employee to pay in that form, and also must offer to pay in check or cash as well.

[StrangeSox]

From what I've read, it's illegal for companies to only be able to pay with those prepaid cards. They must first get approval from the employee to pay in that form, and also must offer to pay in check or cash as well.

 

company scrip was made illegal a century ago. It sounds like these programs do need to be "optional," but in reality we're talking about low-wage workers with little or no bargaining power and the "option" gets automatically selected for them. Changing requires actually being aware that you can and then dealing with a lot of paperwork. And some states don't have clear laws and no options are given by some employers.

 

Many employees say they have no choice but to use the cards: some companies no longer offer common payroll options like ordinary checks or direct deposit.

 

At companies where there is a choice, it is often more in theory than in practice, according to interviews with employees, state regulators and consumer advocates. Employees say they are often automatically enrolled in the payroll card programs and confronted with a pile of paperwork if they want to opt out.

 

“We hear virtually every week from employees who never knew there were other options, and employers certainly don’t disabuse workers of that idea,” said Deyanira Del Rio, an associate director of the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, which works with community groups in New York.

 

Problems arise, though, when employers mandate the use of prepaid cards. In 25 states, employers are allowed to forgo paper checks and offer direct deposit or payroll cards; in the remaining states, regulations are less clear and employers are taking a risk by not offering a paper-check option, too, according to research by Madeline K. Aufseeser, an analyst at Aite. It is unclear how many employers offer payroll cards.

 

edit: this is more along the lines of "it's expensive to be poor in this country"

Edited July 1, 2013 by StrangeSox