New York, 3:36 PM
Thu Dec 3
48 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
| posts about #voodooeconomics more → |
"Learn To Love Insider Trading," by The Wall Street Journal |
LAT Editor Invents New Kind of Voodoo |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Gawker 
10/26/09
10/26/09
10/24/09
Nope, it's not. It's a disservice to most investors if you don't identify illegal activity. And identifying this activity is not as difficult as some people make it out to be. Everyone gets so bogged down with specific rules in ethics matters that they forget that ethics are based on feelings. If it feels sketchy at all, it's sketchy. If it feels good, it's good. Even if you're totally evil, you still know right from wrong. I tend to think that at least a bit of conscious is inherent in all of us, but statements like this make me wonder.
10/24/09
Socialism Now! Socialism Tomorrow! Socialism Forever! #insidertrading
10/24/09
The repeal of Glass-Steagall and the ability of Credit Card companies to charge 120 times the Fed Funds target rate (30% vs 0.25%) has engendered the largest continued rape of the public since the incident with the Sabines. #insidertrading
10/24/09
Insider trading is very difficult to qualify. When is it okay to act on information? How do we regulate when and how certain people in the industry receive information? When it's published in a public medium (blog, paper, radio, television, etc.)? Isn't this theory off, in that you're aligning all matters to be "fair," when they simply can't? If I'm at a bar and overhear two junior law associates discussing a deal in the pipelines, is it unethical to move on that information? Furthermore, should CNBC be regulated in response to their colossal fuck-up with regards to yesterday's MSFT "lowered revenue guidance" reporting? Aren't investors with access to BBerg terminals more apt to make better financial decisions than some day trader working from his mother's basement, using finance.yahoo? Is that not fair?
I agree that Raj/Galleon should most likely be scrutinized for how he/they obtained his/their information. However, for regulators to spend a significant amount of time, money, and energy embarking on a great financial witch-hunt, (which, as you somewhat noted, is in direct response to the SEC fucking up re: Madoff) I find these objectives warm and fuzzy, yet fruitless.
(For what it's worth, I picked up the journal today and read the account. WSJ is usually pretty great with assigning two writers to "face-off" within the weekend section. Unfortunately, this did not occur.) #insidertrading
10/24/09
Insider trading is illegal for very good reason. Most importantly to prevent insiders (BOD members, officers, employees and family members) from cashing in. The Bodreuax jackass just wants to make some hay by making an outlandish position, which will probably get him a few more high-fives at his country club driving range. #insidertrading
10/24/09
10/24/09
I agree the author was playing the contrarian card, but I'll still hold to my thoughts regarding the SEC not utilizing their capital (both intellectual and financial) on people whispering about particular markets. #insidertrading
10/24/09
However, if a person or entity invests in a bberg term. and has broader access to information than someone utilizing finance.yahoo (a free medium to derive finance-related information), the playing field is certainly not leveled, nor can it ever be.
Working to grasp "fairness" will forever leave one empty-handed.
Interesting article, describing exactly that, from this weekend's WSJ: [online.wsj.com] #insidertrading
10/24/09
Prosecuting insider trading for the sake of prosecuting it is pointless.
Who is providing the inside information? Who is profiting from the inside information? Who is being harmed?
There aren't many combinations you can come up with where the victim isn't already protected through another area of existing law.
10/24/09