Can Someone Else Explain how Etrade is Still in Bidness?

[DeliciousBass]

I know that a lot has been made in recent weeks that the language of the bill states something along the lines of "...where chance is involved..." as opposed to "games of chance". The consensus seems to be that this was phrased so as to include poker while leaving horses, lotteries, and fantasy sports carved-out. Being that investing in the stock market was not explicitly excluded...it must be included.

Now it seems to me (and this comes from the experience of some simply stupendous stock buying decisions in 2000 and 2001) that the purchasing of stocks is fairly similar to poker. While a skilled trader can make a pretty penny in the market he is still leaving some things to chance and the biggest stock-fish can turn a profit that is based almost entirely on luck. In fact, Etrade warns me upfront that my stock picks "May lose value" indicating that chance can play a role.

Thankfully, my government has taken the proper steps to protect me from making ill-advised investments, both on gutshot draws and soon-to-be bankrupt companies. Therefore, I'm looking forward to the day that my 401k loses any value and I sue the pants off of Fidelity, pointing to this bill and the fact that I never should have been able to fund the account in the first place and leave my financial future in the hands of "chance".

[51cards]

You play the stocks?! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
I know that a lot has been made in recent weeks that the language of the bill states something along the lines of "...where chance is involved..." as opposed to "games of chance". The consensus seems to be that this was phrased so as to include poker while leaving horses, lotteries, and fantasy sports carved-out. Being that investing in the stock market was not explicitly excluded...it must be included.

Now it seems to me (and this comes from the experience of some simply stupendous stock buying decisions in 2000 and 2001) that the purchasing of stocks is fairly similar to poker. While a skilled trader can make a pretty penny in the market he is still leaving some things to chance and the biggest stock-fish can turn a profit that is based almost entirely on luck. In fact, Etrade warns me upfront that my stock picks "May lose value" indicating that chance can play a role.

Thankfully, my government has taken the proper steps to protect me from making ill-advised investments, both on gutshot draws and soon-to-be bankrupt companies. Therefore, I'm looking forward to the day that my 401k loses any value and I sue the pants off of Fidelity, pointing to this bill and the fact that I never should have been able to fund the account in the first place and leave my financial future in the hands of "chance".

[/ QUOTE ]
You might want to check out the definition section of the new law:
5362-E it excempts all transactions covered by the security exchange act of 1934, the Commodity Exchange Act or any over the counter derivative.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Being that investing in the stock market was not explicitly excluded...it must be included.


[/ QUOTE ]

As Vern pointed out, it is specifically excluded!

[DeliciousBass]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Being that investing in the stock market was not explicitly excluded...it must be included.


[/ QUOTE ]

As Vern pointed out, it is specifically excluded!

[/ QUOTE ]

Attempt two:

First of all you guys are party-poopers.

Now, is there anything that the bill may have improperly included in the phrasing (by not specifically excluding) that Americans have long assumed is allowable? Along the same lines as stocks but not stocks...I want to sue someone!
(redonkulous litigation may become more fun than playing poker)

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Being that investing in the stock market was not explicitly excluded...it must be included.


[/ QUOTE ]

As Vern pointed out, it is specifically excluded!

[/ QUOTE ]

Attempt two:

First of all you guys are party-poopers.

Now, is there anything that the bill may have improperly included in the phrasing (by not specifically excluding) that Americans have long assumed is allowable? Along the same lines as stocks but not stocks...I want to sue someone!
(redonkulous litigation may become more fun than playing poker)

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry for being a party-pooper.

To answer your second attempt, I don't see anything they missed. They covered contracts and insurance too.

Maybe you could join the qui tam lawsuit against fantasy sports.

[DeliciousBass]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you could join the qui tam lawsuit against fantasy sports.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exciting stuff...except on the opposite redonkulous side that I would like to be on...

Perhaps I'll just start pouring coffee on myself...Starbucks, you first!

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I'll just start pouring coffee on myself...Starbucks, you first!

[/ QUOTE ]
"I sued Starbucks 'cause I spilled a Frappucino on my lap, and brr, it was cold." -- line from a song on Weird Al Yankovic's new album.

[omgwtf]

As others have noted, securities gambling is specifically excluded from the new legislation. But if any form of online gambling should be attacked it is this one. "Click a mouse, lose your house" I guarantee more houses have been lost due to internet securities gambling than all other forms combined.

[dedmoney]

I've made the stocks correlation and it's gone over well with girlfriends and parents. luckily they are rational. politicians, not so much.