|
|
|
|
#1
11-30-2007, 03:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
I Think I Have A Partial Answer
Most of you, including Jason Stausser are wrong. I'd make a small bet on it. Just using pure thought.
When I saw a long line at the newly installed Monopoly machines I immediately bought Williams. And I screwed the seller. Except that he should have realized that someone might have been doing that to him. It is a legitimate part of the game. And as unpalatable as it might sound, the same is true if I overhear two terrorists on their way to bomb the Bellagio (especially if I report them first). The possibility that something along those lines is going on should be part of your calculations. Unless you are DesertCat. It is ridiculous to have laws that expect people to refrain from stuff like that. The only time the answer is unclear, I would think, is if the information is specifically related to undisclosed aspects of a business that is only privy to insiders. That is why I would think the executive who sells a competitor's stock short when he can't buy his own, is likely breaking the law. As far as someone overhearing executives and then trading on it, my take would be that he gets off but that the executives reimburse those who lost money due to their carelessness. 
|
|
#2
11-30-2007, 03:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Think I Have A Partial Answer
[ QUOTE ]
Most of you, including Jason Stausser are wrong. I'd make a small bet on it. Just using pure thought. When I saw a long line at the newly installed Monopoly machines I immediately bought Williams. And I screwed the seller. Except that he should have realized that someone might have been doing that to him. It is a legitimate part of the game. And as unpalatable as it might sound, the same is true if I overhear two terrorists on their way to bomb the Bellagio (especially if I report them first). The possibility that something along those lines is going on should be part of your calculations. Unless you are DesertCat. It is ridiculous to have laws that expect people to refrain from stuff like that. The only time the answer is unclear, I would think, is if the information is specifically related to undisclosed aspects of a business that is only privy to insiders. That is why I would think the executive who sells a competitor's stock short when he can't buy his own, is likely breaking the law. As far as someone overhearing executives and then trading on it, my take would be that he gets off but that the executives reimburse those who lost money due to their carelessness. [/ QUOTE ] So does this example of the Monopoly machines match the scenario you used in the original post? If it is, then I think your original post is very misleading. Making some observation about slot machine usage would hardly give you a huge edge in trading. There are so many inputs that you don't know about. Such as the configured payout. Perhaps the machines are paying out a significantly higher percentage in order to win over new players and such.
|
|
#3
11-30-2007, 03:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Think I Have A Partial Answer
The fact that my information is not a slam dunk is beside the point. Maybe the terrorists will chicken out. An edge is an edge.
|
|
#4
11-30-2007, 08:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Think I Have A Partial Answer
My 2 cents...
During an ethics course for cbot floor traders, there were many different scenarios thrown at you. For example, you heard the broker has a huge buy stop at 110.00. Is it ethical try and run the stop? (buy everything below 110.00, trade a 1 lot at 110, and have the broker buy all his 110s from you.) Of course, they kept changing the scenario just a little bit until you and the broker were basically in kahootz, and you were sharing profits at lunch. What the exchange was trying to imply was this: As soon as a trade does not involve risk for both buyer & seller, it is certainly against exchange rules. If the risk is not the same for each party, you are in a grey area, and you better hope for a jury that sees it your way.
|
|
#5
11-30-2007, 10:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Think I Have A Partial Answer
What if one to suspect that another player on a virtual stock game (based on the real stock market) were acting upon inside information. First of all, buying and selling virtual stock on inside information is unfair to the other competitors (and unethical) but surely not illegal. And if someone were to act upon a mere suspicion that this person had inside informaion, but if he also did his own homework-- would this be illegal? Perhaps not.
Nonetheless, I think people who always try to walk the hazy gray line, probing the boundary of legal and illegal are bound to find themselves in trouble, or with their reputations tarnished. In the long run, cheating doesn't pay. Why? Because you could have been the world's most successful stock trader and one incident of insider trading could put you in the history books as a cheater (besides the jail time). Forget jail, fines, lost business opportunities due to a loss of trust-- if a cheater were attuned enough, he would notice that people have forever changed the way they look at him. Every sensible player in most every game knows where the clear white areas are, where the black areas are, and where the hazy gray line is. Forget legality, acting on inside information is unethical. People who want to dance around the boundary of legal and illegal are usually smart enough to do well straight-up but feel better about themselves sticking a foot in the dark side trying to con the system.
|
|
#6
11-30-2007, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Think I Have A Partial Answer
BTW I have a related question: Who thinks putting a standard sized stop loss (or trailing stop) on a stock is unethical or illegal if the reason to do so were partially influenced by information that is non-public (but not confirmable as to whether it is mere heresay or true insider information)?
|
|
#8
11-30-2007, 11:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Think I Have A Partial Answer
but david, what you said is not insider information. It is available to anyone of the public who wants to do a thourough investigation. Would you buy a retailer without first going into the store and at least getting a feel for the clientel and vibe the store is trying to give off? I know I wouldnt. Thats a standard part of investing, along with the numbers.
Thats why desertcat will often call the CEO/CFO of those small companies hes investing in, or visit them if he has the opportunity. Its similar to your monoploy machine example. Its NOT inside information, but buried information that anyone with a shovel and go find easily. The other guy isnt getting screwed due to II but due to his laziness.
|
|
#9
11-30-2007, 11:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Think I Have A Partial Answer
[ QUOTE ]
Most of you, including Jason Stausser are wrong. I'd make a small bet on it. Just using pure thought. When I saw a long line at the newly installed Monopoly machines I immediately bought Williams. And I screwed the seller. Except that he should have realized that someone might have been doing that to him. It is a legitimate part of the game. And as unpalatable as it might sound, the same is true if I overhear two terrorists on their way to bomb the Bellagio (especially if I report them first). The possibility that something along those lines is going on should be part of your calculations. Unless you are DesertCat. It is ridiculous to have laws that expect people to refrain from stuff like that. The only time the answer is unclear, I would think, is if the information is specifically related to undisclosed aspects of a business that is only privy to insiders. That is why I would think the executive who sells a competitor's stock short when he can't buy his own, is likely breaking the law. As far as someone overhearing executives and then trading on it, my take would be that he gets off but that the executives reimburse those who lost money due to their carelessness. [/ QUOTE ] The SEC does not outlaw having an edge, if they did it would be illegal to use TA.
|
|
#10
11-30-2007, 12:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Think I Have A Partial Answer
[ QUOTE ]
That is why I would think the executive who sells a competitor's stock short when he can't buy his own, is likely breaking the law. [/ QUOTE ] This is so obviously insider trading. [ QUOTE ] As far as someone overhearing executives and then trading on it, my take would be that he gets off [/ QUOTE ] He'd only get off if they couldn't prove he was acting on information that he overheard. If they could absolutely prove that he had the knowledge, and that that knowledge led him to purchase the stock, he would most certainly be guilty of insider trading. [ QUOTE ] ... that the executives reimburse those who lost money due to their carelessness. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "reimburse", whether you mean the executives shell out their own cash or if they do something with company money. Either way I've never heard of this happening. Each decision the executives make should be to maximize shareholder value, regardless of what has happened in the past. [ QUOTE ] I have come upon information that gives me an irrefutable giant edge because no one else has it. Or because those others who have it are precluded from trading on it. I came upon this information without breaking any laws. (It may or may not be by accident. You tell me if that matters.) [/ QUOTE ] It does not matter if you came upon the information accidentally or not.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
