Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
davelj
ParticipantOk, FLU, I double-checked my facts (actually, just kidding – I didn’t – these things I know pretty well)…
It’s illegal to TRADE on inside information (material, non-public information) regardless of how it’s obtained.
It’s NOT illegal to REVEAL (such as a posting on the internet) inside information. HOWEVER, it would almost certainly be grounds for firing IF that person was classified by the company(s) involved as an INSIDER (that is, an officer, director, employee, consultant, investment banker, etc.).
For example… if the husband of a woman who works for an INSIDER tells the husband inside information, it’s NOT illegal for the husband to discuss it with other people or post the information on the internet (for example). It’s NOT illegal for the woman to have revealed the information to her husband. It’s also NOT illegal for the insider to have revealed the inside information to the woman, his subordinate. It’s likely, however, that should the insider and/or his subordinate be discovered as the source of the revealed (or “leaked”) information they will both be reprimanded or fired. It IS, however, ILLEGAL for any of them to TRADE on this information.
The REVEALING of inside information isn’t the illegal part, although it certainly puts one’s career at risk. It’s the TRADING on it that is, regardless of whether there’s a profit of not.
FLU, since you seem to think you know more about this than I do, please, I await your enlightenment.
ParticipantOk, FLU, I double-checked my facts (actually, just kidding – I didn’t – these things I know pretty well)…
It’s illegal to TRADE on inside information (material, non-public information) regardless of how it’s obtained.
It’s NOT illegal to REVEAL (such as a posting on the internet) inside information. HOWEVER, it would almost certainly be grounds for firing IF that person was classified by the company(s) involved as an INSIDER (that is, an officer, director, employee, consultant, investment banker, etc.).
For example… if the husband of a woman who works for an INSIDER tells the husband inside information, it’s NOT illegal for the husband to discuss it with other people or post the information on the internet (for example). It’s NOT illegal for the woman to have revealed the information to her husband. It’s also NOT illegal for the insider to have revealed the inside information to the woman, his subordinate. It’s likely, however, that should the insider and/or his subordinate be discovered as the source of the revealed (or “leaked”) information they will both be reprimanded or fired. It IS, however, ILLEGAL for any of them to TRADE on this information.
The REVEALING of inside information isn’t the illegal part, although it certainly puts one’s career at risk. It’s the TRADING on it that is, regardless of whether there’s a profit of not.
FLU, since you seem to think you know more about this than I do, please, I await your enlightenment.
ParticipantJust an FYI, there’s nothing illegal about posting or discussing inside information unless you are an officer, director or other person deemed to be an “insider.” Even then it might not be illegal, but rather unethical (and grounds for firing). The illegality is principally in trying to profit from the use of inside information. Not that I’m condoning the spread of inside information, to be clear. I’m just sayin’…
ParticipantJust an FYI, there’s nothing illegal about posting or discussing inside information unless you are an officer, director or other person deemed to be an “insider.” Even then it might not be illegal, but rather unethical (and grounds for firing). The illegality is principally in trying to profit from the use of inside information. Not that I’m condoning the spread of inside information, to be clear. I’m just sayin’…
ParticipantJust an FYI, there’s nothing illegal about posting or discussing inside information unless you are an officer, director or other person deemed to be an “insider.” Even then it might not be illegal, but rather unethical (and grounds for firing). The illegality is principally in trying to profit from the use of inside information. Not that I’m condoning the spread of inside information, to be clear. I’m just sayin’…
ParticipantAs I commented a couple of weeks ago, CFC has “perceived value” so it’s not a good BK candidate, but rather a “re-cap at a lower price” candidate. This happened sooner than I would have expected (and at a higher price than I would have expected). Nevertheless, essentially this is a quasi-recap of CFC. Will it be enough? Don’t know. My gut says no. But it has put a higher floor on CFC’s potential price decline, even if it’s only a couple of bucks.
My understanding is that BofA put in the lion’s share of the $11.5 billion debt rescue. So, it’s interesting that it’s now pumping in another $2 billion in converts.
This is the danger with large depositories, however. Someone always seems to want to acquire or recap them, seemingly no matter how screwed up they seem. It’s an unusual situation, but CFC’s stock is dangerous for both longs and shorts.
ParticipantAs I commented a couple of weeks ago, CFC has “perceived value” so it’s not a good BK candidate, but rather a “re-cap at a lower price” candidate. This happened sooner than I would have expected (and at a higher price than I would have expected). Nevertheless, essentially this is a quasi-recap of CFC. Will it be enough? Don’t know. My gut says no. But it has put a higher floor on CFC’s potential price decline, even if it’s only a couple of bucks.
My understanding is that BofA put in the lion’s share of the $11.5 billion debt rescue. So, it’s interesting that it’s now pumping in another $2 billion in converts.
This is the danger with large depositories, however. Someone always seems to want to acquire or recap them, seemingly no matter how screwed up they seem. It’s an unusual situation, but CFC’s stock is dangerous for both longs and shorts.
ParticipantAs I commented a couple of weeks ago, CFC has “perceived value” so it’s not a good BK candidate, but rather a “re-cap at a lower price” candidate. This happened sooner than I would have expected (and at a higher price than I would have expected). Nevertheless, essentially this is a quasi-recap of CFC. Will it be enough? Don’t know. My gut says no. But it has put a higher floor on CFC’s potential price decline, even if it’s only a couple of bucks.
My understanding is that BofA put in the lion’s share of the $11.5 billion debt rescue. So, it’s interesting that it’s now pumping in another $2 billion in converts.
This is the danger with large depositories, however. Someone always seems to want to acquire or recap them, seemingly no matter how screwed up they seem. It’s an unusual situation, but CFC’s stock is dangerous for both longs and shorts.
ParticipantI read this a few days ago and just shook my head thinking, “Who’s in charge over at the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board these days?” I mean, sweet mercy, will someone pretend to be paying attention?
This editorial is one of the crazier ones I’ve ever read in the WSJ, and they have some doozies. It would take too long to address the gaping holes in Mr. Ranson’s logic, but can we be expected to take ANYTHING seriously by someone who proclaims the following:
“At the national level, housing prices are not bounded by the growth of wages or other forms of conventional income. Nor are they subject to “irrational” booms or busts.”
Really? Tell that to the following: (1) People trying to sell their homes right now who have purchased in the previous three years, (2) investors in MBS and CDOs with any subprime exposure, (3) Countrywide, etc. etc.
I’m a reasonable person (well, for the most part), but this man is trying to convince us that the moon is made of cheese. There are (semi) reasonable arguments as to why we may not be in a nationwide real estate bubble (I don’t agree with them, but at least they border on reasonable); this ain’t one of them.
ParticipantI read this a few days ago and just shook my head thinking, “Who’s in charge over at the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board these days?” I mean, sweet mercy, will someone pretend to be paying attention?
This editorial is one of the crazier ones I’ve ever read in the WSJ, and they have some doozies. It would take too long to address the gaping holes in Mr. Ranson’s logic, but can we be expected to take ANYTHING seriously by someone who proclaims the following:
“At the national level, housing prices are not bounded by the growth of wages or other forms of conventional income. Nor are they subject to “irrational” booms or busts.”
Really? Tell that to the following: (1) People trying to sell their homes right now who have purchased in the previous three years, (2) investors in MBS and CDOs with any subprime exposure, (3) Countrywide, etc. etc.
I’m a reasonable person (well, for the most part), but this man is trying to convince us that the moon is made of cheese. There are (semi) reasonable arguments as to why we may not be in a nationwide real estate bubble (I don’t agree with them, but at least they border on reasonable); this ain’t one of them.
ParticipantI read this a few days ago and just shook my head thinking, “Who’s in charge over at the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board these days?” I mean, sweet mercy, will someone pretend to be paying attention?
This editorial is one of the crazier ones I’ve ever read in the WSJ, and they have some doozies. It would take too long to address the gaping holes in Mr. Ranson’s logic, but can we be expected to take ANYTHING seriously by someone who proclaims the following:
“At the national level, housing prices are not bounded by the growth of wages or other forms of conventional income. Nor are they subject to “irrational” booms or busts.”
Really? Tell that to the following: (1) People trying to sell their homes right now who have purchased in the previous three years, (2) investors in MBS and CDOs with any subprime exposure, (3) Countrywide, etc. etc.
I’m a reasonable person (well, for the most part), but this man is trying to convince us that the moon is made of cheese. There are (semi) reasonable arguments as to why we may not be in a nationwide real estate bubble (I don’t agree with them, but at least they border on reasonable); this ain’t one of them.
August 20, 2007 at 5:12 PM in reply to: Revenge of Nostradumbass: REO auction San Diego from WSJ. #78453ParticipantAh, yes, I remember that one well. The great “Rich is Poo Poo Head” thread. A classic… I actually participated in that one. Thanks for re-posting it. Good times…
August 20, 2007 at 5:12 PM in reply to: Revenge of Nostradumbass: REO auction San Diego from WSJ. #78580ParticipantAh, yes, I remember that one well. The great “Rich is Poo Poo Head” thread. A classic… I actually participated in that one. Thanks for re-posting it. Good times…
August 20, 2007 at 5:12 PM in reply to: Revenge of Nostradumbass: REO auction San Diego from WSJ. #78602ParticipantAh, yes, I remember that one well. The great “Rich is Poo Poo Head” thread. A classic… I actually participated in that one. Thanks for re-posting it. Good times…
-
AuthorPosts
