Sure, we all work within different moral frameworks and strata and I suppose that's what makes life with other human beings so interesting/conflicting. As for the blackjack question, I might take advantage of it (can't categorically say I won't do it since I've never encountered such an opportunity), but if I do I'd feel morally wrong about it as well. Those two, I believe, are different.
SEC Sues Hong Kong Couple Who Made 8.2 Million From Dow Jones Stock (on Buyout Bid)
- Thread starter ByLoSellHi
- Start date
Sure, we all work within different moral frameworks and strata and I suppose that's what makes life with other human beings so interesting/conflicting. As for the blackjack question, I might take advantage of it (can't categorically say I won't do it since I've never encountered such an opportunity), but if I do I'd feel morally wrong about it as well. Those two, I believe, are different.
True. But not difficult at all to prove they knew it was materiel non public info. This couple had NEVER made a individual stock/options transaction in that amount in the account. The SEC will call it a bogus defense. The below is straight from the SEC site.
The SEC adopted new Rules 10b5-1 and 10b5-2 to resolve two insider trading issues where the courts have disagreed. Rule 10b5-1 provides that a person trades on the basis of material nonpublic information if a trader is "aware" of the material nonpublic information when making the purchase or sale. The rule also sets forth several affirmative defenses or exceptions to liability. The rule permits persons to trade in certain specified circumstances where it is clear that the information they are aware of is not a factor in the decision to trade, such as pursuant to a pre-existing plan, contract, or instruction that was made in good faith.
regarding the morality.
Right now this illusion that there is no insider trading makes people more suspicious because we all hear about it. It can be argued that illusion is worse for the integrity of the markets.
so I could argue the morality problem only comes down to this - do you think it is your obligation to obey laws set up for the benefit of wall street bankers.
I personally have gotten tips from insiders. The large majority of them failed. I have never traded on them.
but I also have licenses to protect.
Right now this illusion that there is no insider trading makes people more suspicious because we all hear about it. It can be argued that illusion is worse for the integrity of the markets.
so I could argue the morality problem only comes down to this - do you think it is your obligation to obey laws set up for the benefit of wall street bankers.
I personally have gotten tips from insiders. The large majority of them failed. I have never traded on them.
but I also have licenses to protect.
You guys should drop the Martha case altogether as an example.
The fact is that they didn't prosecute her for insider trading - that doesn't prove either case (whether what she did was insider trading or not)
Not being prosecuted for something doesn't make you innocent of it. And being convicted over lying about an investigation into insider trading certainly doesn't make you guilty of insider trading.
They picked their battles and went with what they thought was the strongest case against her. Reading anything else into is a waste of time since its pure speculation.
The fact is that they didn't prosecute her for insider trading - that doesn't prove either case (whether what she did was insider trading or not)
Not being prosecuted for something doesn't make you innocent of it. And being convicted over lying about an investigation into insider trading certainly doesn't make you guilty of insider trading.
They picked their battles and went with what they thought was the strongest case against her. Reading anything else into is a waste of time since its pure speculation.
I agree. They had an arguable insider trading case against her. She knew her broker also handled the CEO and his family's accounts. The broker telling her to do something based on what the insiders were doing seems to me to be right on the knife edge of violating Rule 10b-5. The government chose not to risk getting a bad precedent against them.
Thanks Indahook.
That's exactly on point here, and codifies the 'misappropriation' theory under SEC regulatory authority.
I should've gone right to the SEC website from the start, like you did.
Martha was a "celeb" and they went for the best odds to convict her. Had it been JoeSixPack, they would have thrown the book at him.....
btw, some lunchbox on the DJ BOD has a tie in with the Wongs thru europe, and that's how the deal was done,....he's denying it all, what a laugh.......
btw, some lunchbox on the DJ BOD has a tie in with the Wongs thru europe, and that's how the deal was done,....he's denying it all, what a laugh.......
Agree completely...although I think even Joe Six Pack at this point would get a little more than a book thrown at him....perhaps a mini slap on the wrist
Looks like it was the father... he knew the DJ Board member cited (the father has not been sued - yet)...
"The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Dow Jones, reported on Wednesday that one possible connection the SEC was expected to pursue involved Dow Jones director David Li, chairman and chief executive of the Bank of East Asia Ltd. (0023.HK) in Hong Kong.
Li and Leung share a history of business and social dealings, the newspaper reported. "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070509/bs_nm/sec_dowjones_dc_10;_ylt=AvNiggy4QcuWgyt1P7kKZyEE1vAI
"The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Dow Jones, reported on Wednesday that one possible connection the SEC was expected to pursue involved Dow Jones director David Li, chairman and chief executive of the Bank of East Asia Ltd. (0023.HK) in Hong Kong.
Li and Leung share a history of business and social dealings, the newspaper reported. "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070509/bs_nm/sec_dowjones_dc_10;_ylt=AvNiggy4QcuWgyt1P7kKZyEE1vAI