You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
trading at work using undisclosed account
- Thread starter copa8
- Start date
Strange... futures trading should be the least likely to attract the attention of regulators since its much harder to have insider information. You work for Nazis... Let me guess you have to use a limited number of brokers from their list?
-Neo
-Neo
Quote from copa8:
forget about even shorting...futures trading is not allow.
Serious firms who have these restrictions, have them because they think the employee may be exposed to non-public material info about companies. They have a list of companies which are not tradeable by employees, he simply hasnt hit on one of these stocks.
In addition, his comp probably has a component which reflects this inability to trade.
If he goes ahead with it, I truly hope he loses a lot of money and his job. Its only fair, because lots of folks have this restriction, and abide by it. Actually, I hope he loses his job anyways, as he appears willing to risk his firms rep, so he can make a few bucks for himself.
In addition, his comp probably has a component which reflects this inability to trade.
If he goes ahead with it, I truly hope he loses a lot of money and his job. Its only fair, because lots of folks have this restriction, and abide by it. Actually, I hope he loses his job anyways, as he appears willing to risk his firms rep, so he can make a few bucks for himself.
Its not nice to wish someone misfortune... Remember, what comes around goes around.
Reminds me of the communist mentality of "If I can't have it, no one will".
-Neo
Reminds me of the communist mentality of "If I can't have it, no one will".
-Neo
Quote from tomcole:
Serious firms who have these restrictions, have them because they think the employee may be exposed to non-public material info about companies. They have a list of companies which are not tradeable by employees, he simply hasnt hit on one of these stocks.
In addition, his comp probably has a component which reflects this inability to trade.
If he goes ahead with it, I truly hope he loses a lot of money and his job. Its only fair, because lots of folks have this restriction, and abide by it. Actually, I hope he loses his job anyways, as he appears willing to risk his firms rep, so he can make a few bucks for himself.
Quote from tomcole:
Serious firms who have these restrictions, have them because they think the employee may be exposed to non-public material info about companies. They have a list of companies which are not tradeable by employees, he simply hasnt hit on one of these stocks.
In addition, his comp probably has a component which reflects this inability to trade.
If he goes ahead with it, I truly hope he loses a lot of money and his job. Its only fair, because lots of folks have this restriction, and abide by it. Actually, I hope he loses his job anyways, as he appears willing to risk his firms rep, so he can make a few bucks for himself.
Not true, I have a friend who is fund-manager of IT in Europe, he is not allowed by his bank to buy for example gold stocks as a long term investment. He happens to be very bullish on gold and those stocks. Guess what he does.
Quote from tomcole:
They have a list of companies which are not tradeable by employees, he simply hasnt hit on one of these stocks.
most likely won't hit one, since i only trade 4 stocks/etf and never at once - AIG, FRK, GLD, BAC. if somehow, AIG is added to the restricted list, then i don't trade it.
again, it's the 'no shorting' that's the problem. don't wanna buy puts, due to wider spread, dealing w/time decay, etc.
Quote from tomcole:
If he goes ahead with it, I truly hope he loses a lot of money and his job. Its only fair, because lots of folks have this restriction, and abide by it. Actually, I hope he loses his job anyways, as he appears willing to risk his firms rep, so he can make a few bucks for himself.
That's a sh*tty thing to state. WTF do you care if he circumvents a ridiculous corp governance issue that has zero impact. He's not breaking any laws.