Captain Windjammer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Something better than protecting the integrity of > our capital markets? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! sorry, that was funny. maybe they’ll stop global warming next.
CFAvsMBA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So some FBI agents just stormed the firm I work > at. What should I do? Can I just tell them to > mind their own business like I did in the past? I > have no qualms calling my cousin Vinny to > straighten them out. think of them like you would a t-rex: they can’t see if you don’t move.
Do the CFA materials not mention, and endorse, mosiac theory style information gathering? If so, it would be interesting to see how that could come into play. The CFAI doesn’t set laws, but they are one of the defacto ethical bodies for the industry. I think finance does need to be reigned in a bit, but any Joe the Plumber who thought he was on the same level playing field to a trader / asset manager at a BB is a moron. I don’t support some sort of witch-hunt aimed at leveling the playing field, because you can’t.
Mr. Pink Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the problem here is that it’s sometimes hard to distinguish material information from non-material information. So even if the firms claim that they are using mosaic theory, they might actually be violating some sort of insider trading regulation.
ohai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the problem here is that it’s sometimes > hard to distinguish material information from > non-material information. yes, they would need to define that the person/s acted on material information - not a synthesis. that’s how they got Martha Stewart.
mar350 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ohai Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think the problem here is that it’s sometimes > > hard to distinguish material information from > > non-material information. > > yes, they would need to define that the person/s > acted on material information - not a synthesis. > that’s how they got Martha Stewart. I think this would be pretty hard. Take the BigLots example (where BigLots is suing an expert network, RIG). Would a hedge fund that purchased RIG’s report about BigLots be at risk of prosecution? I say no. Even though RIG’s report apparently contained insider information (coerced from store managers), a hedge fund could argue they didn’t know what was contained in the report before they bought it, and that if they traded, it was at worst using the report as once piece of a larger body of research about a company, and that they never traded soley based on the information that is at risk of being considered “inside” information, nor were they aware at the time that portions of the report contained non-public information (citing that they would have expected RIG to perform due dilligence to ensure the report met applicable securities laws).