|
Post by tory on Jan 28, 2021 11:18:52 GMT
That's the thing - a great deal of technical innovation and subsequent wealth and prosperity is founded on investment and risk-taking.
The persons who invented the wheel and fire-building must be turning in their graves though!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2021 11:21:47 GMT
Which is nothing to do with the kind of stock market speculation we are talking about here. It is a completely invidious comparison. it is EXACTLY the same. Taking risk. The amounts at stake may be higher today but the principle is the same. No the argument is NOT the same. Toby gave that argument because he said it lead to progress. Read his post again. He talks about the discoveries and opportunities opened up by that kind of speculation, whereas what I'm talking about ( and you might wish to look at the actual article that prompted mty comment in the first place) offers nothing of that kind, so it is an invidious comparison.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2021 11:23:37 GMT
That's the thing - a great deal of technical innovation and subsequent wealth and prosperity is founded on investment and risk-taking. The persons who invented the wheel and fire-building must be turning in their graves though! These people are making money on speculating on the market, very often they're making money on businesses failing! You're cherry picking one aspect of it to make your argument.
|
|
|
Post by cousinlou on Jan 28, 2021 11:38:06 GMT
They take risk. That is not narrow thinking but an explanation how this world works. I do agree there is something unjust in it though. Somebody robbing a bank takes a risk. Risk is one of the most difficult things to understand. You are so pissed off that you are starting to let that take the better of you. A bank robber takes a risk. Yes. But they are doing also something criminal according to prevailing laws. The Essex guys only take the risk but do nothing that is illegal. And don't forget, these guys went short on the expectation that oil prices were going to fall. To go short implies there were buyers at the other side of the counter. For whatever reason they decided to buy. Their reasons may even have been very sound from a risk management point of view. But, for all we know, they may have gone short earlier than the Essex guys and may have also made money out of this transaction. There are no victims in this and none of the no one innocent has been deprived of anything.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Jan 28, 2021 11:40:36 GMT
Yes they are. George Soros made huge amounts of money on the failure of the ERM and he uses his money for philanthropic causes.
Not everyone who is wealthy is philanthropic, but many are.
The article framed these lads as Essex wide boys, so there's a whole load of chavvy assumptions about them, with their gated mansions and the like. And I guess that you could imagine them to be vulgar and tasteless, but we don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2021 11:42:07 GMT
Can someone explain in layman terms why a bunch of novice people buying stock in a nearly deducted company like gamestop is a big deal?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2021 11:47:04 GMT
Can someone explain in layman terms why a bunch of novice people buying stock in a nearly deducted company like gamestop is a big deal? Because the wankers that take risks with other people's money prefer the other people to leave them alone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2021 11:49:41 GMT
Ah right, it sounds like something that should kinda be illegal. if an expert does it who works for an investment company, do they get in trouble for trying to influence the market?
|
|
|
Post by cousinlou on Jan 28, 2021 11:51:24 GMT
Ah right, it sounds like something that should kinda be illegal. if an expert does it who works for an investment company, do they get in trouble for trying to influence the market? Yes, it's called market manipulation and that's what the Essex guys are looking at being accused of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2021 11:53:22 GMT
Ah right, it sounds like something that should kinda be illegal. if an expert does it who works for an investment company, do they get in trouble for trying to influence the market? Yes, it's called market manipulation and that's what the Essex guys are looking at being accused of. Despite being risk takers in the style of Vasco Da Gama.
|
|
|
Post by cousinlou on Jan 28, 2021 12:13:00 GMT
Yes, it's called market manipulation and that's what the Essex guys are looking at being accused of. Despite being risk takers in the style of Vasco Da Gama. As I said before, RISK is difficult to understand. Market manipulation is the practise of trying to mitigate your risk. That is not what these guys have been doing from what's in the article though. Market manipulation is hard to prove for authorities and even harder to deny for those that are accused of it. From my own experience: I headed the commercial department in a big dairy trading company. One of the guys that worked for me was in The US where he handled our Dairy Futures and Options portfolio on the CME. At one time he had gone short massively when nobody else did. A few months later the cash came rolling in as indeed the futures he had gone short in started to tumble. Fast forward 6 months. I got a visit from 4 officials from The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) accusing the company of market manipulation. I can put my hand in the fire this was not the case. So I explained them that we had practised trading just like every other company. They weren't having it. The long and short of it is they were going to press charges but could offer us a way out by paying $ 1.5 million. You need to understand that CFTC have hundreds of layers at their disposal at $ 80K a year where we would have to contract a good law firm at a minimum of $ 1,000/hour. We did not need to think long about that and accepted their proposal as this was cheaper than having to go to court and we didn't really need the bad publicity either. Plus, we realised innocence is hard to prove.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2021 12:25:11 GMT
Ah right, it sounds like something that should kinda be illegal. if an expert does it who works for an investment company, do they get in trouble for trying to influence the market? They get in MASSIVE trouble Markus. They have to think about where to invest the fucking obscene bonus they are paid and find someone to rub tiger balm on their aching back from literally hundreds of slaps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2021 12:29:05 GMT
Despite being risk takers in the style of Vasco Da Gama. As I said before, RISK is difficult to understand. Market manipulation is the practise of trying to mitigate your risk. That is not what these guys have been doing from what's in the article though. Market manipulation is hard to prove for authorities and even harder to deny for those that are accused of it. From my own experience: I headed the commercial department in a big dairy trading company. One of the guys that worked for me was in The US where he handled our Dairy Futures and Options portfolio on the CME. At one time he had gone short massively when nobody else did. A few months later the cash came rolling in as indeed the futures he had gone short in started to tumble. Fast forward 6 months. I got a visit from 4 officials from The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) accusing the company of market manipulation. I can put my hand in the fire this was not the case. So I explained them that we had practised trading just like every other company. They weren't having it. The long and short of it is they were going to press charges but could offer us a way out by paying $ 1.5 million. You need to understand that CFTC have hundreds of layers at their disposal at $ 80K a year where we would have to contract a good law firm at a minimum of $ 1,000/hour. We did not need to think long about that and accepted their proposal as this was cheaper than having to go to court and we didn't really need the bad publicity either. Plus, we realised innocence is hard to prove. Did the guy keep his job as a matter of interest?
|
|
|
Post by Half Machine Lipschitz on Jan 28, 2021 12:36:14 GMT
Can someone explain in layman terms why a bunch of novice people buying stock in a nearly deducted company like gamestop is a big deal? Here's a simple explanation:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2021 12:39:28 GMT
Ah right, it sounds like something that should kinda be illegal. if an expert does it who works for an investment company, do they get in trouble for trying to influence the market? They get in MASSIVE trouble Markus. They have to think about where to invest the fucking obscene bonus they are paid and find someone to rub tiger balm on their aching back from literally hundreds of slaps. Yeah there was a scene in the film Margin Call were they talk about salary and bonuses. I was amazed, as i assume it's based on the salaries of real life people. The bonuses they gave people to sell bad stock, and effectively end their career, was just fucking crazy.
|
|