BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Well put, @ManrisFrack.
Last edited:
Chris Collins indicted
- Thread starter Criticalt
- Start date
ManrisFrack
6.5 Creedmoor
What does capitalism have to do with it? Corruption and the advantages given by money and/or power are certainly not unique attributes of capitalism.
I beg to differ. This is why we don't have a pure capitalism.
ManrisFrack
6.5 Creedmoor
But... aw fuck it. I'm just gonna go back to surfing PornHub and eating cheesy poofs.
Amen
Carlos Hathcock
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Some of this doesn't compute. I'm taking into account here the concept of "paperless funds" but when you invest or purchase stock your bank sends their bank "money". Suppose no one got the tip and the stock shit the bed and NO ONE cashed out until the value fell off to nothing? I know this is theoretical but I dont think the last man standing gets to cash in your money because he didn't sell.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Fuck, dude. Don't make me change my signature so soon...
ManrisFrack
6.5 Creedmoor
When you buy a stock, you buy a tiny sliver of a real company. Some random guy owned that sliver of the company and he gave it to you in exchange for cash (a.k.a that bank transfer you mentioned). Before computers, these shares (slivers) would actually be a printed certificate. Even now, you are an owner and you actually get to vote on big changes with the company at the shareholders' meetings. Basically you traded your money for a "thing" that you hope will increase in value. It's much like buying a collectable gun really. When you sell, you get the cash that your buyer is willing to give you.
A stock's price is set by supply and demand essentially. If everyone held their shares the price would likely go up, even with the failed drug trial. There would be no shares available to those that wished to buy them. Eventually someone would notice that no one was selling, think that there is some hidden value in the company beyond that failed drug and start to offer more and more money to buy a share.
Of course the case where everyone holds won't happen. At least some of the people who bought at $200 per Mosin (share) will try bail out and take a little profit before everyone else catches up. With stocks these days, computers will sell off automatically and a stock can crash in a few seconds.
Innate Immunotherapeutics (the company in question) is trading at 0.30 AUD. The reason this price isn't 0 is because people still see value in the company. Maybe the value is in the form of equipment or buildings. Maybe people think the company has a chance to rebound and they see the value there. Maybe some valuable research came out of the drug's development. Multi-million dollar companies don't just vanish into thin air. Someone will buy the company and it's assets when the price gets low enough and the owners (shareholders) of the company will be the ones who get paid. Even human excrement has a price point. You Can Sell Your Poop For $13k Per Year And Help Science
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Inside trading? ...When in the 20's?
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Nope , For congressmen it was legal right up to 2015.
I cant recall the law at the moment.
Imagine that you are an elected member of the United States House of Representatives in the middle of the debate on the health-care reform act that was passed in 2010. In a House committee meeting, you learn before anyone else that a proposed public-insurance option - a program that would compete with private insurance - will not be included. This information will have a large impact on health-care companies’ stock prices. Can you trade these companies’ shares before it is made public?
Morally, it is difficult to separate this example from traditional cases of corporate insider trading. Yet no law prohibits the practice. The U.S. Congress - the legislative branch of the country’s government - effectively exempts itself from the normal rules of insider trading. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court are the only federal agencies whose employees may, without restrictions, trade stocks based on non-public information. All other U.S. government employees who traded on privileged information of the type described above would be acting illegally.
Not only can members of Congress legally trade on confidential information; they do, despite the potential cost to their reputations. The U.S. television program 60 Minutes recently reported that several current members of Congress allegedly used confidential information that they acquired on the job for personal gain. While the nexus between the privileged information and the trading is difficult to prove (as it is in most insider trading cases), the timing is highly suspicious.
Why Congress can freely trade on insider information
I cant recall the law at the moment.
Imagine that you are an elected member of the United States House of Representatives in the middle of the debate on the health-care reform act that was passed in 2010. In a House committee meeting, you learn before anyone else that a proposed public-insurance option - a program that would compete with private insurance - will not be included. This information will have a large impact on health-care companies’ stock prices. Can you trade these companies’ shares before it is made public?
Morally, it is difficult to separate this example from traditional cases of corporate insider trading. Yet no law prohibits the practice. The U.S. Congress - the legislative branch of the country’s government - effectively exempts itself from the normal rules of insider trading. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court are the only federal agencies whose employees may, without restrictions, trade stocks based on non-public information. All other U.S. government employees who traded on privileged information of the type described above would be acting illegally.
Not only can members of Congress legally trade on confidential information; they do, despite the potential cost to their reputations. The U.S. television program 60 Minutes recently reported that several current members of Congress allegedly used confidential information that they acquired on the job for personal gain. While the nexus between the privileged information and the trading is difficult to prove (as it is in most insider trading cases), the timing is highly suspicious.
Why Congress can freely trade on insider information
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
In a 2009 article on The Hill's "Congress Blog," Holman explained the loophole.
"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) does not have the authority to hold employees of Congress or the Executive Branch liable for using non-public information gained from official proceedings for insider trading. Under current law, 'insider trading' is defined as the buying or selling of securities or commodities based on non-public information in violation of confidentiality -- either to the issuing company or the source of information. Most federal officials and employees do not owe a duty of confidentiality to the federal government and thus are not liable for insider trading."
Of course, members of Congress do owe a duty of confidentiality to the citizenry by whom they were elected. That's why congressional ethics rules specifically state that members must not use privileged information gleaned during the course of their duties for personal gain." But the rule is just a rule; it is not legally binding, and the SEC has never brought an enforcement action against any member of the Senate or the House.
Insider Trading Laws Do Not Apply to Members of Congress. No, Seriously.
Read more: http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/government-corruption-insider-trading-members-of/2/17/2011/id/32881?page=full#ixzz5Njj0mnIR
"The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) does not have the authority to hold employees of Congress or the Executive Branch liable for using non-public information gained from official proceedings for insider trading. Under current law, 'insider trading' is defined as the buying or selling of securities or commodities based on non-public information in violation of confidentiality -- either to the issuing company or the source of information. Most federal officials and employees do not owe a duty of confidentiality to the federal government and thus are not liable for insider trading."
Of course, members of Congress do owe a duty of confidentiality to the citizenry by whom they were elected. That's why congressional ethics rules specifically state that members must not use privileged information gleaned during the course of their duties for personal gain." But the rule is just a rule; it is not legally binding, and the SEC has never brought an enforcement action against any member of the Senate or the House.
Insider Trading Laws Do Not Apply to Members of Congress. No, Seriously.
Read more: http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/government-corruption-insider-trading-members-of/2/17/2011/id/32881?page=full#ixzz5Njj0mnIR
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
think of investing in finding gold .. the land is rich so you buy some stock in that company .. your 100 dollar investment is now at 1500 dollars .. then a friend of a friend of a friend told you sell sell sell .. get the 1500 .. Todd is taking over .. Parker mined it all .. . hint hint gold rush tv show
.. .. now Todd is not finding any gold .. that 1500 drops to 500 .. still no gold ..drops to 100 .. still no gold .. down to 25 buck now .. your 100 invested was worth 1500 at one time.@ManrisFrack .. how did i do on that description
Mr. terzmo
.308 Win
money for stock shares go to running the company....paying dividends to share holders...high priced CEO's and golden parachutes
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
Deep state is winning.
Robin
Robin
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
People might feel sorry for inside traders until they find out their investment fund or their hard earned retirement savings got hit.
I have no sympathy for any politicians, Nor political appointees, paper-pushers, ribbon cutters, speculators, administrators, regulators or anything ending in "ators" for that matter .
I have no sympathy for any politicians, Nor political appointees, paper-pushers, ribbon cutters, speculators, administrators, regulators or anything ending in "ators" for that matter .