Comments on Jake Zamansky's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/jake-zamansky/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/177010-ubs-lehman-note-case-a-potential-bellwether-for-all-banks?source=feed#comment-820804 820804 Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:42:56 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/179063-without-broker-education-clause-reform-bill-falls-short?source=feed#comment-815000 815000 jack]]> Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:55:42 -0500 realtors, CPA's & certified financial advisers must meet proficiency standards.
more training for retail investors is needed too. start with membership & participation in investment clubs. i dropped out of mine when the other members insisted on speculating, not informed investing.
> jack]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/179063-without-broker-education-clause-reform-bill-falls-short?source=feed#comment-814662 814662 Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:49:38 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/179063-without-broker-education-clause-reform-bill-falls-short?source=feed#comment-814568 814568 Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:14:15 -0500 Advisors have 'fiduciary' resposibilities.....

Yes, they always could be stronger.

That said; what about mortgage brokers? They (many) had no clue what they were selling (no doc, no principal, no interest, no idea.....................

What about training for the clowns at Freddie and Fannie????
No half measures please....don't get me started on education for congress and their minyans!!!
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/177010-ubs-lehman-note-case-a-potential-bellwether-for-all-banks?source=feed#comment-796612 796612 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:04:06 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/177010-ubs-lehman-note-case-a-potential-bellwether-for-all-banks?source=feed#comment-796158 796158 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:26:46 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/172683-another-wall-street-fraud-with-few-consequences?source=feed#comment-755679 755679 Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:01:37 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/172683-another-wall-street-fraud-with-few-consequences?source=feed#comment-755302 755302 jack]]> Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:18:12 -0500 > jack]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172683-another-wall-street-fraud-with-few-consequences?source=feed#comment-755023 755023 Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:06:32 -0500 Where is the outcry to get the 'Gang of 5' shorties who caused all this?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172060-regulating-wall-street-like-las-vegas-yes-we-can?source=feed#comment-754782 754782 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:57:56 -0500
I created this post just for you, and I would be honored if you would take a look at it. It is my insta-blog on SA. I know you are interested in insider trading. What I have would never stand up in a court of law, because it is based on a custom algorithm that only I use, but if you ever want me to examine a couple of stocks in this manner, let me know.

seekingalpha.com/insta...

thanks]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172060-regulating-wall-street-like-las-vegas-yes-we-can?source=feed#comment-753019 753019 logicalthought, like most people who make much ado about being "rational" > and "logical," you are neither.]]> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:46:16 -0500 Feel free to refute the logic of my argument (assuming, of course, that you have the ability to understand it). I am all ears.


On Nov 09 04:36 PM Genesis wrote:

> logicalthought, like most people who make much ado about being "rational"
> and "logical," you are neither.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172060-regulating-wall-street-like-las-vegas-yes-we-can?source=feed#comment-753015 753015 Actually, in my example, he ALREADY owned the stock. He sold it > for a lower price than he would have had the insider traders not > sold theirs until the news became public.]]> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:45:02 -0500

On Nov 09 04:24 PM Silentz wrote:

> Actually, in my example, he ALREADY owned the stock. He sold it
> for a lower price than he would have had the insider traders not
> sold theirs until the news became public.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172060-regulating-wall-street-like-las-vegas-yes-we-can?source=feed#comment-752928 752928 >>... insider trading amounts to criminal theft and it is not a victimless > crime. For every buyer of a stock there has to be a seller, and if > someone has material inside information about a company, he or she > has a decided advantage determining an appropriate price for the > security... Insider trading is somewhat akin to card counting... > << > > Okay, let's think this through. Suppose that grandpa has decided > to sell his Proctor & Gamble this morning, and it so happens > that some insider-trading M&A lawyer or banker just discovered > that next week a bunch of PE firms are going to band together and > make an offer to take PG private. So, the insider trader enters the > market with a buy order for $5 million of PG at the same time my > unknowing grandpa is a seller. Seeing as this constitutes $5 million > of additional buying strength that otherwise (without the insider > traders) wouldn't be there, what does this mean? It means a *better* > price for grandpa. On the other hand, let's say grandpa wanted to > *buy* PG this morning, in which case he'd now have to *compete with* > that $5 million of additional buying power. In *that* case, the insider > trader will *cost* grandpa a little money. So, depending upon whether > you're buying or selling (and whether the insider traders are buying > or selling), insider trading itself is actually "price neutral" to > the honest anonymous buyers and sellers out there. The *real* reason > to ban insider trading is simply that it "smells", and thus will > discourage the vast majority of honest folks from participating in > the capital markets and thereby render those markets smaller and > less efficient. (Of course, when Goldman Sachs only has one down > trading day out of every 100, one might start to believe that the > markets are somewhat odorous anyway.) > > And as for that comment about insider trading being "somewhat akin > to card counting", that's bullshit. Someone who counts cards has > no more information available to him or her than any other participant > at the table-- all he or she is doing is paying close attention to > the cards that have been dealt (the same cards that anyone else can > see, too) and then making the "highest percentage move" based upon > those cards.]]> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:36:07 -0500

On Nov 08 09:36 AM logicalthought wrote:

> >>... insider trading amounts to criminal theft and it is not a victimless
> crime. For every buyer of a stock there has to be a seller, and if
> someone has material inside information about a company, he or she
> has a decided advantage determining an appropriate price for the
> security... Insider trading is somewhat akin to card counting...
> <<
>
> Okay, let's think this through. Suppose that grandpa has decided
> to sell his Proctor & Gamble this morning, and it so happens
> that some insider-trading M&A lawyer or banker just discovered
> that next week a bunch of PE firms are going to band together and
> make an offer to take PG private. So, the insider trader enters the
> market with a buy order for $5 million of PG at the same time my
> unknowing grandpa is a seller. Seeing as this constitutes $5 million
> of additional buying strength that otherwise (without the insider
> traders) wouldn't be there, what does this mean? It means a *better*
> price for grandpa. On the other hand, let's say grandpa wanted to
> *buy* PG this morning, in which case he'd now have to *compete with*
> that $5 million of additional buying power. In *that* case, the insider
> trader will *cost* grandpa a little money. So, depending upon whether
> you're buying or selling (and whether the insider traders are buying
> or selling), insider trading itself is actually "price neutral" to
> the honest anonymous buyers and sellers out there. The *real* reason
> to ban insider trading is simply that it "smells", and thus will
> discourage the vast majority of honest folks from participating in
> the capital markets and thereby render those markets smaller and
> less efficient. (Of course, when Goldman Sachs only has one down
> trading day out of every 100, one might start to believe that the
> markets are somewhat odorous anyway.)
>
> And as for that comment about insider trading being "somewhat akin
> to card counting", that's bullshit. Someone who counts cards has
> no more information available to him or her than any other participant
> at the table-- all he or she is doing is paying close attention to
> the cards that have been dealt (the same cards that anyone else can
> see, too) and then making the "highest percentage move" based upon
> those cards.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172060-regulating-wall-street-like-las-vegas-yes-we-can?source=feed#comment-752915 752915 Under your example, grandpa was going to buy that stock no matter > what. So, because the insiders dumped the stock, grandpa paid less > for it, and wound up losing less money when the bad news became public. > ]]> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:24:25 -0500

On Nov 09 03:19 PM logicalthought wrote:

> Under your example, grandpa was going to buy that stock no matter
> what. So, because the insiders dumped the stock, grandpa paid less
> for it, and wound up losing less money when the bad news became public.
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172060-regulating-wall-street-like-las-vegas-yes-we-can?source=feed#comment-752813 752813 Logicalthought, lets look at a different example. Grandpa has his > P&G stock and is thinking of sending his little granddaughter > Sally to college. He sets an appointment to meet with his broker > next week. Meanwhile, some insider traders find out that P&G > is going to be investigated by the FDA. They dump their shares, > driving the price down prior to the public being made aware of the > issue. The news comes out on the day grandpa meets with his broker. > The price has already dropped because of the insider trading, and > grandpa ends up losing his shirt. > > You can say that it's price neutral, but only under certain circumstances > and only to certain players.]]> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:19:42 -0500

On Nov 09 02:20 PM Silentz wrote:

> Logicalthought, lets look at a different example. Grandpa has his
> P&G stock and is thinking of sending his little granddaughter
> Sally to college. He sets an appointment to meet with his broker
> next week. Meanwhile, some insider traders find out that P&G
> is going to be investigated by the FDA. They dump their shares,
> driving the price down prior to the public being made aware of the
> issue. The news comes out on the day grandpa meets with his broker.
> The price has already dropped because of the insider trading, and
> grandpa ends up losing his shirt.
>
> You can say that it's price neutral, but only under certain circumstances
> and only to certain players.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172060-regulating-wall-street-like-las-vegas-yes-we-can?source=feed#comment-752720 752720 Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:20:55 -0500
You can say that it's price neutral, but only under certain circumstances and only to certain players.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172060-regulating-wall-street-like-las-vegas-yes-we-can?source=feed#comment-752651 752651 Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:34:45 -0500
I suppose the only way to bring them into line is to forst implement Glass Stegall so the variety of illicit activities can be curbed. Next, strictly enforce anti-trust laws so that every firm must face their inappropriate actions with losses in marketshare and defamation. Nothing works better to keep companies in line and serving the public better than good old functioning capitalism. In order for that to happen, financial companies can not be allowed to become shielded from competition ever. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172060-regulating-wall-street-like-las-vegas-yes-we-can?source=feed#comment-750999 750999 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:41:37 -0500
The problem with setting up a system of rules is that sociopaths thrive on rules, because they then stretch them to the abolute limit.

There was a big push in the eighties by the mental health workers in the country to steer sociopaths into business careers, in an attempt to get them out of crime. It was reasoned that they would be more successful in business than in crime given the possibility of arrest, etc. Addtionally the sociopath personality is well suited for business it was asserted because they could make the cold hearted ruthless decisions required to thrive as a corporation.

In retrospect pushing sociopaths towards business may not have been one of the best ideas to ever come out of the mental health system.

The justification for pushing them towards business was that they would do less harm through out their lives in business careers than in criminal career.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172060-regulating-wall-street-like-las-vegas-yes-we-can?source=feed#comment-750963 750963 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:09:43 -0500 ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172060-regulating-wall-street-like-las-vegas-yes-we-can?source=feed#comment-750783 750783 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:12:02 -0500
Aside from that, I agree with your article.....but the problem is that we've had decent regulations for decades...they just aren't enforced at all anymore and everyone knows it. We need a strong leader, ie not Shapiro who is part of the problem, to clean things up.

See any naked short selling prosecutions lately? Didn't think so....Shapiro must go.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172060-regulating-wall-street-like-las-vegas-yes-we-can?source=feed#comment-750648 750648 >... insider trading amounts to criminal theft and it is not a victimless crime. For every buyer of a stock there has to be a seller, and if someone has material inside information about a company, he or she has a decided advantage determining an appropriate price for the security... Insider trading is somewhat akin to card counting...<< Okay, let's think this through. Suppose that grandpa has decided to sell his Proctor & Gamble this morning, and it so happens that some insider-trading M&A lawyer or banker just discovered that next week a bunch of PE firms are going to band together and make an offer to take PG private. So, the insider trader enters the market with a buy order for $5 million of PG at the same time my unknowing grandpa is a seller. Seeing as this constitutes $5 million of additional buying strength that otherwise (without the insider traders) wouldn't be there, what does this mean? It means a *better* price for grandpa. On the other hand, let's say grandpa wanted to *buy* PG this morning, in which case he'd now have to *compete with* that $5 million of additional buying power. In *that* case, the insider trader will *cost* grandpa a little money. So, depending upon whether you're buying or selling (and whether the insider traders are buying or selling), insider trading itself is actually "price neutral" to the honest anonymous buyers and sellers out there. The *real* reason to ban insider trading is simply that it "smells", and thus will discourage the vast majority of honest folks from participating in the capital markets and thereby render those markets smaller and less efficient. (Of course, when Goldman Sachs only has one down trading day out of every 100, one might start to believe that the markets are somewhat odorous anyway.) And as for that comment about insider trading being "somewhat akin to card counting", that's bullshit. Someone who counts cards has no more information available to him or her than any other participant at the table-- all he or she is doing is paying close attention to the cards that have been dealt (the same cards that anyone else can see, too) and then making the "highest percentage move" based upon those cards.]]> Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:36:55 -0500 >... insider trading amounts to criminal theft and it is not a victimless crime. For every buyer of a stock there has to be a seller, and if someone has material inside information about a company, he or she has a decided advantage determining an appropriate price for the security... Insider trading is somewhat akin to card counting...<<

Okay, let's think this through. Suppose that grandpa has decided to sell his Proctor & Gamble this morning, and it so happens that some insider-trading M&A lawyer or banker just discovered that next week a bunch of PE firms are going to band together and make an offer to take PG private. So, the insider trader enters the market with a buy order for $5 million of PG at the same time my unknowing grandpa is a seller. Seeing as this constitutes $5 million of additional buying strength that otherwise (without the insider traders) wouldn't be there, what does this mean? It means a *better* price for grandpa. On the other hand, let's say grandpa wanted to *buy* PG this morning, in which case he'd now have to *compete with* that $5 million of additional buying power. In *that* case, the insider trader will *cost* grandpa a little money. So, depending upon whether you're buying or selling (and whether the insider traders are buying or selling), insider trading itself is actually "price neutral" to the honest anonymous buyers and sellers out there. The *real* reason to ban insider trading is simply that it "smells", and thus will discourage the vast majority of honest folks from participating in the capital markets and thereby render those markets smaller and less efficient. (Of course, when Goldman Sachs only has one down trading day out of every 100, one might start to believe that the markets are somewhat odorous anyway.)

And as for that comment about insider trading being "somewhat akin to card counting", that's bullshit. Someone who counts cards has no more information available to him or her than any other participant at the table-- all he or she is doing is paying close attention to the cards that have been dealt (the same cards that anyone else can see, too) and then making the "highest percentage move" based upon those cards.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172060-regulating-wall-street-like-las-vegas-yes-we-can?source=feed#comment-750538 750538 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:09:09 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/172060-regulating-wall-street-like-las-vegas-yes-we-can?source=feed#comment-750523 750523 Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:42:08 -0500 HOwever, since they run the Fed and are behind both political parties, it is unlikely that they will be called to account.
Madoff is the tip of the iceberg - the real Ponzi scheme is ongoing, and operating at the highest levels.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/167662-rajaratnam-indictment-wall-street-wrongdoing-remains-pervasive?source=feed#comment-730226 730226 Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:49:32 -0400
Boys will be boys! Everybody cheats, so why don't we! Here's a little something for you -- all you have to do is look the other way! Nobody gets hurt!

Immorality sinks the ship! Cheating, stealing, lying become the standard operating procedure!

Yes, and when a democracy cheats, steals and lies to its citizens, then it stops being a democracy. It becomes...state capitalism.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/167662-rajaratnam-indictment-wall-street-wrongdoing-remains-pervasive?source=feed#comment-730216 730216 Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:34:57 -0400
I remember when I was covering the big brokerage conferences and everyone asked Ultratech Stepper's CEO if he was buying a new car this year. After digging into the facts a number of hedge funds used the question as a informal way of knowing if the business and earnings were on the up and up or going to cycle down. There is no way the general public can get this type of coverage and almost no way to enforce such coded tip offs.

What are you going to post in your analyst report. The "CEO feel confident enough to buy a new hotrod"? This is the type of gunk hedge funds squander their premiums on. Whether on not it's worth it or legal or not is up to you.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/167662-rajaratnam-indictment-wall-street-wrongdoing-remains-pervasive?source=feed#comment-726497 726497 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:53:00 -0400
Consider no-doc loans. The only thing that could even be worse than no-docs loans in silliness is possibly Nigerian No-docs. Risk pays almost nothing and therefore the entire market has become a market of speculation strategies.

When the average Joe no longer fears risk is when the entire market will go. I think we are most of the way there. Look how many stocks do not pay a dividend, even though they are NOT growth stocks.

Risk pays almost nothing, because people do not think it is possible to lose. I have heard many people talk about when the market will recover, as if it is just a fact. The argument for them seems to be how long until it recovers, not IF it will recover.

There is no real belief in risk. They are not risking their money, they are risking having to wait for it longer than they thought. Maybe by a year or even five.

Where are the people who still think there is a risk in the market? Where are those who are talking about "If" the market will recovery. There are some, like yourself, but there should be a lot more. The lack of almost anyone who fears risk will cause every stupid risk there is (Ie, no doc loans) to get play, such as AEG did, until finally it all crashes.






]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/167662-rajaratnam-indictment-wall-street-wrongdoing-remains-pervasive?source=feed#comment-726309 726309 Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:30:21 -0400
We need to bring back Glass-Steagall.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/167662-rajaratnam-indictment-wall-street-wrongdoing-remains-pervasive?source=feed#comment-726050 726050 Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:49:21 -0400
The SEC, the FBi or the NY Attny General could catch as many perpetrators as they want to at any time by following the trail of options trades when the activity is suspicious.

Very likely they are only bringing in a selection of individuals who have good P/R value. Rajaratnam donated money to charities that may have been fronts for Tamil Tigers, sounds sort of like terrorism, and was fined in 2005 for sham trades in connection with short-selling ahead of capital raises. He probably fit the profile of a good p/r case.

I really don't understand how an academic can get access to data that proves crimes with no problem, but the SEC when attempting to track the naked CDS, short and distort types who ruled during the reign of terror up to and after the fall of the house of Lehman just couldn't get any info, even with subpoenas. Nobody was under any obligation to keep any records, it seemed, or to disclose anything to the SEC, who had no authority.

I don't need another Martha Stewart or a Mark Cuban or really a Raj Rajaratnam. I want CDS manipulators, the guys that brought down the system, very nearly put the country in a Depression. Rajaratnam is foreign born and not really very photogenic, why can't we get some impeccably groomed Ivy League types, smooth as silk, steal more money with a computer than ten lawyers with briefcases or 100 street criminals with machine guns. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/167662-rajaratnam-indictment-wall-street-wrongdoing-remains-pervasive?source=feed#comment-725973 725973 Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:30:51 -0400
If they then traded on any of this information, should they all be indicted for insider trading?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/167662-rajaratnam-indictment-wall-street-wrongdoing-remains-pervasive?source=feed#comment-725842 725842 Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:12:22 -0400
I have written software which partially identifies what the biggest traders in the market are doing. It appears to me there are a number of questionable activities going on. If you are curious, take a look the graphs I have posted on the instantblog. There are literally millions of unique graphs that could be created each day.

I wish I had your knowledge to go with my software(g). ]]>