LOL ! Oh yeah, they certainly do. They have "sometimes" their very special own way : http://www.businessinsider.com/chanos-sac-snared-in-wall-street-research-scandal-2009-2 I do not want to implement that Steve et al "do it" permanently but hey, it's all about the opportunity, isn' t it ?
Did you read your own article? SAC did NOT act on information it received and according to their own compliance dept lawyer were actually BUYING shares at the time in question. An attorney would not say this if he did not have the records to back this up.
I love this quote. Sure, I've never seen any attorney make a claim he couldn't substantiate. Never. /sarcasm
If anybody has seen my posts, they know I am a self admitted paranoid, conspiracy theorists I''ll bite!!! Can you hint at what you know? Can you hint where I should begin looking to know - if possible? My thought is that by November - the world as we know it will be completely different - in a hideous, depression sort of way...few "instruments" will be of value - only food and shelter that are outright owned...I have my reasons for believing this...reasons that are on this board, if somebody were to put the pieces together! -gastropod
I would agree with you Ivan on most occasions. Article said the SEC was investigating and quoted a SAC lawyer. If you have ever had any dealings with regulators there is one thing you know: you do not lie to FINRA, SEC or Justice Dept. You jeopardize your firms future as well as your own. Just ask Martha Stewart. She did not go to jail for insider trading as I'm sure you know, she went to jail for lying to regulators.
So if SAC was aware of the insider information quality of the emails, why didn' t they inform SEC or other enforcement bodies ? Let me guess : SAC Capital is not a snitcher entity, right ?
You know Ivan, I am not really defending anyone here. Actually I am an independant trader for a reason. I will never go back to one of these firms or hedge funds. You have to make money, your department has to make money, and the fund/firm has to make money to get paid. Most of your pay gets held either in the fund or as deferred at a bank. Then fund may go down, you are forced to lever in these positions, and you lose it or its clawed back. Kind of tired of everyone saying that its the wild west at these places. As a supervisor for many years I can tell you that regulators are in constant oversight. This is why something like Madoff was such a shocker. We were harrassed constantly by NASD (FINRA predessesor) with questions every single month. Audited twice a year internally, they were tougher than outside scrutiny. Yes, questions on trades that went right. What was your thought process, can you show us documentation that led to your investment, can we see correspondence with analysts, brokers and peers (looking for collusion). Just food for thought, there are two sides to every story. I am an outsider now, just trying to chop out a living with no Goldman 'tips'!!
I do not doubt your sincerity, but what do you expect the public to think when they constantly are bombarded with examples of how the SEC or FINRA or any other regulatory agency blatantly failed at their job?
Oh I could tell you stories. Like I said, internal audits were painful and surgical. These young auditors were from the very best of schools and trying to substantiate their own existence and move up the corporate ladder by catching something. Questions from regulators were so off-based and out of whack. It actually scared me at times. You had to take them seriously though because of the consequences if they thought something was not legit. I don't know what the answer is, obviously more oversight, more money thrown at these regulatory bodies. Which we don't have right now.