SEC sick?

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by mutluit, Jul 27, 2013.

  1. mutluit


    "In the 41-page indictment filed July 25, prosecutors alleged that Cohen and his top managers sought to hire traders and analysts who had the ability to deliver any kind of “edge” over the market."

    C'mon, this is thin air, SEC must be new to trading, or has never taken a probability course.
    Seeking an "edge" is the task of every trader, programmer and of the programs in the financiall world.

    SEC should go after GS, not SAC.
  2. Pekelo


    Why, is it too hard to do BOTH?
  3. LOL

    The SEC, EPA and all of those agencies that protect us only go after low level people.

    Can you imagine going after someone who is golfing buddies/frat brothers with your boss (also involved), has money to blow on the best lawyers and is politically connected... If you attempt to charge someone in power they will Own You... It is the way the world works.

    Just a FYI, I had a run in with a HUGE name that tried something that was so illegal anyone else wold be put away with no questions. After I filed a complaint I was threatened by the regulators to never speak of what had happened. Otherwise I would get sued and disciplined....

    Don't F*&k with the wrong person and that is the wrong person! If you do there will be no place to turn for help... Your career, freedom, family and everything you value will be a target to them.
  4. mutluit


    I know what you mean, but when you say "Don't F*&k with the wrong person", do you mean the SEC or Mr. Cohen?
    What I read about the guy is that it looks he just has found a legitimate "edge", a mathematical edge, not any insider-trading.
    Of course of his 1000 or so people some can have done insider-trading, but I don't think one can make the employer responsible for this.
    If so, then GS would have been shut down years ago, decades ago.
    I think, the competition of SAC is manipulating the government with false/questionable "evidence" against SAC/Cohen...
  5. mutluit


    religion could be a reason...
  6. mutluit


    conspiracy theory:
    Maybe Mr. Cohen has made donations to WikiLeaks or other Robin-Hood like Anti-Govt-Secrecy organizations.
    Now, after Mr. Snowden's revealations the Empire in a blind manner tries to punish all and everybody ...
  7. you honestly think that is all their evidence? Hardly the case. You only personally indict a person if you have strong evidence of that person's wrongdoing. If anything that SEC has done wrong in the most recent past then its that the SEC has settled cases way too early not for lack of evidence but because they were politically pressured to not drive the case to the bitter end but be content with a monetary settlement to write home to us taxpayers that "we" have been made whole and that the wrong guy has paid his dues. Looks good enough for the average Joe. Not that I agree with it but that seems to be the case.

  8. Not true, they have waged war against some real heavy hitters recently. Check the sums they have settled with major firms and you should agree to revise your statements....

  9. mutluit


    "The government says SAC sought analysts who had "an edge." CEO of Baker Avenue Asset Management, Simon Baker wonders what that means. On that front the SEC isn't giving him much help. "It's so opaque," says Baker of where having an edge stops and cheating begins. "Clearly as a good analyst you want to get an edge, that's what you're paying an analyst to do is get better information."

    I doubt the so called proescutor named Bharwat or what his name might be, understands anything of trading; he just glass-clearly proves that he has no clue of the finance business.
    It seems he seems fearing Spitzner coming back grabbing his job, so he wanted present a "trophy" to prevent that...

    Thanks g*d, the US is, after all, still a country with a somehow working justice system, albeit a very expensive and sometimes a very corrupt one :) Still preferrable over Russia's or China's juicy justice system :)
  10. I once invested in a company who had a price significantly below their book value (ie: more than 20% (buffett's at 30%)), and met the criteria Buffett described under Benjamin Graham's rules of value investing. (Incidentally this was the only stock I've found in the last 10 years that actually met this criteria).

    Contacted their company to ask why it was priced there and they said they didn't know. I asked what they'd like to sell the company for and they mentioned their poison pill policy in the discussion...

    Enough evidence for me to discover corporate governance unsuitable for investment, dump the stock, and that's what I did.

    Went down 15% after then the owner bought his company back.
    #10     Jul 28, 2013