The law allows them to downgrade a stock and buy it too. Check their filings and times of disclosure. They do this regularly. Tank the price, then buy in. Politicians also are allowed to have huge conflicts of interest and make a lot from that. Criminals, all. Rules for thee and not for me. They short a stock, then rush to the presses to tank it. Look at YY and muddy waters. How many people got stopped out for a big loss because of these guys?
Um, no it doesn't. Perhaps you could quote the actual section of USC you are referring to? Of course you can't because it doesn't exist. Maybe read up a little on the Volcker Rule while you're at it.
What are you talking about? They love to do this with AAPL. Downgrade it, then buy it, then upgrade it.
Again, I asked you to quote the specific law you stated exists. That shouldn't be so hard now, should it? Simple request, put up of shut up. And GS doesn't buy AAPL or any other stock for their own account ever, they haven't been allowed to since 2009 when the Volker Rule banned prop trading by the banks. That can be found in 12 U.S. Code § 1851 just to show you what it means to list an actual law, since that concept seems to be beyond your ability to grasp.
I didn't say it exists, I was referring to the fact that the absence of restrictions inherently legalizes it. Goldman trades: https://qz.com/58535/goldman-sachs-...trading-last-year-and-just-15-days-of-losses/ doesn't matter if its their own account or not as long as they get paid
ok god, this is too funny. Those laws were voted by Congress since the 1940s, jesus christ, get yourself an education.
%% LOL.WELL its down from $26,000+/ split adjusted. .NOTHING like stock splits to attempt hide a trend.. Thats how C [Citibank] a stock priced @pennies /$73.31 today is really $7.31.,.[EDIT, SEC almost never makes a mistake]Unless some one thinks the SEC should have fined mr Musk .. more than $40 million/ sarcasm/LOL
Nice article from 2013. Hint, the reason that's all you could find is because banks aren't allowed to prop trade anymore, per the section of code I so clearly referenced for you. That's the restriction, clear as day if you read the law. The only question is if you're capable of doing that?
You said 2009. That article was '13. That means what you stated was not the case. I only posted it because it was the first thing that came up and I didn't need to do anything more. Regardless, I don't care. Do whatever you want.