Nico, My argument has absolutely nothing to do with a desire to alter the market's direction, or a belief that it could. It simply has to do with the fact that it is unethical to knowingly place yourself in a situation to profit from tragedy, regardless of the lame excuses for it you will read here. I guess it is one of those things that if you don't see it, there's nothing that another can say to make you see it. For some here, if there was a widespread fire, and they owned the only water company in town, they'd jack up the price of water. I mean what the hell, profit is profit. Wet
Impeccably compelling reasoning, Wet. "The market will always take care of itself" and "the market always does what it does." What the world do these statements REALLY mean? It's very much like saying, "History will always tell us what it wants to tell us." These are only convenient cliches used by those running out of good arguments. I'm not trying to be cute here, but far too often we hide behind these nonsensical statements to evade responsibility, whether moral or otherwise. stockoptionist
Lonester-Just want to say hello --Haven't spoke to you in a while-Hope you and family are well. We'll talk tomorrow......Nic -absolutely not taking any side here--Just simply want to say I loved that flea story.
I don't. honus, If you were already short, the dilemma - if it was one for you - does not apply, I believe - or at least is of a different nature. Don't bother too much. Wet, and everybody else, The question is imo not whether you profit from someone else's tragedy (as a trader you should not be too sensitive about this) but whether you want to knowingly contribute to the profit making of terrorists, of whom you know (we practically know that now) that they have shorted stocks on a massive scale (especially airline and insurance stocks) before the attacks. By shorting stocks now, you will very likely be supporting future terrorist acts. It is up to each individual trader to decide whether he/she wants to do so. Anyone who believes that his shorting does not have any significant effect upon the market, is just as right as all those who believe that their vote in an election does not make any difference. What are we defending then?
whether you want to knowingly contribute to the profit making of terrorists...that they have shorted stocks on a massive scale before the attacks. I know that heavy terrorist shorting is the rumor, but suppose, just suppose, that instead the rumor du jour was that the terrorists had heavily gone long the stocks that would be most helped by terrorist activity (and, frankly, that's not too farfetched a notion). In other words, suppose they went heavily long defense stocks, oil stocks, auto rental stocks, gold stocks, etc. Would that mean that anyone going long any of those stocks would be effectively helping the terrorists in their quest for world domination? And if you did go long, knowing that it was helping finance the terrorists but, on balance, you figured it would be worth it to "help" the American Economy, could you ever sell your longs as a stock trader? Or must you hold indefinitely for the good of the country? We would like these issues to be black and white, but unfortunately they are not. Sorry.
Short-term trading is equivalent to playing poker. You aren't going to do any social good by choosing to be a poorer poker player. Much better to win, and then donate something to a good cause (as IB did). Choosing to lose just puts money into other traders hands, with no reason for thinking that they will do any good with it. If you want to directly do social good via your profession, then being a trader is about as far removed from that goal as you can get. (That's not a criticism of trading - I don't care if you guys like playing poker, just don't try to tell me that I'd be doing a lot of social good by losing to you.) BTW (as others may have mentioned), if you drive the market up, the bad guys will just go long. They aren't just going to sit stupidly with short positions. They too are poker players.
I posted this reply to an associate, who sent me email from the Taipan Group, whom were forecasting Monday's outcome, on Thursday, last week. I was so incensed that I replied: If you're paying attention, then, this Taipan Group is speaking only from their own lack of knowledge in the American spirit and resolve. Should these conditions transpire in the void or absence of the direct comments from every major appointed head of Treasury, Defense, Finance, Economic and "Other" federal departments, then perhaps it would have some significance. ((simply put, there is active awareness of and from the powers that be... this substantially changes the landscape, because the "monitors" are watching and "willing" to intervene to reinstate normalcy)) Take more than "a" deep breath, take as many as it takes to get a little light headed again, because this sought of "oxygen deprived" reasoning is not only dangerous, but TREACHEROUS. My suggestion is that you DO NOT get caught up in it. Trust in God, Trust in those appointed to prevent this mass chaos, Trust in your appointed leaders, and most importantly, push back from the table, the trading desk, the phones, the email and let these peoples do what they have to do. And as traders, get ready to do what we have to do, and what we "can" do! Peace,
dkamp, Is playing poker the same as trading the markets? A society can survive without poker games, but a society cannot NOT have a market, whether it's as primitive as a barter market or as sophisticated as the modern electronic stock markets. Simply because there are certain game rules that these two types of activities follow, it doesn't mean that they serve the same functions. Of course, many people treat the stock market like poker games and even casinos, but I think it's a stretched analogy. Can the world's economy thrive without casinos? I think so. Can the world's economy thrive without markets? I don't think so. If we understand that trading the market is not the same as playing poker, not just a game, AND if we believe that our actions in the markets have impact in the real world we live in, then I believe we have to have some responsibility for our actions. I am not preaching morality here. It's just that I'm trying to dispel some common misconceptions held by traders. I know some people have compared trading the markets with playing pokers, but again, as I said, it's a flawed analogy. stockoptionist
Millions (or Billions) of people have suffered lung cancer caused by smoking cigarettes. Traders have made profits trading MO (Phillip Morris). Traders are trading MO <b>while knowing</b> that MO makes cigarettes that cause lung cancer. <b>Is this ethical?</b> Traders are making a profit from the tragedy of lung cancer which has been cause, in large part, by cigarettes manufactured by several private and public tobacco companies. More people have died from tobacco related cancers than all those who perished in the WTC incident. And more people will continue to die for as long as MO and all tobacco companies continue to produce products that kill. Which is the bigger tragedy? Are you drawing the ethical line on WTC but not on MO? "No, this is different. We're talking about terrorism". Non-Americans killing Americans vs. Americans producing products (e.g. cigarettes) that kill Americans. They both have the same results: Americans are killed. You're going to trade GE? A red, white and blue all-American company? Sure, go ahead and <b>indirectly</b> profit from it while knowing that GE-produced engines are in the Boeing planes that were used by the hijackers. Who knows, maybe GE even produced the knives that were used, too. You're a high-tech trader? You like MSFT? Ok, but remember that hijackers might've practiced on Flight Simulator so you might not want to profit from trading MSFT ever again. Who knows, the force-feedback joystick might've made the collision more realistic. The day after the USS Cole was hit, did you trade short? The USS Cole incident is no different than the WTC incident. Americans were killed in both incidents. Your ethicism allows you trade short after the USS Cole incident but not after the WTC incident? After the terrorist suicide bombing on the Marines in Beriut, did you trade short? After the terrorist suicide incident in the Japanese subway system last year or so, did you trade short? If the WTC incident occured and the stock market was still open last Tuesday and through the week, you would've traded short. You know it. "Yes I would have, but I would've stopped trading short once I learned that the German markets was shorted by Osama bin Laden". As you know, this is pure speculation at this point. Yes, the German market was shorted but the connection to Osama bin Laden hasn't been proven yet and is under investigation. And even if he is behind the market manipulation, it shouldn't change our trading. Before the WTC incident, I did my <b>patriotic duty</b> by adding liquidity to <b>both</b> sides of the markets as a trader. I traded all-American NASDAQ companies. Now, all of the sudden, it's not patriotic to short stocks? Because of Osama bin Laden? How long does this "do not short" rule last? Until terrorism is over? This war against terrorism does not have an end. It never will. This war against terrorism will outlast the Bush administration and the administration after that. If this war against terrorism will never end, when will you ever short stocks again? Are you going to wait until Osama bin Laden is dead? Remember, he's not the only terrorist. There are many others. When will you perform your patriotic duty to add liquidity to <b>both</b> sides of the market again? In my opinion, this decision to trade both sides of the market should not be controlled by Osama bin Laden. If you withhold your liquidity to trade the short side, Osama has won. He has won because he modified your behavior. Why do people fear a market downturn of 8% on Monday? Institutional traders <b>love</b> to buy on dips. 8% is a serious dip that will get serious buyers. This <b>might</b> prestage a new bull rally. But it won't happen in the first place unless you have shorts. This "Monday-only" patriotic rally will not defeat Osama bin Laden but a serious market dip might prestage a new long-term bull rally that will provide financial strength to the nation as it fights a new war against a shadowy enemy. Which is more patriotic? A Monday-only patriotic rally that has very little benefit with a huge morale boost or a long-term bull rally where everyone benefits and the morale is stronger? MGB