Good job. You should be able to provide a link to plenty of criminal or civil cases where the SEC busted people on options trades then right? You've really built the suspense. And you're also implying that the big Ibanks don't have the SEC on a short leash. Care to explain the John Mack case - and probably others that are tip top secret.
No, he is right, the first thing that the SEC looks at is options trades. They are a lot easier to recognize and when it comes to smaller fish trying to make a buck on insider trading, options are obviously more profitable. There are plenty of cases, for example, the last two glorified cases (the one involving Assent and the idiots from Merrill & Barrons), they both had option trade involved that were caught.
You are responsible for addressing your own ignorance, not me. The NY Times campaigned for an investigation of Mack after Morgan Stanley pressured the Sulzberger family and the NY Times to end special voting rights for the Sulzberger family. The NY Times allegations were quid pro quo retaliation against a (then) supporter of the Bush administration that fooled no one (except for you, of course). The SEC found no basis for the accusations. I'm surprised Mack didn't sue the NY Times for libel. I get the sense that your ignorance and feverish paranoia about the SEC are politically motivated as well.
Yes, especially in the initial investigation, you tend to find people like, say, the wife of a couple that knows the CFO who has a $5k margin account and buys 100 calls the day before the news. Those people are a lay up and are toast in no time. Other people who are more clever about it may take longer to track down.
.....or, as in the Aguirre / Mack debacle, they nail mom and pop, and let Mack skip. Deepfried, did you run across that favoritism when you were in investigation? Article in Marketwatch on SEC Employee review. I think it's part of the GAO probe. http://www.marketwatch.com:80/news/...x?guid={066BD4DE-1E01-4F12-908A-CD3455E82977} If you guys haven't read Aguirre's testimony, you should. It is unbelievably interesting. A real autopsy showing how the game is played for billions. And actually, Aguirre pointed out in the hearing the SEC had only, as of June of 06, prosecuted two cases of insider trading to conclusion. He claimed the rest went unpunished. Since then, there have been several, as the Judiciary Committee landed hard on these guys, and accused them of perjury.
flytiger, I would agree that the easiest targets get nailed first and sometimes exclusively. I'm in no way saying the SEC is terrific. When I was working at the exchange (10 years ago) institutional trades often, but not always, got overlooked. The standard procedure for dealing with the guilty in every case I worked on was disgorgement of profits along with fines. The perpetrators knew full well that they were in no position to weasel their way out of the situation and the SEC is not interested in wasting time and money taking all these cases to prosecution. That's why these cases don't get prosecuted to a conclusion and why it is in fact undesirable to prosecute them to a conclusion. They can do a grandstanding Perry Mason case or they can take the money back, ding the perp with fine, put them on watch list/ban them from trading and move on to the next dirtbag.
Typical. A self styled "expert" that's got nothing. What law school do you pretend you went to? Give us the whole spiel. LOL
The fines are so miniscule. It's like, they have to do something, so you made 100mm, give us 2 back. What is the logic in doing that, besides the fact it is a captive organisation? I mean, with the amount of fraud, with proper fines and the ability to keep a good part, they could pay for the whole enchalata.