O.K. my last post on this - I will put myself in enforced lock out from the list for awhile for droning on once again about politically-related issues ;-)
Mike wrote: > I am concerned about the different effects and results pertaining to those with the > nous, or the smart advisors, or the insider connections to invest and > cash-in at the right time, and who are generally happy with the way the > system has worked for them, and those pertaining to the people in the > mutual funds and pensions who were not privy to insider deals and > therefore not able to cash in their chips before the casino roof fell in. Yes, yes - I think this has been a big matter of discussion among many recently, including some of my friends last weekend. One friend thought that insider trading should be allowed for everyone (!) Maybe his intention is in the right place but is inartfully expressed. I think businesses still deserve some proprietary protection for their, for example, confidential development of a new product and the right to release it on their own competitive and budgetary timing. Insider trading is a very serious offense in the U.S. People who engage in it are really playing with fire if they think they can get away with it. The SEC has had certain methods and systems for many years to detect a lot of it unbeknownst to the offender. Someone told me that the government is looking into changing regulations to further deter insider trading opportunities. > My question "is it fair?" was directed at this rich/poor, > insider/outsider divide, although it could arguably be applied to people > who gained a lot of money through the artificial buoyancy of the market > and who now, after suffering a little, or a lot, are saying that the > system needs changing. As I've written before we've had all the laws in place for many years and the system theorectically should work and has worked fairly well in the past. I think the problem has been more with those who were running the system in recent years and not doing their job of enforcing the law. > Perhaps not, but I was trying to make the point that not all > investigations are handled well and in the interests of justice. You say > that the SEC you worked with seemed to be 'hardcore' and I accept that, > but it is obvious that there are serious deficiencies in the financial > regulation system, apart from any further, hypothetical Bush-related > investigations. Again I don't think it is the system per se, but rather deficiencies in enforcement. Although I'm all for making the penalties harsher. > Here I think you treat me unfairly. My motivation is not to get a > different politically-based outcome to any hypothetical Bush > investigation, but to express my wish that investigations in general (be > they Police or SEC or whatever) be carried out on the basis of truth, > independence, justice and equity, and in public. Sorry Mike, I wasn't thinking of you personally when I made that statement. The subject of corporate/accounting/investment malfeasance always gets my blood going. It has been at the top of my pet outrages since Michael Milken's and Ivan Boesky's massive-scale thievery and damage to thousands of people's retirement funds in the 1980s. Their actions did not personally affect me or anyone I know financially but I don't think anything had ever appalled me so much. I truly thought they should have received a life term in prison. As you might guess one of my other pet outrages is brazen and unrelenting politically motivated lies and slander (whether it be a well-known politician or a friend or a co-worker) and I was thinking of those who purvey it when I made that statement. Not those who read it, discuss it, comment on it or even believe it. Kakki
