Slashdot Mirror

Just want to be sure I understand. If you were making an equities market, you don't see the value of trying to have a level playing field for information, where all those who would trade an equity have the same information about it (or, if insiders, they'd have some rules on how they can trade)...

A bit of a loaded question. If I could magically ensure information symmetry, I would. But I believe trying to enforce this level-playing-field idea is ridiculous. We're barely making a dent in "the problem", just enough to make it more profitable for those that do. Not only that, but we're throwing people in jail for doing something 99.9% of us would do..

Sort of like the SNL all drug olympics, right? Ah, I kid. :D

:P but yeah, equity markets serve quite a different purpose than sporting events :P

But for serious now, am I supposed to be happier about investing in your insider-trading-friendly market, versus one that does make an attempt to be transparent?

Of course not. I too would be more hesitant, but the purpose of the stock market isn't designed as a form of entertainment.

Do you propose that your market (where I am virtually guaranteed to get rooked unless I am an "insider") will draw more investors than a more transparent market (were more investors have a more level playing field)?

Yes. The market will react quicker, and (I believe) the liquidity would be slightly stronger.
And I disagree about your getting rooked statement. The only reason I can see that holding true, is if allowing insider-trading provided increased incentives for market minipulation. Which it probably does, but the sort of people that try manipulate the market aren't dumb enough to do anything in their name, so insider trading laws really don't bother them..

In fact, you really think the less transparent market is actually more accurate?

I should say I thought the point of your market was for it to be less accurate, and therefore provide more of an opportunity for insiders to take money from outsiders. :)

People that give false information to "outsiders" to take advantage of them have never worried about insider trading laws. They will continue to operate as usual, and we already have laws and regulation in place to deal with that.

Do you have any comment on the relative historical success of transparent markets (such as those in first world nations) versus less transparent markets (either in fact and in principle), such as those in the 3rd world, over say, the last 50 or 100 years?

Good point, but this is more correlation than causation. A country that can afford to regulate, is clearly better off. A country that is well regulated/transparent has less corruption etc. I have never invested in any Chinese company, not because they don't have strict insider-trading laws - but because I have no way of knowing if figures released are accurate etc. etc.

While investing in Australian and American companies I have no such hesitation

Do you mind if I ask, which kind of market has the majority of your investments?

I'm on the board of directors for an Australian company that deals exclusively with industrial properties. And my personal holdings are exclusively in the United States stock market. (My only current position is actually selling calls on Intel .. the calls I sold will expire in four days, and I will look to do something similar again)

I'd much prefer if the government just got it's nose out of the market. The only thing insider traders do is lead to a more accurate market..

Just want to be sure I understand. If you were making an equities market, you don't see the value of trying to have a level playing field for information, where all those who would trade an equity have the same information about it (or, if insiders, they'd have some rules on how they can trade)...

Sort of like the SNL all drug olympics, right? Ah, I kid. :D

But for serious now, am I supposed to be happier about investing in your insider-trading-friendly market, versus one that does make an attempt to be transparent?

Do you propose that your market (where I am virtually guaranteed to get rooked unless I am an "insider") will draw more investors than a more transparent market (were more investors have a more level playing field)?

In fact, you really think the less transparent market is actually more accurate?

I should say I thought the point of your market was for it to be less accurate, and therefore provide more of an opportunity for insiders to take money from outsiders. :)

Do you have any comment on the relative historical success of transparent markets (such as those in first world nations) versus less transparent markets (either in fact and in principle), such as those in the 3rd world, over say, the last 50 or 100 years?

Do you mind if I ask, which kind of market has the majority of your investments?

Hmmm... Amsterdam 2016? That would be a great place for the first All Drug Olympics

Same video, but viewable..

I personally look forward to the All Drug Olympics!

http://www.broadcaster.com/clip/9253

Should work... if not... in the "All Drug Olympics" "Sergei Akmudov(?)" is going for the world weightlifting record (over 1500 pounds)... and proceeds to rip his arms out of his sockets.

And I, on the other hand, invoke Godwin.