Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judge Bars Instant Publishing of Analysts' Stock Tips
An anonymous reader writes "Big Banking firms Barclay's Capital, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch successfully obtained an injunction against theflyonthewall.com, Inc., preventing them from immediately publishing the firms' stock upgrades and downgrades. This case could have far-reaching consequences concerning internet communication and publication of news." Here's some interesting analysis from Paul Levy, via Dave Farber's Interesting People list.
Basically, this company was publishing the results of various investment bank's research before their clients could read and act upon it. The legal reasoning behind it could equally be applied to Google News republishing other people's headlines, for example. More seriously, it means that effectively, you now have a sort of "copyright" created by the courts on factual information that you possess. I leave it to slashdotters to come up with ways this might be abused....
[FUCK BETA]
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sort of like the trade secret that the big boys get to buy on a current price knowing what it will be in a short period of time. Wall Street really is filled with crooks and thieves. Barring analyst recommendations from being published in that respect is largely pointless. The recommendations are for institutions anyways, and are not generally made on any basis useful to the small time investor.
Theflyonthewall.com just moves it's servers & business outside the US. I hear Antigua might be a good choice, since they've already gotten a WTO judgment against the US and so wouldn't be quick to cooperate with the US to take down the site.
It looks like the US government is determined to drive businesses, particularly internet-based or -dependent businesses, to other countries. Then they whine about trade imbalances and people wonder why business is fleeing the US.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
1. There are a couple of dudes, who just make up the latest “trends”.
2. Which of course is where they have their money in.
3. Now the dumb people who listen to them buy those s(t)ocks.
4. And the prophecy fulfills itself. (Yep, that’s the “...” point in all those plans.)
5. PROFIT!
Of course in stocks, after it starts to rise because of the dumb people, the more intelligent got a real reason to invest, and so it goes even higher. In fashion on the other hand people do it because they are such losers that they think they would be left out and not accepted otherwise.
So it’s all rigged. But if you know a bit of social engineering, and are really full of yourself, you can be a rigger too.
My motto: I don’t follow trends. I MAKE them. (And so should you. :)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The whole point of having a stock market is to get money to the people who can make the best use of it. What this ruling does, as far as I can tell, is impede that process by preventing the dissemination of useful information about who can make the best use of investment capital. In short, while this might or might not be a good ruling from the standpoint of enforcing the law as it exists today, it runs completely counter to the whole point of having a stock market. There should be absolutely no impediment to disseminating as widely as possible information about publicly traded stocks unless it is for an exceptionally good reason (like national security level good).
Going even further, by restricting information like this they are essentially allowing the major players in the stock market to manipulate stock prices. I tell my clients that I will claim stock X will go up and the market listens to me. I do this in such a way that my clients can by their stocks first. Stock goes up because I say it will and I'm a major player. Then my clients sell their stock making a nice tidy profit, all the while I have less incentive to provide good advice because assuming I'm even vaguely plausible this scheme will work. The law is protecting this kind of thing when it should be prohibiting it!
If only we could set up a system where intelligent, educated individuals with knowledge in both the subject at hand and the law in general could sit down and, after careful deliberation and hearing the advice of people on both sides of each issue, come to some sort of a rational decision intended to balance between competing interests.
Perhaps we could give these individuals a fancy title, like arbiter, or decider... I don't know, something classy and prestigious to go with their important and honorable function. We should name the places and circumstances under which they operate something special, too, something that inspires respect and tradition... maybe forums? Also, we should have a bunch of levels of it, so that we can mitigate the effect any one bad decision or individual has, then let people make some sort of dispute if things aren't decided their way and they feel something wasn't appropriately dealt with.
Anyway, it could be a really cool system. Somebody should write up a document, and we could vote on whether or not to make that the highest law of the land.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
So the judge knows the actual barring is baseless, but is doing it to protect these rich banks and their advantages for long enough for them to fix their leaks.
I thought judges were here to uphold laws, not temporally wipe their ass with the 1st amendment in favor of big banks.