I also wrote that exam in C++, and I must have written it at the same time as you because we also had that fish case study. Ironically, my teacher didn't tell us about the case study until a week before the exam. Instead of working on the case during the semester, I spent 99% of my time creating my own text adventure. Making my own game was great, because I kept having to learn things so I could add more functionality. I don't think I ever learned any subject quite as well; it's amazing how motivated you can get if you enjoy the activity. In the end, missing out on the case study didn't hurt me, since they provided all the code for the case at the back of the exam anyway.
Perhaps the exam is unpopular due to the way the course is taught. If I was forced to work on that case study all semester, I definately would not have learned as much as I did. Maybe the AP board needs to cut the exam, restructure the program so it's more fun and interesting, and then re-release it.
You're welcome.
Hopefully you enjoy it; it's an FPS/RTS, and it might not appeal to all gamers, but I find it pretty damn fun. Theres a 5-hour full version demo that you can try out too.
1) At least with Wikipedia you can try to edit an article if it contains factual misinformation. 2) Wikileaks is composed almost entirely of "sensitive" information that could be considered harmful or libelous. That kind of information needs even more scrutiny than the types of things you find on Wikipedia.
I agree that the theory is pretty good: having a place where people can safely and annonymously leak information. However, I believe there should be some sort of thorough fact-checking and analysis involved, which Wikileaks seems to be failing at. Without proper analysis, you simply have a place where anyone can libel and slander freely. Just because someone is releasing information annonymously doesn't mean that it's (a) useful information, (b) correct, or (c) helpful to the larger soceity as a whole.
I'm discouraging people from using the Wikileak's website specifically because I have personal experience with it. It's not just the poor analysis and unfounded conclusions that turned me against the website, it's the blantant incompetency that was shown by the admins when they refused to fix it. Useless information, useless analysis, and incompetent admins... ditch it entirely.
In my opinion, Wikileaks needs to be run by a competent authority, say a reputable newspaper or an existing not-for-profit enterprise.
It's smart of you to be distrusting of my "agenda", but I'm sorry to disappoint you. I'm just a random twenty-something student, living up here in Canada. I don't work for some evil corporation or respressive government.
How about Manitoba, Canada? We have extraordinarily cheap power from our hydro dams, we're much closer than Alaska, and it's winter 8 months of the year:)
If you can't trust a thing on the site, why bother reading it?
I don't think you're right about the philosphy of Wikileaks either; it's not just "a place to put up any document". The Wikileaks "editors" are trying to build credibility and integrity. From the "Writer's Kit" section, they want to "understand the document, summarize and explain, question veracity and motives, cite references, and make conclusions supported by facts". I'm arguing that they're failing miserably, as shown by the JP Morgan article. The writer didn't understand the topic, does not cite any references, and none of the conclusions are supported by the facts. When someone who did understand the issue tried to fix the page (ie me), an obtuse admin reversed it.
I've completely lost confidence in Wikileak's ability to report anything accuractely, since they ran that terrible JP Morgan Chase Tax story. It was wrong on practically every important point, which was pointed out here on Slashdot by me and others. I figured, "Hey it's a wiki; I should fix the errors", but admin-abuse kept the original story locked. If they can be so horribly wrong on one topic, why should we trust them regarding anything else?
Ugh... the wikileak admins don't understand the the topic, so they accuse me of being an employee of JP Morgan Chase. Talk about admin abuse... I'm never using that site again.
Well that was pointless: Wikileaks reverted both my edits without an explanation, so we're stuck with a shitty article. I wonder why it's called "Wiki"-leaks if they won't let anyone edit it.
The net position of using this instrument is that it "collars" the value of the stocks. In essence, if the stock price falls, you have to deliver the shares. Since you were prepaid, you're not actually losing anything. If the stock price increases, you get a small portion of that increase. If you look at the payoff diagram from the barrymiller pdf, you'll see that you've "locked in" the value of your portfolio between the upper and lower limit.
Whether the person has insider information at any point in the process is irrelevant. There is no discretionary element to the contract; that is, the amount of shares that you're going to deliver only depends on the stock price at expiration. You can't call up the broker after a few months and ask them to sell more or less.
If you really had perfect insider information that the stock was going to fall, then you wouldn't even bother to collar the position... you would just short-sell. However, it is illegal for someone who has non-public information to enter into any plan like this, so it doesn't really matter what instrument they'd use.
I took your advice and edited the article. If the person would like to re-edit it with proper information and better detailed accusations, then by all means they can go ahead.
Oops, need to correct myself on the mechanics, though the conclusion is the same. Essentially you only deliver part of your shares, depending on the spot price, rather than having 2 full forwards.
I agree with you, in a way; however, the 10b5 rules try to reduce this information asymmetry. When an executive enters into one of these plans, then they must make an announcement like the ones in the barry-diller pdf. This information may not be perfect, since perhaps the person could be trying to legally hedge their position rather than insider trading.
The reason I liken it to a collar, is that if you own the stock and enter into two short forwards at a low strike and a high strike, then you've collared your position. However, these would be obligations, and can't be cancelled at will. How can someone cancel the sale when they receive inside information, when they've committed to these forwards?
The services being offered by JP Morgan are prepaid variable FORWARD contracts, which require pledging the stocks for the duration of the contract. They aren't options; therefore, they can't be simply not-exercised when the trader recives inside information.
10b5 specifically forbids naked short sales; therefore, an executive cannot do the process you describe using one of these plans.
What an executive CAN do is use a OTC forward contract to hedge their position, only if they do not currently possess inside information. The GP knows what it's talking about.
1) The Feds bailing out Bear Sterns, using the services of JP Morgan, or 2) Bear Stearns being unable to meet short term cash flows, going backrupt, and completely destroying the economy of the United States and world?
Point out to me where it says in the source material, "these collars can be canceled at any time". A prepaid forward contract is an obligation to make a future trade, and the only way to cancel it is to enter into an offsetting position. If all trades must be "pre-planned" under this 10b5 rule, I don't see how you can unwind on short-notice once you receive your insider info. Perhaps I'm just missing something, so feel free to point it out.
Yeah, I understand the alleged process in the Wikileaks article. Step1 and Step2 can be used for practical, ethical, and legal trading; however, step #3 is not mentioned anywhere in the source material, which is what I was originally asking about. Where does it say in the JP Morgan pdf, or any other SEC materials, that someone can cancel a prepaid forward that they have already entered into?
Where is everyone getting this information about "cancelling"? A prepaid forward contract is an OBLIGATION to sell your stock; it can't simply be cancelled at will. A pre-planned sales program also means that all transactions have been decided on beforehand, and again can't be changed once you have inside information.
The real loophole seems to be that the people with inside information can enter the plan, and the SEC won't be able to prove that they had inside information.
Parent is still offtopic, but probably less than the modder thought. 'Barry-diller.pdf' is the name of the leaked file, which could mean it came from this Barry Diller guy that Mr. AC is talking about. Then again, AC could just be some sort of nutcase.
Wikileaks implies that the slide saying "[we can] help insiders with the successful sale of restricted stock", is unethical and illegal. However, I believe that they are misunderstanding what the slide is saying: Rule 10b5 is a way for insiders who do NOT currently possess non-public information to legally sell/collar restricted stock. In other words, the SEC created a way for "innocent" restricted stockholders to liquidate and access some of the value in their portfolios, which JP Morgan is quite happy to help them do so.
If the SEC could ever prove that someone with insider information was abusing one of these plans, they would come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Slashdot Mirror
Name one.
I also wrote that exam in C++, and I must have written it at the same time as you because we also had that fish case study. Ironically, my teacher didn't tell us about the case study until a week before the exam. Instead of working on the case during the semester, I spent 99% of my time creating my own text adventure. Making my own game was great, because I kept having to learn things so I could add more functionality. I don't think I ever learned any subject quite as well; it's amazing how motivated you can get if you enjoy the activity. In the end, missing out on the case study didn't hurt me, since they provided all the code for the case at the back of the exam anyway.
Perhaps the exam is unpopular due to the way the course is taught. If I was forced to work on that case study all semester, I definately would not have learned as much as I did. Maybe the AP board needs to cut the exam, restructure the program so it's more fun and interesting, and then re-release it.
You're welcome. Hopefully you enjoy it; it's an FPS/RTS, and it might not appeal to all gamers, but I find it pretty damn fun. Theres a 5-hour full version demo that you can try out too.
You could play Savage2, a "next gen" game released by an independent developer. It has a native linux binary. /end shameless plug
No, I don't think they're the same thing.
1) At least with Wikipedia you can try to edit an article if it contains factual misinformation.
2) Wikileaks is composed almost entirely of "sensitive" information that could be considered harmful or libelous. That kind of information needs even more scrutiny than the types of things you find on Wikipedia.
I agree that the theory is pretty good: having a place where people can safely and annonymously leak information. However, I believe there should be some sort of thorough fact-checking and analysis involved, which Wikileaks seems to be failing at. Without proper analysis, you simply have a place where anyone can libel and slander freely. Just because someone is releasing information annonymously doesn't mean that it's (a) useful information, (b) correct, or (c) helpful to the larger soceity as a whole.
I'm discouraging people from using the Wikileak's website specifically because I have personal experience with it. It's not just the poor analysis and unfounded conclusions that turned me against the website, it's the blantant incompetency that was shown by the admins when they refused to fix it. Useless information, useless analysis, and incompetent admins... ditch it entirely.
In my opinion, Wikileaks needs to be run by a competent authority, say a reputable newspaper or an existing not-for-profit enterprise.
It's smart of you to be distrusting of my "agenda", but I'm sorry to disappoint you. I'm just a random twenty-something student, living up here in Canada. I don't work for some evil corporation or respressive government.
How about Manitoba, Canada? We have extraordinarily cheap power from our hydro dams, we're much closer than Alaska, and it's winter 8 months of the year :)
If you can't trust a thing on the site, why bother reading it?
I don't think you're right about the philosphy of Wikileaks either; it's not just "a place to put up any document". The Wikileaks "editors" are trying to build credibility and integrity. From the "Writer's Kit" section, they want to "understand the document, summarize and explain, question veracity and motives, cite references, and make conclusions supported by facts". I'm arguing that they're failing miserably, as shown by the JP Morgan article. The writer didn't understand the topic, does not cite any references, and none of the conclusions are supported by the facts. When someone who did understand the issue tried to fix the page (ie me), an obtuse admin reversed it.
I've completely lost confidence in Wikileak's ability to report anything accuractely, since they ran that terrible JP Morgan Chase Tax story. It was wrong on practically every important point, which was pointed out here on Slashdot by me and others. I figured, "Hey it's a wiki; I should fix the errors", but admin-abuse kept the original story locked. If they can be so horribly wrong on one topic, why should we trust them regarding anything else?
I predict lots of false positives on FBI Agents.
Ugh... the wikileak admins don't understand the the topic, so they accuse me of being an employee of JP Morgan Chase. Talk about admin abuse... I'm never using that site again.
Well that was pointless: Wikileaks reverted both my edits without an explanation, so we're stuck with a shitty article. I wonder why it's called "Wiki"-leaks if they won't let anyone edit it.
I'm not exactly certain of what you're asking.
The net position of using this instrument is that it "collars" the value of the stocks. In essence, if the stock price falls, you have to deliver the shares. Since you were prepaid, you're not actually losing anything. If the stock price increases, you get a small portion of that increase. If you look at the payoff diagram from the barrymiller pdf, you'll see that you've "locked in" the value of your portfolio between the upper and lower limit.
Whether the person has insider information at any point in the process is irrelevant. There is no discretionary element to the contract; that is, the amount of shares that you're going to deliver only depends on the stock price at expiration. You can't call up the broker after a few months and ask them to sell more or less.
If you really had perfect insider information that the stock was going to fall, then you wouldn't even bother to collar the position... you would just short-sell. However, it is illegal for someone who has non-public information to enter into any plan like this, so it doesn't really matter what instrument they'd use.
Does that help at all?
I took your advice and edited the article. If the person would like to re-edit it with proper information and better detailed accusations, then by all means they can go ahead.
Oops, need to correct myself on the mechanics, though the conclusion is the same. Essentially you only deliver part of your shares, depending on the spot price, rather than having 2 full forwards.
...because it's much ado about nothing. Read my other posts.
I agree with you, in a way; however, the 10b5 rules try to reduce this information asymmetry. When an executive enters into one of these plans, then they must make an announcement like the ones in the barry-diller pdf. This information may not be perfect, since perhaps the person could be trying to legally hedge their position rather than insider trading.
The reason I liken it to a collar, is that if you own the stock and enter into two short forwards at a low strike and a high strike, then you've collared your position. However, these would be obligations, and can't be cancelled at will. How can someone cancel the sale when they receive inside information, when they've committed to these forwards?
I don't think you're correct.
The services being offered by JP Morgan are prepaid variable FORWARD contracts, which require pledging the stocks for the duration of the contract. They aren't options; therefore, they can't be simply not-exercised when the trader recives inside information.
10b5 specifically forbids naked short sales; therefore, an executive cannot do the process you describe using one of these plans.
What an executive CAN do is use a OTC forward contract to hedge their position, only if they do not currently possess inside information. The GP knows what it's talking about.
What would you rather have:
1) The Feds bailing out Bear Sterns, using the services of JP Morgan, or
2) Bear Stearns being unable to meet short term cash flows, going backrupt, and completely destroying the economy of the United States and world?
Point out to me where it says in the source material, "these collars can be canceled at any time". A prepaid forward contract is an obligation to make a future trade, and the only way to cancel it is to enter into an offsetting position. If all trades must be "pre-planned" under this 10b5 rule, I don't see how you can unwind on short-notice once you receive your insider info. Perhaps I'm just missing something, so feel free to point it out.
Yeah, I understand the alleged process in the Wikileaks article. Step1 and Step2 can be used for practical, ethical, and legal trading; however, step #3 is not mentioned anywhere in the source material, which is what I was originally asking about. Where does it say in the JP Morgan pdf, or any other SEC materials, that someone can cancel a prepaid forward that they have already entered into?
Where is everyone getting this information about "cancelling"? A prepaid forward contract is an OBLIGATION to sell your stock; it can't simply be cancelled at will. A pre-planned sales program also means that all transactions have been decided on beforehand, and again can't be changed once you have inside information.
The real loophole seems to be that the people with inside information can enter the plan, and the SEC won't be able to prove that they had inside information.
Parent is still offtopic, but probably less than the modder thought. 'Barry-diller.pdf' is the name of the leaked file, which could mean it came from this Barry Diller guy that Mr. AC is talking about. Then again, AC could just be some sort of nutcase.
One last thing:
Wikileaks implies that the slide saying "[we can] help insiders with the successful sale of restricted stock", is unethical and illegal. However, I believe that they are misunderstanding what the slide is saying: Rule 10b5 is a way for insiders who do NOT currently possess non-public information to legally sell/collar restricted stock. In other words, the SEC created a way for "innocent" restricted stockholders to liquidate and access some of the value in their portfolios, which JP Morgan is quite happy to help them do so.
If the SEC could ever prove that someone with insider information was abusing one of these plans, they would come down on them like a ton of bricks.