Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Tradewinds

Rajaratnam Convicted of Fraud

Recommended Posts

The ex-hedge fund manager Rajaratnam was convicted of fraud. There were 14 counts against him. Basically he was getting information that was not public.

 

This situation illustrates a big problem with the investment industry. In order to get a conviction, there needed to be wire taps. I wonder it there would have been a conviction without the recordings of his private conversations.

 

It also highlights the difference between the big players and the small players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ex-hedge fund manager Rajaratnam was convicted of fraud. There were 14 counts against him. Basically he was getting information that was not public.

 

This situation illustrates a big problem with the investment industry. In order to get a conviction, there needed to be wire taps. I wonder it there would have been a conviction without the recordings of his private conversations.

 

It also highlights the difference between the big players and the small players.

 

hi tradewinds,he was convicted basically for insider trading? i don't understand what do you mean for difference for big and little,players,not ever the recordings of private conversations are sufficient for conviction anyone ,maybe because these can be modified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hi tradewinds,he was convicted basically for insider trading?

 

Yes, it was for insider trading. He is a billionaire, and I'm sure has connections that the average person does not have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it was for insider trading. He is a billionaire, and I'm sure has connections that the average person does not have.

 

do you think that after the conviction he'll have to pay for it?for this big player like you called him,maybe its more easy to prove that the count of indictement was made on false paper,and being automatically judge innocent.because,once a time proved the falsity all the things that come in the other side become believable. ( i just throw my opinion):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do you think that after the conviction he'll have to pay for it?

 

Well, if he gets a long prison sentence, that will inflict some discomfort on him. He may still be rich when he gets out of prison, I don't know.

 

Unless basic human nature somehow changes, or the human race gets better at valuing good behavior, then enforcement and punishment will remain the deterrent method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

take a set of rules - put 1000 people in the room, odds are a small selection of people will break those rules for their own advantage.

Change the rules, or change the people, my guess is the same will happen.

I hate to say it but maybe his best trade would be to cut his losses and disappear to another country if he could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
take a set of rules - put 1000 people in the room, odds are a small selection of people will break those rules for their own advantage.

Change the rules, or change the people, my guess is the same will happen.

I hate to say it but maybe his best trade would be to cut his losses and disappear to another country if he could.

 

He is free on bail, at least until the sentencing. I'm not sure how that works. It will be interesting if this case makes any real difference in clarifying or defining the rules about what insider trading is and isn't. I don't know anything about what constitutes insider trading, except for the obvious.

 

I have sometimes heard of long term investors visiting a company, and getting to know the management before investing in a company. So I assume something like that is legal under some circumstances. Maybe the problem comes with shorter term trades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought it was common knowledge that one uses disposable mobiles for illegal activity? The guy obviously does not have enough time for TV/reading!

 

or maybe he had been doing it for so long he thought he could get away with it......hasn't he heard the old "I'll call you on my mobile as these phones are taped"

 

tradewinds----

when it comes to insider trading, the general rule is anything that could have a material effect on the the share price that is not publicly known that you then buy or sell shares in that stock. (Even if you are just exiting a position that you were long).

(underlines for the key words)

 

In other words once you have knowledge of something that could be seen to move the price, and you act on it, you could be considered an insider.....so it should really be up to you and or your broker/CEO/analyst to be aware of this, and often you can ask NOT to be told of certain information, unless this information is being made freely available to anyone.

This is why is hard to proove it, yet also easy to imply it.

(I know of someone charged with insider trading when they bought shares throughout the day, then sold some of their shares on the close to reduce their position, as they were questioned by their bosses about the size of their position. They thought they were questioning that the position was too large, when in fact it seemed that the bosses knew (suspected) a takeover was coming. Sure enough the takeover came. Nothing came of it, but the mere suspicion and actions at the wrong time can raise alarm bells)

You can insider trade and loose money and still be convicted

 

Different rules for different countries of course.

Edited by SIUYA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought it was common knowledge that one uses disposable mobiles for illegal activity? The guy obviously does not have enough time for TV/reading!

 

 

The guy obviously does not have enough time for TV/reading!

 

Don't have a time for TV could be a good quality,:)that move in his advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The guy obviously does not have enough time for TV/reading!

 

Don't have a time for TV could be a good quality,:)that move in his advantage.

 

My point was if he did he would have known to use a disposable phone! :) (and so probably not been busted) Guess he'll get plenty of time to catch up in the clink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the crooks in Wall Street, how about the crooks in DC?

 

In a new academic study, four university professors examined investment results on more than 16,000 stock transactions made by 300 House delegates from 1985 to 2001. The result was clear: They beat the market by an average of 0.55% per month, around 6.6% a year. The professors note a previous study showed members of the U.S. Senate did so well they outperformed hedge funds.

 

In fact, if members of Congress didn't beat the market, they'd be bigger morons than you already think they are. Why? Because insider trading laws don't apply to members of Congress…

 

You heard that correctly. The Securities and Exchange Act does not apply to members of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. Congressional ethics rules say Congressional members aren't allowed to use privileged information for personal gain. But it's just a rule, not a law. It's not legally enforceable. And it's obvious they're taking excess profits out of the stock market…

 

This must be one of the most underreported financial stories of the century. Take one example: The Senate Armed Services Committee forbids staff and presidential appointees requiring Senate confirmation from owning securities in more than 48,000 companies that contract with the Defense Department.

 

But 19 of the 28 senators on that same committee held assets worth between $3.8 million to $10.2 million in companies on the prohibited list between 2004 and 2009.

 

Isn't that unbelievable??

MMS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.