JP Morgan's Insider Trading How-To On Wikileaks 246
An anonymous reader writes "In an internal JP Morgan document published recently, Wikileaks exposes JPM's efforts to circumvent insider trading regulations, enabling their wealthy clients to profit even when others are losing. The document reads like a how-to and explains how to take advantage of SEC Rule 10b5-1, which has long been considered ripe for abuse. Now this abuse is publicly documented and will be hard to ignore."
Oh snap! (Score:4, Funny)
Not a "leak" ? (Score:5, Informative)
If it was already public, then it's interesting for the process of defining the role of Wikileaks: here, it's role would be to raise awareness rather than reveal, which means acting like a news site.
Personaly, I think that Wikileak should not stride from it's original goal: when you're run anonymously, you must keep close to your original description; it's the only kind of accountability you offer.
Re:Not a "leak" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a "leak" ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am just saying that, if what they did boils down to finding the obscure *public* document or webpage which described that service, then they acted just as boinboing when it finds some cool looking roadsing in Japan: intersting, but not a leak.
And by acting as a news website, *even* as a stellarly good one, they would not be fullfying the role they claimed they would.
Which is a problem because what they claimed they would do is the only thing that serves to provide accountability to a service which GREATLY needs it.
Don't take me wrong; I think WIkileak is a wonderful thing; but because it is the embodiment of openess of information. Not because they are good at finding cool stuff
I'd tend to agree. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'd tend to agree. (Score:4, Interesting)
In any case, instead of ^W the original poster should have used ^H if he meant to backspace. A Control W is an End of Transmit Block. How a device responded to a End of Transmit block would vary for each device.
I think he expected the imaginary device to erase a word for each control W. However, to know how the device would respond, we would have to know what the output device was.
Re: (Score:2)
I am just saying that, if what they did boils down to finding the obscure *public* document or webpage which described that service, then they acted just as boinboing when it finds some cool looking roadsing in Japan: intersting, but not a leak.
Don't slam them for investigative reporting - someone's got to do it.
Yes, it is a leak. (Score:5, Informative)
Just because it's legal, that does not mean that it is not a leak. Hell, they could get a document showing that some Senator is gay, being gay is not a crime, but releasing a private document with that information in it would still be a leak.
-Rick
Re:Not a "leak" ? (Score:5, Informative)
(a) Does the act of terminating a plan while aware of material nonpublic information result in liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5?
No. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 apply "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security." Thus, a purchase or sale of a security must be present for liability to attach. See Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975).
Re: (Score:2)
The SEC can (and often does) go after the brokerage firm for selling packages that are purposefully structured to flout the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not a "leak" ? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) They don't comment, and people are saying, "this doesn't sound like very "ok" activity." Thus implied is that they are guilty.
2) They say it is not theirs. People will comment on how this is spin.
3) They say it is theirs, and as previously noted it's legal, yet people will say, "oh look how unethical JPMorgan is."
In each of the scenarios JPMorgan is dammed so they take the route of not saying anything which is simplest from a legal perspective...
Re:Not a "leak" ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or 4) They say it is theirs, demonstrate that it is legal, and use it as advertising. "We can game the rules to get you more money on your investments!"
Not that many people care about ethics when presented when more money as the alternative - just look at corporations the world over who will circumvent and even break the law, calling it merely a cost of doing business.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
May 2001 - that would be four months after George Bush, Jr., went into the White House.
Ah, the great tragedy of Slashdot-the slaying of a beautiful political screed by an ugly fact. (With apologies to Thomas Huxley.)
The first SEC commissioner appointed by Bush to the SEC was Harvey Pitt [sec.gov] on August 3, 2001 - more than 2 months AFTER this ruling issued. Every SEC commissioner at the time this decision issued was appointed by Clinton. Even if lower-level Bush appointees were involved in drafting the answer, the commissioners could have stopped this from issuing.
They didn't, most likely beca
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Insider has tons of company stock.
He structures a massive recurring sell order, sell as much as possible, to hit every month - does this a long time ago (or now, setting it up for years to come.)
He doesn't know what the future holds for his company, so it's perfectly legit.
Every month he calls in and cancels his sell order. T
Re:Not a "leak" ? (Score:5, Informative)
Putting that aside, the fact is that regulations rarely have their full, intended effect, especially on the first go. If you read the aforementioned speech, it's pretty obvious that the SEC is trying to do the right thing: Allow executives (particularly founders and other holders of large percentages of stock) the ability to sell those shares on a pre-determined schedule, unencumbered by any insider information they have at a given time during the execution of that plan and unconcerned about the way the market would view the sale, since it had been planned and announced far in advance. For someone with a large percentage of stock, the ability to trade out of that position smoothly over time is critical, since any large sale would be disruptive to the market, and frequent small sales would likely be difficult due to the fact that they might coincide with the common circumstance of having insider information.
The problem, of course, is while the executive is not supposed to initiate the sales plan based on insider information, that same executive may cancel a sale or withdraw from the plan entirely based on non-public, material information. In doing so, they create a bias in that their sales that were initiated would be expected to perform "better than average", since any sales that would have performed "worse than average" are more likely to have been canceled. Such a bias is precisely what academics found [ssrn.com] and is referenced in Thomsen's speech. The SEC can then amend/interpret the rule so as to close any loophole. Such a process may go through multiple iterations before all the holes are patched.
In terms of the Wikileaks article itself, there are a few problems: First, it is not just "small investors" who are hurt by this. Any investor, small or large, who is not an "insider" would be disadvantaged by such activity. There's no need to be a populist to see the potential for abuse here. The second problem is that it is JP Morgan's fiduciary duty to offer the best product available to its clients, including taking advantage of the specifics of SEC regulations, if necessary. Of course, this particular opportunity is available only certain, very wealthy insiders, but that's the circumstance that the SEC created, not JP Morgan. This situation is no more unethical than Mercedes or Volvo building a "safer" automobile that is only available to those wealthy enough to afford it--and it carries the same hazard for others, actually, since a "protected" driver may be more reckless and endanger other drivers.
In short, there's no need to get bent out of shape when a necessarily imperfect law or regulation is exploited to someone's advantage. This is just what people will do in any system. The only solution is to keep in mind unintended consequences and improve the framework that one has for the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not a "leak" ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not a "leak" ? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not the same at all. When the insider takes advantage of this inside information, the money or advantage is not created out of thin air, it comes from the other investors that did not have that inside advantage. This is not paying more for something better like your car example. This is using information that others will not find out about until a future date.
The second problem is that it is JP Morgan's fiduciary duty to offer the best product available to its clients, including taking advantage of the specifics of SEC regulations,
Wrong again. I don't think JP Morgans only "clients" are only a few people with inside information. What about JP Morgans other clients? Help a few and screw over every other client they have? Not quite fiduciary duty.
I disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
In itself, the services being offered by JP Morgan are perfectly legal and ethical; they are essentially a "collar", but with different instruments. They're a way of creating a position in which you're mostly immune to changes in the stock price. Wikileaks mentions this briefly by saying
So what I'm saying is that there isn't anything wrong with JP Morgan offering these services, period. There is a very practical and ethical reason to enter this sort of contract, and there are a number of safeguards to prevent insiders from large short-selling before things go bad. Nowhere does it even imply in the pdf that JP Morgan "wants to help you inside-trade and beat the market by 6%!"
Unfortunately, the 10b5 rules are not strict enough [businessweek.com] to prevent inside-traders from also using the services. It's still better than allowing insiders to trading around "blackout" dates.
Anyway, read the businessweek article; it will explain things better than I can. As for this story, it seems to me more of a case of someone offering legitimate services which are being abused by some bad apples.
Re:I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If I may... (Score:5, Insightful)
You had the energy to read the pdf three times, and you sound pretty sure that you found a problem in the current version of the Wikileak page, based on factual and verifiable information... that's the perfect oportunity to edit that article!
If you're not sure, "be bold" (a wikipedia guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold [wikipedia.org]): edit it anyway, but add some explanations to the discussion thread (actually, your slashdot post would be perfect for that).
Remember, a wiki is that cool thing were a spotted mistake is a corrected one!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not a "leak" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please point us to other places this document can be found online.
I mean, they must have some kind of advertisement or at least a publicly available description of this service, no?
All documents on Wikileaks were distributed somewhere, I don't see what your point is.
Re:Not a "leak" ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The loophole (Score:3, Interesting)
It really sounds so obvious like this, that you wonder how the lawmakers could miss it. One hint for them: start compiling with "-Wall".
Re:The loophole (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Where is everyone getting this information about "cancelling"?
From TFA:
Here's how it works:
So, they enter the plan and then later, based on inside information, decide whether or not to actually execute the sale. In other words, they (in advance) make tentative plans to sell, then can cancel that before it occurs if their inside information does not support a sell-off.
Only works for stocks that drop, but that is significant when considering corporate scandals, companies in financial straits, etc.
I don't claim to know whether the article's description is correct, but it's where we'r
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know about the rest of you, but if I've got actionable information... I'm going to exploit it for every damn possibility I can.
Stocks Fluctuate (Score:2, Insightful)
So what's the problem with insider trading anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)
"You want more insider trading, not less. You want to give the people most likely to have knowledge about deficiencies of the company an incentive to make the public aware of that."
The benefit of insider trading is information enters the markets quicker. That is good for me.
There are also tax lawyers who can help me create complex holding / offshore structures to make me pay less taxes, so from that point of view I fail to see the problem with help how to avoid insider trading regulations. No one would be surprised if these banks helped their clients to avoid paying specific corporate tax, for example. So what's so sacred about the insider trading regulations?
Anyhow, my problem I have with this is bad laws should be rewoked, not left in place to be circumvented with the right know-how.
Re:So what's the problem with insider trading anyw (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:So what's the problem with insider trading anyw (Score:4, Informative)
All trading that isn't done with a coin flip is "insider trading" to some small extent. If you think you see a pattern in the markets and make a trade, your trade is only worth something if everyone else hasn't already spotted that same pattern. In a sense, you think you have information that other people don't and make a trade based upon that information. This is what Milton Friedman is talking about when he says that insider trading is good.
There are real issues with insider trading, but it isn't necessarily true that all insider trading is bad. It is one thing for a CEO to declare he is about to make a trade based upon information he has. It is another entirely to make a trade in secret and then make some sort of move with his company to capitalize upon that trade at the expense of the company.
Re:So what's the problem with insider trading anyw (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine CEO of XYZ company owns 1,000,000 shares of his company that is trading at $50 per share on Friday. He wants to build a new bungalow by the lake, but has all his capital tied up in his company. What does he do? Calls up his broker on Friday afternoon and sells 900,000 shares for $45,000,000. The media picks up on this, and it is all that is talked about all weekend. Widespread panick ensues. Monday morning opens with XYZ falling through the floor. By Tuesday afternoon, the CEO calls up his broker and buys back his 900,000 shares at $20 each for a total of $18,000,000. The CEO now has $27,000,000 to spend on his cabin. After a couple weeks, everyone realizes that there was nothing wrong with XYZ and share prices begin to climb back up.
But hey, what do I know? I don't own any stock, or have any money to play with, but I am drinking a really fine stout that makes me think I have savvy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Market manipulation is another issue entirely but that gets murkier.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All trading that isn't done with a coin flip is "insider trading" to some small extent.
No it isn't.
"insider trading" has a very specific meaning as far as the SEC is concerned.
Here's what the SEC has to say about insider trading:
http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm [sec.gov]
This is what Milton Friedman is talking about when he says that insider trading is good.
No it isn't.
Milton Friedman is talking about exactly the same kind of insider trading the SEC is.
If Friedman had his way, there would be no SEC regulation of insider trading, because he believes that insider trading introduces information to the marketplace as soon as it becomes known to the insiders. OTOH, the SEC isn't so kee
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what's the problem with insider trading anyw (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point. The act of trading inherently gives away information -- the information enters the market through the trade records.
The fact that this is so is easy to determine from careful analysis of stock markets. Whether that makes insider trading any more or less ethical is left as an exercise for the reader...
No, you are missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)
Insiders - people who typically have tons of stocks - will pump and dump, harming the company itself and leaving the small investors holding the bag.
After a few years of this going on, there won't be a single company out there, no matter how solid it is, that will survive this recurring, erratic cycle of binge & purge. Small investors, who constantly get burned time and time again, will lose faith in the system.
What happens next is fairly obvious.
Re:No, you are missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll agree that it's obvious, but not in the way you think. There's plenty of evidence that insider trading occurrs to at least a moderate degree, and not much evidence (as distinct from appeals to intuition) that it does more than minor harm to the market.
The reasons why someone is selling stock are actually far less interesting than the fact that they're selling it. People regularly look to trade records for information, and don't ask why the trades occurred. Yes, the people with inside info profit from it -- but the information gets out when they do so, even if all the details don't.
The amount of harm caused by this process is very unclear and a subject of much debate. I'm willing to believe it's non-zero (what can I say, the appeals to intuition work), but there's no evidence it's gigantic. And there's certainly no evidence of outside investors getting scared off by insider trading -- though there's plenty of evidence that they get scared off by bad management, as they should, but that's for other reasons. Pump and dump is a symptom of bad management...
As I said before, I'll leave the ethics of insider trading to others. But I'm far from convinced there's more than minor harm resulting from it.
Re: (Score:2)
So, first of all, what you're describing is illegal as well.
Secondly, though, consider what you're saying: get rid of the inside trading rules and American capitalism just disappears. Suddenly there are no investors, which means that you end up with only a few closely held companies. As a result, everybody loses their jobs and the economy goes into a permane
Re: (Score:2)
That is, assuming those limits actually have any teeth. Corporate rules can and often are ignored for the favored few. It's called corruption. If you get busted, you can still negotiate your way out of trouble at the ol' country club. The worst you can get is to lose your profits, but the stock value has already been irreversibly dinged. Other smaller time
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, how exactly does Carl Icahn and his ilk make money?
Hmm... buy large blocks of stock. Start rattling board of directors that management sucks or that the company is holding too much cash that should go to shareholders. The board can ignore Icahn for only so long before its involved in a proxy fight, which usually results in Icahn getting a couple of board members placed, or Icahn figures out some other way to rock the company so that it acquie
Re: (Score:2)
Profit?
Re:So what's the problem with insider trading anyw (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are other Casinos around, nobody will want to play at your "Milton Friedman approved" Casino.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway point is if players think the Casino isn't fair and there are too many players cheating they might go elsewhere.
Yes I know a stockmarket isn't like a casino. The top stockmarkets don't operate for 24 hours all year
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
May be that's the point, no one should be investing in large companies they literally nothing about. Invest in your local barber shop, invest in your community business, invest in a business you can audit the books of, demand that those types of businesses be included in your 401k plan, scream if your employer/government doesn't want to hear you, and do not give away your shareholder's proxy vote to your e
Re: (Score:2)
Insider trading relates to giving you an edge in a stock market on other investors. If you think press releases filled with euphemisms that the average small time investor can't decode, never mind probably doesn't read, constitutes making the public aware, I'm at a loss.
No one would be surprised if these banks helped their clients to avoid paying specific corporate tax, for example.
Does that make it righ
Re:So what's the problem with insider trading anyw (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So what's the problem with insider trading anyw (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a huge body of academic work on the economic effects of insider trading. There are reasonable and convincing papers written by reputable economists on both sides of the issue.
Re:So what's the problem with insider trading anyw (Score:2, Informative)
"The benefit of insider trading is information enters the markets quicker. That is good for me."
This, as one might immagine of such an overarching and glib statement, is not true. Here are a few examples of situations where you get information faster but lose:
You are at a poker table, and the man accross from you is allowed to peak to see what the next card delt will be. By observing whether or not he folds, the information of how good a card that was for him reaches you
Re:So what's the problem with insider trading anyw (Score:2)
by the time the insider has done his trade, it's too late for everyone else you idiot.
oh and if tax lawyers could allow you to pay less tax, why the fuck aren't you doing it? i'll tell you why, because it's a greatly over exaggerated myth that rich people do this and save heaps of tax. sure they can BREAK the law and pay less tax, but shockingly revenue services know all the loopholes since they wrote the laws.
Re:So what's the problem with insider trading anyw (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to a press release containing the same information?
Play on the playground, then bulldoze the park (Score:5, Interesting)
Ultimately, whats important is that if some people can circumvent the risk-reward aspect of an economic, political, judicial, or social system, they're basically saying they're above the protections that western civilization grants them.
I think ethics is a poor way to frame cases like this - the very people who say, "Well, its legal, so there you go" arn't interested in ethics, they're interested in gaming a system. That system would not exist if everyone was able to take advantage of the method of abusing it. Ultimately, they're acting in a way that would destroy the system were everyone able to do what they did. I think the idea of protecting the health of institutions is an easier sell to people than saying, "Hey, that's unethical." Lots of people do unethical things, every day - whats more important is pointing out where unethical behavior is rewarded by an institution rather than punished. These institutions are set up from the very start to attempt to mitigate unethical behavior
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate to break it to you but your being a little idealistic. Markets in the U.S. are so completely disfunctional at this this point they are entirely about easier ways for affluent and usually unethical individuals to make money. The entire U.S. economy has turned in to one pyramid scheme, ponzi scheme and bubble after another. CEO of a major corporation is now a license to s
Re: (Score:2)
You do not understand the stock market.
Stocks were invented to provide an easier way for individuals to make money. Instead of starting and running a business, they can buy stock in someone else's, without doing any of the work. That's why they call it a stock market.
You also don't seem to understand why this isn't a big deal. The only time an executive can exploit this rule is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, but what I think is interesting is that in my (perhaps minority) opinion, it's exactly the same thing. Ethics are a means to descibe things that while perhaps good for the individual in the immediate sense, are bad for the structures that same individual depends on -- thus they are bad for the individual indirectly.
People have got this wacky idea in their head that ethics
Finally! The missing Step ! (Score:5, Funny)
Before:
1. Beg, borrow, or steal 1 million dollars
2. Take ill-gotten gains to JP Morgan
3. ??????
4. Profit!!!
Now:
1. Beg, borrow, or steal 1 million dollars
2. Take ill-gotten gains to JP Morgan
3. Follow rule 10b5-1
4. Profit!!!
Re:Finally! The missing Step ! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
2. Comment on how it will be modded +5 Funny
3. ??????
4. Profit!!!
Re:Finally! The missing Step ! (Score:5, Funny)
Follow rule 10b5-1
Q.E.D.
The Fundamental reason this is legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Fundamental reason this is legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you didn't read how the whole thing works.
They set up a trade to sell at such and such a date in the future. If they get hold of some inside information that is very bad for the company, they let the trade proceed. The SEC says it's OK because the sale was set up before the knowlege of the insider information. If all is A-OK with the company, they cancel the trade, and because there was no stock bought or sold, the SEC says it's OK.
The scam is in the fact that the sale (or not) of the stock was influenced by insider information, but the SEC says it's OK whether they sell or no.
Here is my bitch, because I don't have $BIGNUM to invest in individual securities and I also will probably not come into contact with insider info, it is inherently unfair. But more importantly, it lowers my confidence in the system, making me less likely to value this market over any other, maybe even value those markets more. I know that I'm just one guy, but if lots of people start to feel this way, then it devalues the securities that are traded on that market.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Consider this. I have inside knowledge of next years events, and I have 10,000 shares and I file a 10b5-1 saying I will sell all 10,000 shares during the next year. When the next year arrives, I "DO" have insider knowledge and I cancel the sale of all my shares. Then I file another 10b5-1 for the next year and say I will sell
Re: (Score:2)
Martha Stewart is PISSED (Score:5, Funny)
RTFM(emo) -- Overhyped, Misleading (Score:2, Informative)
Secondly, 10b5-1 has not "long been considered ripe for abuse." There is a very narrow factual scenario where it could allow an insider to make money off inside information. But, it's difficult.
Here's the problem: insiders cannot trade stock if they possess no
Re: (Score:2)
-- Ravensfire
RTFA, idiot (Score:5, Informative)
1. JP Morgan established a whole service specifically designed to abuse this rule.
2. Service was offered to people who would profit from such abuse without any announcement to the public or regulators.
3. The article shows a specific example of service being offered to a particular person, Barry Diller, and subsequent drop in stock value that the person was supposed to be shielded from (I assume, it is not known if the service was actually used in that situation).
Now you, and two morons that were so eager to praise you in responses, can take your sorry attempt of rebuttal, and tattoo it on your foreheads in 12pt Helvetica font.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is JP Morgan we're talking about. They just bought out Bear Stearns for $2.00 per share when it was trading four days ago at $60. AND they managed to do it with the government guaranteeing their purchase through a 300 billion dollar bailout funded by tax payers. The whole shit-parade stinks from the ground up, and it was exactly this kind of dirty stunt JP Morgan pulled during the Great Depression which made them the giant they ar
In the wind. (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Naturally, I'm all for seeing things steady and stable. It's the larger questions which need to be examined, though.
There is every indication that the various structures now crashing, including Bear Sterns, were planned in back rooms specifically by people hoping to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you know a stock is going down, you can sell it now, and but it later, when the price has gone down. This is called shorting. You don't own any stock, so there is no need to setup another sale, as you mentioned. You can just arrange to do this in a few months, then when you get no bad information coming in, you cancel the sale, thus having nothing to repay. You can set these up every month of so, at no loss of sto
Hard to Kill (Score:2)
SEC Rule 10b5-1, which has long been considered ripe for abuse. Now this abuse is publicly documented and will be hard to ignore^H^H^H^H^H^H^H understand.
Fixed that for you.
Does anyone else find it naive... (Score:2, Insightful)
Openly legalizing insider trading using some obscure loophole may look cynical, but that's only another example of big money at work. This law gets fixed, they find another way.
Another part of the picture (Score:2)
When insiders were expected to pre-announce their trades, large amount of announced sales could be used by investors as a sign that insiders have low confidence in company's long-term profitability, and act accordingly. With this scheme being known and believed to be widespread, this communication channel is lost -- everyone can announce that he is selling everything then cancel at the last moment, and helpful brokerages will make sure that no one (except for the general
Mainstream media coverage (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
One pity is that stuff that is news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
In summation, your comment, sir, is an immense w
I disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
Hacking goes way beyond computers - hacking people's minds, the legal system and the financial industry, is the big game for the real big hackers who think beyond smashing stacks and simple pretexting social engineering.
Circumventing the system - it's what nerds do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)