Trading Dirty...

[MrGecko]

It's saturday night, and after the usual box of wine (straw included), accompanied by King Prawn Pil Pil and Chicken Jalfrezi, my attention turned to Match of the Day. A point of discussion was an incident whereby, during a free-kick, an attacker waved about in front of the Goalkeeper to put him off. It worked, and the attacking team scored.

Now, as an egg-chaser, I don't know much about football (although the attacker in question did have a nice haircut). But similar things go on in rugby - punishment for breaking the rules is part of the game. Infact some players made themselves invaluable on the field for their ability to break the rules without getting caught (Neil Back was particularly good at this, but I say this as a bath man); modern forward play is about inducing penalties beond the 10m line.

It may be argued that "cheating" like this happens in trading. Two examples immediately come to mind, both in the Bund. Firstly, the Rotter et al, who some regard to have "cheated" the market out of a few pips from dishonest orders. Secondly, just a few weeks ago, when a bank set an algo to pummel the Bund down to trade under 114, where a knock in option it owned turned ITM.

So, in order to spark a discussion:

this house believes that all actions in the markets are fair game ...

If you can break the rules, take the punishment, and still profit, then it's a good trade. There's no such thing as "trading dirty", its all "trading"; after all, it's mano a mano...

 

[Rhody Trader]

It may be argued that "cheating" like this happens in trading. Two examples immediately come to mind, both in the Bund. Firstly, the Rotter et al, who some regard to have "cheated" the market out of a few pips from dishonest orders. Secondly, just a few weeks ago, when a bank set an algo to pummel the Bund down to trade under 114, where a knock in option it owned turned ITM.

So, in order to spark a discussion:

this house believes that all actions in the markets are fair game ...

If you can break the rules, take the punishment, and still profit, then it's a good trade. There's no such thing as "trading dirty", its all "trading"; after all, it's mano a mano...

Ummm...What rule did this bank break in there effort to get that option in the money? None that I'm familiar with. It's not like they front ran customer orders or anything like that. They did, however, take some real risk. What if that action didn't work and the market went the other way. They would have been in a world of hurt.

 

[betsize9]

no actions are fair game in trading

So, in order to spark a discussion:

this house believes that all actions in the markets are fair game ...

If you can break the rules, take the punishment, and still profit, then it's a good trade. There's no such thing as "trading dirty", its all "trading"; after all, it's mano a mano...

No actions are fair game in trading. Assuming that viewpoint I digress into philosophically distressing tangents such as, we should never trade. If a company chooses to trade such that no one but them can profit, then of course all the other people are left out. It is possible to totally control a market though not progressive or liberal or net positive in any way, it can and has been done. You would think people would get more pissed over millions being blown in some trade because of the food it could buy or produce but no, they go after the government or business selling the rice, the producers, not the speculators. Even those who go after the speculators can only do so much as banks' and governments' rules of law and business tend to obscure and benefit emphemeral account holders who are protected from protestors and so such showing up on their door steps. But the producers and government take the brunt, as they should. There are a dozen good conspiracy theories I could go into but I figure this reply is long-winded enough.

 

[nine]

I will go with:

Well regulated and orderly markets are the most efficient and effective markets so deliberate distortions should be made unattractive to the participants.

Why? Because, slightly misquoting Keynes, Capitalism isn't a great system but its the most effective system we have. If we damage capitalism the attractions of socialism and social regulation increase. The markets underpin capitalism and serious distortions of the markets damage their purpose: price discovery and fair exchange within the bounds of supply and demand under whatever regulations the government imposes to constrain capitalism. If we let our markets be seriously manipulated and distorted then Capitalism looks bad - which creates a spectrum of political results running from loud proclamations (best) thru more regulation to change of government to socialism or communism.

So, actions that damage the market and its reputation are not fair game.



Addition: And Mike proves my point. When markets go astray these are the sort of reactions created. So many people end up believing that "capitalism is bad" which is not good for the effectiveness of our capitalist society. Reasonable regulation is a good thing not only because it reduces rapacious behaviour but also because it reduces the chances of unreasonable regulation.

 

[mp6140]

MP -- maybe the communists were right !

I will go with:

Well regulated and orderly markets are the most efficient and effective markets so deliberate distortions should be made unattractive to the participants.

Why? Because, slightly misquoting Keynes, Capitalism isn't a great system but its the most effective system we have. If we damage capitalism the attractions of socialism and social regulation increase. The markets underpin capitalism and serious distortions of the markets damage their purpose: price discovery and fair exchange within the bounds of supply and demand under whatever regulations the government imposes to constrain capitalism. If we let our markets be seriously manipulated and distorted then Capitalism looks bad - which creates a spectrum of political results running from loud proclamations (best) thru more regulation to change of government to socialism or communism.

So, actions that damage the market and its reputation are not fair game.

===================================================================

keeping in check some of my more eloquent responses to this question and youre answer, i would sincerely approve of ANYONE going into the CBOT and wiping out every trader of oil, food and other NECESSARY commodities that could be found !

lie after lie after lie was stated while the price of oil continued to rise on NOTHING but traders greed --- NO shortages of anything or anyplace to refine it, and the gas companies making inordinate profits, which I suppose i wouldnt be angry at except that those profits came from oil selling at much less than our wonderful markets had pushed the futures to --- remember, one has a contract to "deliver" that oil at that price, but the deliveries NEVER take place !

Capitalism, when it works the way the scholars intended may indeed be "the best we have", but its been broken, beaten, raped and pillaged and we all are suffering for it !

i believe EVERY country should go into its markets and declare oil and food as National Security items and stop the trading of those goods, as the markets now are horribly greed driven (all the markets ARE, after all, is greed) and weve reached a saturation point where we will prob receive a little assistance comes summer, but prices shall never go down by much --- just a little appeasement !

CAPITALISM --- communism had it right when they mentioned capitalists would sell their young for profit, and its been proven !

BUT, please dont get me started on this one !

mp

 

[chump]

Capitalism was really only about bringing money face to face with labour resources to create more from the whole than the summation of the parts and to distribute equitably...to be frank, todays capital markets are now so far away from that core concept that it isn't worth mentioning the two together...like all good ideas man can create we end up with something so basta#rdised' that the original idea has been lost in the fog of powerful self interest groups who have developed out of the original schema to take on a 'life' of their own' complete with purpose no longer recogisable to it's origins. I could say the same for UK social services etc.
So taking trading and markets ,given where they now are,you 'screw' anybody for anything and the only law you shouldn't break ,is this one ,don't get caught.

 

[chump]

Capitalism was really only about bringing money face to face with labour resources to create more from the whole than the summation of the parts and to distribute equitably...to be frank, todays capital markets are now so far away from that core concept that it isn't worth mentioning the two together...like all good ideas man can create we end up with something so basta#rdised' that the original idea has been lost in the fog of powerful self interest groups who have developed out of the original schema to take on a 'life' of their own' complete with purpose no longer recogisable to it's origins. I could say the same for UK social services etc.
So taking trading and markets ,given where they now are,you 'screw' anybody for anything and the only law you shouldn't break ,is this one ,don't get caught.

Just to explain the above a little more....

https://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_ALL_1Q08.pdf

This guy say's it has clearly as it need to be said...my summation is if you're in the trough leaves your ethics boots at the door ,otherwise stay out.

 

[Crap Buddist]

Thank god.

It's saturday night, and after the usual box of wine (straw included), accompanied by King Prawn Pil Pil and Chicken Jalfrezi, my attention turned to Match of the Day. A point of discussion was an incident whereby, during a free-kick, an attacker waved about in front of the Goalkeeper to put him off. It worked, and the attacking team scored.

Now, as an egg-chaser, I don't know much about football (although the attacker in question did have a nice haircut). But similar things go on in rugby - punishment for breaking the rules is part of the game. Infact some players made themselves invaluable on the field for their ability to break the rules without getting caught (Neil Back was particularly good at this, but I say this as a bath man); modern forward play is about inducing penalties beond the 10m line.

It may be argued that "cheating" like this happens in trading. Two examples immediately come to mind, both in the Bund. Firstly, the Rotter et al, who some regard to have "cheated" the market out of a few pips from dishonest orders. Secondly, just a few weeks ago, when a bank set an algo to pummel the Bund down to trade under 114, where a knock in option it owned turned ITM.

So, in order to spark a discussion:

this house believes that all actions in the markets are fair game ...

If you can break the rules, take the punishment, and still profit, then it's a good trade. There's no such thing as "trading dirty", its all "trading"; after all, it's mano a mano...

Well lets look, priests nonsing choir boys, nuns beating their own flock, bent judges coppers politicians, lol governments, professional accounting professionals, the list is endless I try and hold this to mind.

Who Dares Wins.

OK well what about "self governance" including "a corporates self governance" At the end of the day the self has to do as it wants, its choice, act out its free will. At times this will be beyond laws, others morals.

Maybe because people have free will but are conditioned to not be aware they have, then this is why they act out immoral deeds and doings in some sort of expression of liberation of desired freedom or something.

Then again maybe its human nature being nurtured against human nature, its not humankind but humancruelty.

I was "doorstepped" the other day by 2 J.W. ladies. they left me a booklet on

Does God really care, Then why does he allow us to suffer?

But I tell ya when I open the fridge, I'm the one who is filled with light !

This house believes thank god the markets are bent, thank god the market uses its own free will and as that is god given, god will not judge the morality of free will being exercised. Not that he wont suffer the pain of being shafted himself on a few trades, but he would also feel the joy of monster rises like oil, rice gold, everything, on the flip side he would also feel the fear suffering hunger of thousands who have no food , no oil for heating.

Thats life. Thank God. For beer, chinky's, football, bent refs ,wine.

Thank god.

 

[Crap Buddist]

Dr Pepper . What's the worst that can happen?!

Lest we not forget too ol Colonel Sanders founder of the KFC franchise.

Remember when the Colonel was having some early success and he found an employee snooping around in his kitchen trying to Steal the colonels secret chicken coating recipe?.

Did the Colonel say, "hello corporate spy and assasin, here have my secret recipe for my chicken and take all my customers away to your own chicken bar."?

NO! the colonel was outraged and with all the fury he could muster (whilst still serving his loyal customer base out front of shop) he covered the assasins head in his blend of special herbs n spices and held it in the deep fat fryer for "just" the right amount of time to produce another fine "finger licking good" offering .

The colonel knew what he had to do, he was a chicken chef back then, and proud of it. But thats not chicken he's holding, it never has been though.

 

[mp6140]

Capitalism was really only about bringing money face to face with labour resources to create more from the whole than the summation of the parts and to distribute equitably...to be frank, todays capital markets are now so far away from that core concept that it isn't worth mentioning the two together...like all good ideas man can create we end up with something so basta#rdised' that the original idea has been lost in the fog of powerful self interest groups who have developed out of the original schema to take on a 'life' of their own' complete with purpose no longer recogisable to it's origins. I could say the same for UK social services etc.
So taking trading and markets ,given where they now are,you 'screw' anybody for anything and the only law you shouldn't break ,is this one ,don't get caught.

========================================================

yup, the mafia and the markets ---

said in jest by a friend in one of those career choices --- "it aint a crime unless you get caught !"

says it all "chiump"

mp

 

[rnicoll]

keeping in check some of my more eloquent responses to this question and youre answer, i would sincerely approve of ANYONE going into the CBOT and wiping out every trader of oil, food and other NECESSARY commodities that could be found !

Housing, too (I'm totally not bitter that since I left university, housing has cost more for less year on year). Investor's Chronicle had an article on how you can profit from the food price increase, last week. Sent shivers down my spine. If I make money dabbling with shares, I'm making money from people who have agreed to risking losing money. If I make money from food trading, I'm making money from people just trying to have enough to eat.

I'm mixed on oil; it's essential because people let it be essential. A price increase might help everyone shrug off their addiction (and as a believer in peak oil, I think the sooner, the better). Oil companies on the other hand... well, I don't really have anything polite to write here.

 

[mp6140]

Housing, too (I'm totally not bitter that since I left university, housing has cost more for less year on year). Investor's Chronicle had an article on how you can profit from the food price increase, last week. Sent shivers down my spine. If I make money dabbling with shares, I'm making money from people who have agreed to risking losing money. If I make money from food trading, I'm making money from people just trying to have enough to eat.

wont find any disagreement from me --- there is word aplenty going around the world as i hear, to limit or curtail trading in these needed commodities, simply because the greed involved will never do it by themselves ! Heck, I trade gold with not a thought in my mind --- while it may be "bankable" in some places, its downright a luxury in most of the world and doesnt affect anyones real standard of living or eating !

I'm mixed on oil; it's essential because people let it be essential. A price increase might help everyone shrug off their addiction (and as a believer in peak oil, I think the sooner, the better). Oil companies on the other hand... well, I don't really have anything polite to write here.

I must disagree here, simply because as the people in the world increase, they must move further and further from the urban structure, with its transportation systems --- there is simply NOTHING that can be done about transporting food or anything else from place to place. Our "addiction" to oil, which an OIL RICH PRESIDENT proclaimed as gospel is NOT an addicition, but rather an outright need unless we go back to horse and buggy but the real truth in the matter, for years placed as fiction, is that TRADERS and GREED are moving prices into areas they normally would never have gotten to if Capitalism had stuck with its "realities" of supply and demand ----- THERE IS NO LACK OF OIL, ANYWHERE !!!!!

its GREED that has lied to us daily, created inflation and recession, and doesnt give a hoot because (as im fond of saying) capitalists would sell their own children for profit !

I traded oil once, and it was pretty simple (just point UP !) BUT it made me ashamed of myself, and as you say, there is so much out there that affects no one to trade, that i would approve mightily if governments just stepped in and said "THATS ENOUGH !"

to hell with the outcries of the "uber - greedy" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

enjoy and trade HONESTLY

mp