Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
Gov't insider trading?
Yes 62%
No 31%
Don't know 6%

Votes: 16

 An Adequate Look at Insider Trading

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jan 23, 2002
 Comments:
Insider trading's been in the news lately. But what exactly is it? Let's look at the current example:

Enron's directors had been selling off their Enron stock, knowing that the company had grossly inflated estimates of its value. They came out of it with millions in ill-gotten loot.

Meanwhile, the bosses sent off emails to employees, encouraging them to keep investing their retirement money in Enron stock. Just before Enron's price began to fall in early 2001, the company froze the employees' right to sell their Enron stock. Now that Enron's delisted, thousands have lost their life savings.

Insider trading is what turns our fair free-market system into a soulless oligopoly, making us the laughing-stock of communist hippies everywhere.

And that, my friends, is why we should legalize insider trading by the government.

consumerism

More stories about Consumerism
A Declaration of Independence for the Indebted States of America
Eric Raymond - Open Source hero ? or Environmental Pariah ?
SUV's Bigger and Better - The Ultimate American Dream
Open Letter to the USA: Please Don't Drown Me
An Analysis of Marketing Techniques in Supermarkets.
One More Mouth to Feed
Stunned Beef: Dangerous Compassion?
How to Lose Your Name by Succeeding
Something Patriotic that The Geeks Can Do Right Now
My Vacation Dilemma. How can I be an ethical tourist ?
The End of Hacking: A Holiday Un-Buyer's Guide
Baby Seal Skinning Factories: Has Their Time Come?
Review: Gran Turismo 3

More stories by
perdida

Hump Day News Wrap-Up #1: Where is Chandra Levy?
The cultural and economic benefits of smoking
Germany Eats Young in Attempt to Globalize
Philip Morris Is Right
In Praise of Censorware
peace
what now for US Israel-Palestinan policy?
Milosevic, Sovereignty, and the War against Terrorism
Something Patriotic that The Geeks Can Do Right Now
Wil Wheaton Moves Beyond Wesley To Internet Stardom
Why They Should Abolish the World Series
Looking For A Few Good Crusaders
Welcome to the Third World
Britney Spears' Six-Inch Secret
Google Needs a Winston Smith
America's Case for Packing Heat
What To Do About Arafat?
Koleen Brooks Has Got The Right Stuff
Shit or Get Off the Pot
American intelligence agencies have long had more information than other investors. Although the U.S. government claims not to use information gathered by Echelon and other tools to aid American corporations, the Europeans say otherwise.

Now, there's "Magic Lantern", a new FBI keylogger. With the aura of 9/11 damping accusations of unconstitutionality, this program presents the FBI with its biggest-ever moneymaking opportunity.

It's naive to think that Our Government will limit Magic Lantern to protecting us from terrorist attacks on our soil. As the economy gets worse, more government agents will dip their hands into the cookie jar.

By setting up a nationally owned investment house that trades using government info, the U.S. can harness the profit of insider trading for the public interest.

Let's look at insider trading in the hands of private corporations.

It was one thing when insider information existed largely in the heads of business-persons, their associated contractors, concubines, and toadies, and on pieces of dead tree.

Today, though, it's accessible to thousands of computer hackers. These criminals, available to the highest bidder, justify their activity through unfortunate notions about the nature of information.

Yes, the Internet lets any corporation to spy effectively on its competitors, allowing more and more investors insider trading opportunities. And, with the incredible popularity of the stock market among ordinary Americans, this insider trading affects more people than ever.

As we have seen with Enron, giving corporations control over what information they can disclose can hurt all of the investors -- and damage the public interest.

In fact, a market based on a faulty flow of information is likely to crash. After the 1929 market crash, the government set up the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to force businesses to disclose honest information about performance. Unfortunately, there's no way that a government agency can enforce disclosure after-the-fact in an Internet age.

That's why we should legalize -- and nationalize -- the government's own insider trading.

How it could work

Taking a page from the anti-terrorism book, the SEC should announce that it will use all government-obtained data to openly spy on all publicly traded corporations, at all times.

Aided by appropriate legislation, the SEC can use this information to launch a sort of "federal investment house." It won't be typical Wall Street - National Security Administration data miners will work alongside intelligence operatives and regular stockbrokers. Some of these people will use the huge wealth of government info to invest in major world stock markets. As federal employees, they'll work without commission, trying to use their insider information to make as much revenue as possible for the Federal Government.

Others will use the data to isolate cases of illegal trading by corporate insiders. In fact, any time a corporation's executives try to hide its real earnings, this "SEC investment house" will be prepared to catch them.

The SEC may also hire agents, informants, and spies in the world of business, giving them financial rewards or limited access to government market data as a reward.

In these ways, the government will dominate the "market" of insider information, making a previously illegal practice that benefitted the richest 2 percent of Americans exclusively work for us all.

Some Possible Problems - and Answers

Some people claim that it's unethical for the government to invest taxpayer dollars in the stock market.

In my view, though, it's crazy not to do so. As the arguments in favor of privatizing Social Security show, the stock market, which continually increases over the long term, is a better investment than government bonds. Any tax-revenue that the government intends to save should be invested in high-growth securities.

Won't the government invest too aggressively when it wants to spend money?

It's important to keep political arguments away from this nonpolitical, agency-based initiative. The money the government invests in this way should be kept in trust for Social Security, Medicare, and other long-term plans, or it should be kept out of the regular budget for at least ten years.

What about the use of clandestinely gathered information and operatives?

If we ever get around to privatizing Social Security, we will have to address this issue anyway. The government can't be expected to invest any amount of money in the market without being tempted to use its information. It's better to have spy-influenced "independent" government traders than to contract with a particular private firm to do the government's trading.

There are other good reasons for using this information. SEC chair Harvey Pitt has called for "reform of the accounting profession" in order to prevent another Enron debacle.

"The present system, which has been in effect for 67 years, doesn't provide for 'current disclosure.' Financial disclosures are dense, impenetrable," claims Pitt.

An SEC database of insider information about corporations would certainly help keep accountants and corporate leaders honest.

Finally, there is the argument that the government should stay out of private enterprise.

Sorry to burst your bubble, folks, but the government spends more on corporations than on all direct public assistance programs combined. With such a huge portion of our annual budget going to corporations, the government can justify "taxing" them by using their advantages to play the market.

Do you like this idea? Write your representatives and ask them to draft a bill on this issue! While the Enron scandal is still fresh in everyone's mind, these proposals have a chance.




Won't work (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 23rd, 2002 at 09:15:55 AM PST
I don't think the author sees the whole picture here. The richest 2% or the US, the people to whom the benefits of insider trading presently accrue, already control the government.

Proof? The current Enron execs, as guilty as can be, aren't going to do any time or pay any restitution for what they have done. All your proposal would accomplish would be to make it legal for their drones to carry out their wishes and remove all of the nastiness associated with having to cover something up. (Like when Clinton had Ron Brown killed by flying a plane into a mountain)

Don't make it any easier for these people.


exactly (none / 0) (#4)
by perdida on Wed Jan 23rd, 2002 at 09:28:33 AM PST
All your proposal would accomplish would be to make it legal for their drones to carry out their wishes and remove all of the nastiness associated with having to cover something up.

Exactly.

If you told Americans this would save their jobs, they'd probably sign up for it right now. The confluence of events makes this coming out into the open feasible!

Just like what happened when Prohibition lifted - it's the illegality that causes the crime, violence, and lies. This proposal solves that problem.
--perdida




This is what democracy looks like

no way (1.00 / 1) (#5)
by PotatoError on Wed Jan 23rd, 2002 at 12:41:34 PM PST
"Just like what happened when Prohibition lifted - it's the illegality that causes the crime, violence, and lies. This proposal solves that problem."

Yes at last you are beginning to reason with me that we make software, music and movie piracy LEGAL.

Lets also make murder legal too. It would solve so many problems :)

I argue that legalising alchool causes more problems than Prohibition. Prohibition was handled the wrong way anyway. A much better system could eradicate peoples memories of alcohol in a few generations.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I agree wholeheartedly. (3.00 / 1) (#8)
by nathan on Wed Jan 23rd, 2002 at 06:31:00 PM PST
The national brainwashing program must be undertaken immediately.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
The Third Reich (none / 0) (#14)
by MessiahWWKD on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 02:10:08 PM PST
I argue that legalising alchool causes more problems than Prohibition. Prohibition was handled the wrong way anyway. A much better system could eradicate peoples memories of alcohol in a few generations.


It's a good thing that we don't live in your Nazi Gestapo. Alcohol is a natural right of any red-blooded American. Do not take away our freedoms!

What kind of system do you suggest? One that involves liberal brainwashing and secret police?
Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

 
is is too passe to mention... (none / 0) (#11)
by derek3000 on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 01:07:00 PM PST
marijuana prohibition and the war on drugs?


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
Question (none / 0) (#6)
by hauntedattics on Wed Jan 23rd, 2002 at 12:57:31 PM PST
While I find your proposal admirable (and thorough), I have one question for you. How will the U.S. Government keep non-U.S. sources and representatives from getting their hands on this valuable insider information?

Obviously the new agency for insider trading will have to be subject to the same high standards of security that our other intelligence organizations swear by. I think you'd agree that it's one thing for our own government to profit from playing the markets, but quite another to see bold and unscrupulous foreign types taking advantage of our financial systems. Think what havoc these shadowy organizations could wreak with the NYSE!




They already do this... (none / 0) (#15)
by kiwipeso on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 08:38:04 PM PST
The US spies on French and German companies with the UK.
Canada spies on conferences and expos held in canada.
Australia spies on indonesia, japan and malaysia.
New Zealand gets to spy on the pacific islands.
The thing is, they just pass info onto their companies
Creator of the Kaos operating system and several killer apps and games.

 
This is certainly an interesting discussion... (none / 0) (#7)
by frozenwoody on Wed Jan 23rd, 2002 at 04:01:54 PM PST
But Enron's shareholders could benefit from having this discussion cross-posted to their forum.


 
We pay all your damn taxes, we should be allowed.. (2.00 / 1) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 23rd, 2002 at 11:00:40 PM PST
The richest 2% of the population own the government because we pay for the government and everything else in this country.

We should be allowed to use whatever information we have to invest. The government shouldn't dictate what our "mindset" is during the moment that we discuss our investment opportunities with our brokers.

The problem is people think that having money is easy. I'm sure the execs at the top of Enron had the absolute best intentions - its unfortunate that the bad business climate caused their demise. Everyone loses - not just the employees - what, they lost 20k or 40k? A mere pittance compared to what the top execs lost.

We're all in business - we all take risks and there's just too many people in government that don't understand that "risk" process and how difficult it is to succeed.

If any of you were in Vegas and you knew that the next number to come up was a 10, tell me, for real, that you would walk away from the table! Or that you would put your money on 20.

A few people cry foul because they expect that their job is secure... wake up people - walking down the street is a risk and so is your current job!


Exhibiting a very special kind of viciousness (3.00 / 1) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 25th, 2002 at 02:57:03 AM PST
So the employees lost a mere pittance compared with the top execs, did they? For someone who claims to be in the top 2% of earners in the US, it's pretty surprising that you don't know the difference between relative and absolute measures.

Go on, tell us that you think that Ken Lay is *ever* going to have financial difficulties in feeding, clothing, housing and buying healthcare for himself and his family. That's the true measure of what has been lost -- there are thousands of employees of that company who are now reduced to penury. They may lose their homes. They may not be able to buy medicines. God help them should they fall seriously ill. Do you honestly believe Mr Lay will even need to stop travelling business class? This is a man who has helped destroy $bns of dollars of value -- where's his personal risk?

As for someone in the US thinking that the basis of ownership of government is how much you're able to pay ... that's not how the Republic's supposed to work, bub. Ever heard the phrase "we, the people"? "We, the top 2% by income of the people" doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?

You've exhibited a very special kind of viciousness in your post. Time to put it away.


Liberalism in the Flesh (none / 0) (#13)
by MessiahWWKD on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 02:06:23 PM PST
Go on, tell us that you think that Ken Lay is *ever* going to have financial difficulties in feeding, clothing, housing and buying healthcare for himself and his family. That's the true measure of what has been lost -- there are thousands of employees of that company who are now reduced to penury. They may lose their homes. They may not be able to buy medicines. God help them should they fall seriously ill. Do you honestly believe Mr Lay will even need to stop travelling business class? This is a man who has helped destroy $bns of dollars of value -- where's his personal risk?


Quit being melodramatic! I'm sure the ones who are hard workers have already found new jobs. As for the ones who are ending up homeless, they should quit whining and look for a job. Peasants whine too much.
As for someone in the US thinking that the basis of ownership of government is how much you're able to pay ... that's not how the Republic's supposed to work, bub. Ever heard the phrase "we, the people"? "We, the top 2% by income of the people" doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?


Perhaps if everybody paid equal taxes, you would make sense. Sadly, the wealthiest people have to pay much more taxes than a lowly hobo. Now, what kind of "Republic" punishes one for successful.
Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

 
Happens in the FX market already (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by hughk on Mon Jan 28th, 2002 at 01:40:28 PM PST
The FX market is effectively an insider-market. Information flow is pretty good thus the market is efficient.

Corporate Securities are more complicated though because what really matter is the market perception of a company's value. This is a lot harder than the money markets to evaluate. In most advanced economies, not only does everyone have access to the money supply figures but also to the same economic models used by the government/central bank.

I may have perfect information about a company, but that doesn't mean that much in the market, unless I know of some future event causing a major share movement. I may have all the books, but it is the overall market perception that counts.


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.