jjd

smokers

Their other solution is to purchase mutual funds, index funds, and exchange traded funds. Smaller investors probably shouldn't be investing in individual stocks unless they are prepared to for the time required, as well as the higher risk involved.

I agree with that 100%. How did the implied volatility during that period compare to historical averages for the stock? Keep in mind too that someone had to write those put options and they probably lost their asses. However, average investors don't write options, considering the margin requirements for uncovered positions. It sounds like the stock attracted quite a few speculators, which isn't surprising. People should realize they are undertaking significant risk when they invest in stocks like that, especially when there is major news coming out. I don't think preventing insider trading affects that situation at all, provided that it is disclosed.

I would say that it doesn't really matter. If you see the stock going down and insiders selling (they disclose planned sales), that should give you an indication that something is wrong. Don't get me wrong, I think insiders should have to disclose their sales so that the rest of us know what they're doing. I just don't believe we should limit the reasons why they sell. It is pretty unlikely to only be a priveleged few that know. Stock prices tend to reflect possible problems. A perfect example of this is the prices of Enron, Dynegy, and Tyco leading up to their accounting fraud blow-ups. The prices of all (as I recall) fell significantly leading up to the news. I don't see how insiders trading on this information harms other investors. The above quote is clearly a point of disagreement between us. I believe with adequate disclosure of insider trading, investors will have confidence in markets. I don't believe it is a disadvantaged position if you know what they're doing.

If you ask 10 economists what caused the Great Depression, you're likely to get 10 different answers. If you want my opinion, a combination of poor monetary policy (monetarists didn't even exist yet) and poor fiscal policy combined to create an awful economic situation. I don't believe insider trading caused the Great Depression. Insider trading will merely allow equities to move to their "true" value quicker.

I guess I don't see a problem with having investors make inferences based upon what insiders are doing. As one of my links above states, allowing insiders to trade will bring the information to light through their actions. I would also submit that "ordinary investors" are at a disadvantage when it comes to acquiring information - it is costly. However, if you the see stock price going down and insiders selling, you've got a pretty good reason to sell yourself. Perfect transparency in the markets is an illusion, in my opinion.

There are quite a few Asians, Chinese included, here at UC Davis. I don't really see a difference between them and other non-Asian students.

I would submit that it never should have been made illegal in the first place. That aside, with the ability to move information virtually instantaneously at little or no cost, there is no reason why that information (the insider trading) can't be obtained in plenty of time. I would challenge you to find a case where insider trading truly caused harm to investors. I suspect if they exist at all, they are very few (I don't think you'll find any).

If an insider is able to legally sell on this inside information, they will. Telling his/her friends that they should sell and not doing so himself is pretty far-fetched without the presence of insider trading laws. Let's assume we do have an irrational CEO who wants to lsoe money. If enough people are selling in large enough quantities to move the market, you will have sell signals. Read the links below to read some of the thinking behind repealing insider trading laws (specifically the problem of identifying what is insider trading and what isn't). http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe231-20030713-04.html http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0310b.asp

It's doubtful that most CEOs hold enough stock to move the market significantly. It is also unlikely that they would liquidate their entire position even if they did. Let's assume for argument's sake that they do. If you know that a)the price of the stock is going down and b) the CEO is liquidating his entire portfolio, that is probably a good sign to sell. If you have this information and don't act upon it, it's your own fault.

The CEO selling his stock does not in itself do anything to harm you. Proponents of making insider trading legal believe, as do I, that requiring immediate disclosure of trading by insiders would be adequate. If you know that insiders are selling massive positions while simultaneously touting the company's prospects, one can question whether they are truthful. It could be argued that by watching insider trading, you get a better signal about the company's prospects than you do currently.

Paragraphs 2 and 3: Helsingoer Bishop Lise-Lotte Rebel suspended Rev. Thorkild Grosboell, pastor of Taarbaek, and handed his case to the government "requesting that it take the necessary steps." In Denmark, Lutheran ministers are employed by the state and only the government can fire them and only with a recommendation from their presiding bishop. Rebel oversees the diocese that includes Taarbaek, a small town north of Copenhagen.

!sreirrab egaugnal lla ssorc od sgniht emos

swen taerg yllaer si taht

Did you bother to read the ENTIRE article?

That's just nasty. If you showered and changed your underwear more often, that nasty rash on your nutsack would probably go away.

I start finals tomorrow, two on Saturday , and one more next Wednesday. Thanks for rubbing it in.