Forum Archive Index - June 2000

["Nigel Bree" <nbree@kcbbs.gen.nz>]

James Lee wrote:
> Every single trader is relying on insider information

Nonsense. Those with no connection to the insiders are *not* relying
on non-public - insider - information.

> it is inevietable that some people in the old boys
> club will know something you or I won't.

Perhaps they may know something. The question lies in whether they
choose to use that unfairly gained advantage at the expense of others.

Given the way that NZ's elite like to portray wealth and status as flowing
from their moral rectitude (or other way of portraying themselves as
deserving of their privilege), it would be nice to see that hypocrisy
exposed more often.

> Traders rely on statistical measures to see patterns in the movements of
> share prices.

That is not insider information - it relies on data which may be purchased
by anyone with the wherewithal.

> They are therefore reacting to someone with more knowledge than
themselves.

Insider information is *not* the same thing as other differences in levels
of knowledge, despite your attempts to conflate them. Insider information is
*not* available to anyone.

> No market is free of insider trading [...]

Your point being what? "Everyone else does it" is hardly a particularly
good defense of unethical behaviour, nor a reasonable argument for not
making any efforts to reduce the amount of insider trading (or business
fraud in general).

> Trading via his companies broker on his own account does not indicate
> insider trading.

But a director trading the day between a major decision by the board and
the public announcement *is* an unambiguous indicator of insider trading.

> Many people who wish to punish Kerry  are your simply
> jealous traders who can only dream of having the money Mr Hoggard has

Perhaps. On the other hand, they might (quite reasonably) also see the
fact that he did in fact commit insider trading as emblematic of a
corrupt system, and wish to make an example of him in an attempt to
discourage others.

> What you need to do Oliver is to examine both sides before forming an
> opinion and before judging someone, read below for an example.

Cute, but very silly. All that your example demonstrates is how one can
distort facts by being selective with evidence and framing its
presentation (as we're all familiar with from corporate PR).

- Nigel



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.