5 ms·

If you're trading for a company, your legal work actions may impact certain markets. If you know about this beforehand, you may trade with your own money with a

If you're trading for a company, your legal work actions may impact certain markets. If you know about this beforehand, you may trade with your own money with an advantage - to prevent people abusing this, you're not allowed to trade privately if you're responsible for trading or the decisions on what to trade. Your salary should reflect this restriction.

CogitoCogito 9y ago
The article says that all employees are going to be restricted. That seems a bit ridiculous.
- philipov 9y ago
  Typically, anyone working at an investment firm may be privy to material information, and is banned from investing in any security that that firm has in their universe. Doesn't matter if you actually do the trading.
  - CogitoCogito 9y ago
    I don't understand. Does Nordea trade in bitcoin? This is a quote in this Reuters article ( https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-nordea-bitcoin/banking-group-nordea-bans-bitcoin-trading-idUSKBN1FB1XZ https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-nordea-bitcoin/banking-gr... ): > “The risks are seen as too high and the protection is insufficient for both the co-workers and the bank,” a Nordea spokeswoman told Reuters in an e-mail, adding that employees who currently own cryptocurrencies will not be forced to sell them, although recommended to do so. They don't seem to say anything about Nordea workers having any privy information. By their rationale, I don't understand why they wouldn't be unable to declare any instrument off the table. I'm kind of surprised that this kind of unilateral change of workers' rights is allowed in Sweden.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      Crypto markets are small enough that there's a risk of employees buying in and then evangelizing clients in order to boost their own investments. It's basically impossible to do that in traditional markets.
      - CogitoCogito 9y ago
        According to this site ( https://www.coindesk.com/price/ https://www.coindesk.com/price/ ) the value of the bitcoin market is more than $100 billion. That doesn't exactly seem like a small market. I could sort of see the argument on smaller up and coming crypto-currencies, but not for bitcoin.
        bpicolo 9y ago
        Compared to stock markets, liquidity is low. Fake news can (and recently has) killed 30% of the market's value in a day.
        CogitoCogito 9y ago
        I really think there is far too much arbitrary reasoning here and I still don't understand how your average Nordea secretary is well-positioned to influence the bitcoin market. All of the reasoning I've read here seems to apply equally well to all Scandinavians if it applies to all of Nordea workers. It seems to me that a better approach would be for financial regulators to make these decisions or at least provide more warning time than a little over a month. Most Swedes I know need to give at least 3 months notice when quitting. I would hope that Nordea's actions mean that employees could at least quit early if they so choose.
        frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        Well it's really a problem in so far as the bank employee thinks they can influence the market. The bank may care marginally about an employee influencing crypto markets but what they're really worried about is an employee influencing bank customers. There is a huge and pervasive belief in the bitcoin community that they really need to talk up bitcoin, nothing that can happen to bitcoin is really bad, it's destined to climb higher, etc. Even on this board I've read stuff like 'if the top 1% only put 1% of their portfolios in bitcoin it would be worth a gajillion times more.' I can understand wanting to make sure your employees aren't feeling that same way when they're making investment decisions with other peoples money.
arghwhat 9y ago
Would that not be considered insider trading, in which case the employee is privately committing a criminal offense, and thus does not require any additional restrictions?
- bpicolo 9y ago
  Insider trading is a huge part of what they're trying to avoid - intentional or otherwise. It puts the firm at risk if their employees are making dubious trades, even on their own time with their own money
  - arghwhat 9y ago
    It makes sense that the company wishes to avoid insider trading, but it doesn't make sense that the company is telling its employees to not commit a criminal offense. It should be obvious, and the disincentives by the company is nothing compared to huge fines and time in jail.
    - bpicolo 9y ago
      It's not just that the tell them not to, they actively audit for it. It's a risk to the company, not just a personal risk to the employee

CogitoCogito 9y ago

The article says that all employees are going to be restricted. That seems a bit ridiculous.

philipov 9y ago
Typically, anyone working at an investment firm may be privy to material information, and is banned from investing in any security that that firm has in their universe. Doesn't matter if you actually do the trading.
- CogitoCogito 9y ago
  I don't understand. Does Nordea trade in bitcoin? This is a quote in this Reuters article ( https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-nordea-bitcoin/banking-group-nordea-bans-bitcoin-trading-idUSKBN1FB1XZ https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-nordea-bitcoin/banking-gr... ): > “The risks are seen as too high and the protection is insufficient for both the co-workers and the bank,” a Nordea spokeswoman told Reuters in an e-mail, adding that employees who currently own cryptocurrencies will not be forced to sell them, although recommended to do so. They don't seem to say anything about Nordea workers having any privy information. By their rationale, I don't understand why they wouldn't be unable to declare any instrument off the table. I'm kind of surprised that this kind of unilateral change of workers' rights is allowed in Sweden.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Crypto markets are small enough that there's a risk of employees buying in and then evangelizing clients in order to boost their own investments. It's basically impossible to do that in traditional markets.
    - CogitoCogito 9y ago
      According to this site ( https://www.coindesk.com/price/ https://www.coindesk.com/price/ ) the value of the bitcoin market is more than $100 billion. That doesn't exactly seem like a small market. I could sort of see the argument on smaller up and coming crypto-currencies, but not for bitcoin.
      - bpicolo 9y ago
        Compared to stock markets, liquidity is low. Fake news can (and recently has) killed 30% of the market's value in a day.
        CogitoCogito 9y ago
        I really think there is far too much arbitrary reasoning here and I still don't understand how your average Nordea secretary is well-positioned to influence the bitcoin market. All of the reasoning I've read here seems to apply equally well to all Scandinavians if it applies to all of Nordea workers. It seems to me that a better approach would be for financial regulators to make these decisions or at least provide more warning time than a little over a month. Most Swedes I know need to give at least 3 months notice when quitting. I would hope that Nordea's actions mean that employees could at least quit early if they so choose.
        frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        Well it's really a problem in so far as the bank employee thinks they can influence the market. The bank may care marginally about an employee influencing crypto markets but what they're really worried about is an employee influencing bank customers. There is a huge and pervasive belief in the bitcoin community that they really need to talk up bitcoin, nothing that can happen to bitcoin is really bad, it's destined to climb higher, etc. Even on this board I've read stuff like 'if the top 1% only put 1% of their portfolios in bitcoin it would be worth a gajillion times more.' I can understand wanting to make sure your employees aren't feeling that same way when they're making investment decisions with other peoples money.

arghwhat 9y ago

Would that not be considered insider trading, in which case the employee is privately committing a criminal offense, and thus does not require any additional restrictions?

bpicolo 9y ago
Insider trading is a huge part of what they're trying to avoid - intentional or otherwise. It puts the firm at risk if their employees are making dubious trades, even on their own time with their own money
- arghwhat 9y ago
  It makes sense that the company wishes to avoid insider trading, but it doesn't make sense that the company is telling its employees to not commit a criminal offense. It should be obvious, and the disincentives by the company is nothing compared to huge fines and time in jail.
  - bpicolo 9y ago
    It's not just that the tell them not to, they actively audit for it. It's a risk to the company, not just a personal risk to the employee