4 ms·

I don't have the energy to dissect all this, but you're completely conflating legality, enforcement, and provability. We have juries for a reason. Most would a

I don't have the energy to dissect all this, but you're completely conflating legality, enforcement, and provability. We have juries for a reason. Most would a priori find it hard to believe that someone who found a winning strategy would repeatedly post it on random message boards with altruistic intent.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Juries need some basis on which to make a decision. The law is ridiculous if it only turns on whether you had a lawyer ahead of time to tell you what not to say while operating the identical scam. It's not clear why telling people you think a stock is going to go up after you've already bought it would require altruism, and more than that you would benefit by building a reputation as someone who makes accurate predictions if you turn out to be right, independent of whether anyone acts on your statement by buying the stock.
- hnfong 3y ago
  > The law is ridiculous if it only turns on whether you had a lawyer ahead of time to tell you what not to say while operating the identical scam. You'd be very shocked... ... but that's essentially what criminal defence is about :-/ In a sense half the value of having a defence lawyer is having somebody to remind you not to say stupid things to the police/investigators/prosecution. Of course it's not really as simple as that, but you'd be surprised at the number of convictions where the prosecution relied on something stupid the defendant said. If (say) 50% of convictions "turns on whether you had a lawyer ahead of time to tell you what not to say", is the law ridiculous? Because that's what it generally is like (not just for securities fraud cases). PS: for cases where it's particularly easy to feign ignorance/innocence, sometimes the law specifically states that the mens rea requirement is waived (i.e. the intent/knowledge does not matter, or does not need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt). This in turn gives opportunity for defence lawyers to argue this infringes on the right of the defendant to be presumed innocent..
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > If (say) 50% of convictions "turns on whether you had a lawyer ahead of time to tell you what not to say", is the law ridiculous? Yes. It's entirely believable that at least 50% of laws are ridiculous. > for cases where it's particularly easy to feign ignorance/innocence, sometimes the law specifically states that the mens rea requirement is waived (i.e. the intent/knowledge does not matter, or does not need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt). But that's not the issue. If you go out to the parking lot and your key fob unlocks someone else's car of the same make and model, e.g. because the manufacturer screwed up and made any of the keys open any of the cars, and then you claim that you thought that car was yours when you drove off in it, the prosecution now has to prove that you intended to steal someone else's car. Which they may yet even be able to do, if there is other evidence that implies you knew what you were doing, but it's completely reasonable that they have to prove it. Whereas if you went out into the parking lot and broke the window of a car and then hot wired it, your actions are evidence of your intent. And, importantly, it's generally difficult to avoid actions that signal your intent while perpetrating a car theft. The actual problem for this type of securities laws isn't just that the prosecution has to prove your intent, it's that their only means to do that is effectively a confession. There is no plausible way to operate a chop shop such that hiring a lawyer ahead of time would keep you out of prison when you get found out, but for parts of the financial industry that's what happens, which is absurd. There is no justice in a law that can only be enforced against people without effective counsel.
toss1 3y ago
yup, especially if they are not including the standard: "Disclosure: I have positions in this security." This could be interpreted as (and/or variously written to indicate) "this person is just talking up his/her book" or "they like it so much they have skin in the game". Plus the factor of how much noise there is to any signal in the social media & message boards, how much attention can one reliably actually get for your shilling? Wrong vs provably wrong are often different
robertlagrant 3y ago
> Most would a priori find it hard to believe that someone who found a winning strategy would repeatedly post it on random message boards with altruistic intent. That doesn't make it right, though, at least in my mind. There's accountability on both sides in these cases. People reading message boards and treating the contents as financial advice are not taking sufficient care, particularly when they click past / agree to the statement on their trading platform that says that their money is at risk. Their money was at risk, and they did it anyway. My impression is this would come down to the jury's bias in either direction, when it should be pretty clear cut: you buy random stuff hoping to get rich, be it stocks picks from an Instagrammer, or NFTs, or whatever, and it is you choosing how to gamble your money. If I were in a casino and a guy was holding a sign saying I should put all my money on number 8 on Roulette, it wouldn't matter if he were the casino owner, and stood to gain, or was just a random guy. It's up to me to decide what to do with the advice.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

Juries need some basis on which to make a decision. The law is ridiculous if it only turns on whether you had a lawyer ahead of time to tell you what not to say while operating the identical scam. It's not clear why telling people you think a stock is going to go up after you've already bought it would require altruism, and more than that you would benefit by building a reputation as someone who makes accurate predictions if you turn out to be right, independent of whether anyone acts on your statement by buying the stock.

hnfong 3y ago
> The law is ridiculous if it only turns on whether you had a lawyer ahead of time to tell you what not to say while operating the identical scam. You'd be very shocked... ... but that's essentially what criminal defence is about :-/ In a sense half the value of having a defence lawyer is having somebody to remind you not to say stupid things to the police/investigators/prosecution. Of course it's not really as simple as that, but you'd be surprised at the number of convictions where the prosecution relied on something stupid the defendant said. If (say) 50% of convictions "turns on whether you had a lawyer ahead of time to tell you what not to say", is the law ridiculous? Because that's what it generally is like (not just for securities fraud cases). PS: for cases where it's particularly easy to feign ignorance/innocence, sometimes the law specifically states that the mens rea requirement is waived (i.e. the intent/knowledge does not matter, or does not need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt). This in turn gives opportunity for defence lawyers to argue this infringes on the right of the defendant to be presumed innocent..
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > If (say) 50% of convictions "turns on whether you had a lawyer ahead of time to tell you what not to say", is the law ridiculous? Yes. It's entirely believable that at least 50% of laws are ridiculous. > for cases where it's particularly easy to feign ignorance/innocence, sometimes the law specifically states that the mens rea requirement is waived (i.e. the intent/knowledge does not matter, or does not need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt). But that's not the issue. If you go out to the parking lot and your key fob unlocks someone else's car of the same make and model, e.g. because the manufacturer screwed up and made any of the keys open any of the cars, and then you claim that you thought that car was yours when you drove off in it, the prosecution now has to prove that you intended to steal someone else's car. Which they may yet even be able to do, if there is other evidence that implies you knew what you were doing, but it's completely reasonable that they have to prove it. Whereas if you went out into the parking lot and broke the window of a car and then hot wired it, your actions are evidence of your intent. And, importantly, it's generally difficult to avoid actions that signal your intent while perpetrating a car theft. The actual problem for this type of securities laws isn't just that the prosecution has to prove your intent, it's that their only means to do that is effectively a confession. There is no plausible way to operate a chop shop such that hiring a lawyer ahead of time would keep you out of prison when you get found out, but for parts of the financial industry that's what happens, which is absurd. There is no justice in a law that can only be enforced against people without effective counsel.

toss1 3y ago

yup, especially if they are not including the standard: "Disclosure: I have positions in this security." This could be interpreted as (and/or variously written to indicate) "this person is just talking up his/her book" or "they like it so much they have skin in the game". Plus the factor of how much noise there is to any signal in the social media & message boards, how much attention can one reliably actually get for your shilling? Wrong vs provably wrong are often different

robertlagrant 3y ago

> Most would a priori find it hard to believe that someone who found a winning strategy would repeatedly post it on random message boards with altruistic intent. That doesn't make it right, though, at least in my mind. There's accountability on both sides in these cases. People reading message boards and treating the contents as financial advice are not taking sufficient care, particularly when they click past / agree to the statement on their trading platform that says that their money is at risk. Their money was at risk, and they did it anyway. My impression is this would come down to the jury's bias in either direction, when it should be pretty clear cut: you buy random stuff hoping to get rich, be it stocks picks from an Instagrammer, or NFTs, or whatever, and it is you choosing how to gamble your money. If I were in a casino and a guy was holding a sign saying I should put all my money on number 8 on Roulette, it wouldn't matter if he were the casino owner, and stood to gain, or was just a random guy. It's up to me to decide what to do with the advice.