6 ms·
Maybe, but given the reputation of Indian regulators I’m skeptical Jane Street’s only sin was the alleged market manipulation. People may recall the matter inv
by Den_VR 1y ago
Maybe, but given the reputation of Indian regulators I’m skeptical Jane Street’s only sin was the alleged market manipulation.
People may recall the matter involving Adani Group.
https://hindenburgresearch.com/adani-update-sebi/ https://hindenburgresearch.com/adani-update-sebi/
- dyauspitr 1y agoSeems presumptive to slander an entire nations regulatory group on a single/couple of examples. By that metric the regulatory group in the US is completely bought out since they let 2008 happen.
- sealeck 1y agoThere's a difference between "letting" something happen and actively doing something – it shows very different intentions. The events of 2008 were also caused by a cascading system failure involving lots of different components, which are hard for a single human to fully understand. The actions of the Indian regulator in the Adani case are much simpler, and their motivation is straightforward.
- dyauspitr 1y agoOne rotten regulator doesn’t mean you get to view the entire Indian regulatory environment as unreliable though. It’s the 4th/5th largest financial market in the world.
- Den_VR 1y agoIs SEBI not the key regulator in this area? To say it plainly, SEBI has been exposed for their selective enforcement on high-profile entities. If Jane Street’s in trouble with SEBI then it’s only because they failed to secure the same privileges as Adani, or Karvy, or Ramkrishna, or Sapre, or Kamath.
- fastball 1y agoDoes the size of a market have some positive impact on the reliability of its regulatory body that I am not aware of?
- dyauspitr 1y agoYes, trust. Fully gamed systems will not have large willing participants.
- fastball 1y agoA market being large doesn't mean it has large participants. But even then (and as seems to be the case in this instance), the market might have large participants because they are the ones doing the gaming, and are therefore happy to participate (even if trust is low).
- Den_VR 1y agoSlander? Now there’s a strong word. Examples of the 2023-2025 activities of the Indian securities regulator SEBI seem pretty relevant to current news involving SEBI here in 2025. Which is the topic of discussion. Whatever US regulators were doing in 2008 has nothing to do with this.
- CPLX 1y ago> By that metric the regulatory group in the US is completely bought out since they let 2008 happen. Not sure that makes the point you think it makes.
- throwaway2037 1y ago> Seems presumptive to slander an entire nations regulatory group on a single/couple of examples. How about Germany's BAFIN regulator after VW's Deiselgate or Wirecard bankruptcy? BAFIN's response was weak and slow in both cases. I am willing to slander them for "just" those two mistakes.
- Lionga 1y agoThat is not slander, you are being more then generous with them. BAFIN's employees were trading Wirecard for profit to skim profits, not just "weak and slow". Calling them highly corrupt is probably a fair statement and not slander