4 ms·

Let's not confuse this thread with an yet another appeal to "more study". Federal regulators, who are infamous for their inaction have made the rare determinati

Let's not confuse this thread with an yet another appeal to "more study". Federal regulators, who are infamous for their inaction have made the rare determination that "the numbers" don't add up, with at least one SEC commissioner publicly furious that the SEC hasn't gone far enough. https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/stein-waivers-granted-dissenting-statement.html https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/stein-waivers-granted-dis... I'm not persuaded by your analogy in which you compare a one-time transaction relating to an infrequent type of event to a systematic conspiracy to deceive clients and competitors alike in transactions that occur frequently.

sophacles 11y ago
Lets not confuse a discussion of a single point, namely why a person or group of people would choose something that appears to not be in their interest from my limited point of view, with a statement either for or against, any other actions. Hell for all I know, the clients could have been flat out told: "look this whole thing is market manipulation, we're getting you profit consistency and stability that you could not otherwise get, albeit at a lower rate than individual transactions". I regularly choose index funds over picking stocks for the reason of lower risk albeit at lower profit potential. I'm not saying anyone did anything right or wrong. I was just discussing a particular point that seemed relevant. It is possible that there was wrong-doing, that there was market manipulation, and that the clients still chose reasonably and in their interests despite that. Going back to my analogy, just because I made the decision the way I did, does not mean the dealer is or is not involved in deceptive business practices, gouging or other scummy tactics.