text:
Opening statements
The current emphasis on attacking hedge funds and expert networks strikes me as having the potential to chill legitimate market analysis.
Over the past decade, crimes affecting our financial and capital markets have seriously eroded the public's confidence in those markets.
Insider trading is a divisive issue, but one thing everyone can agree on is that enforcement has grown much tougher in recent years. America's Securities and Exchange Commission has led the way in targeting those who profit from the possession of material non-public information, most strikingly with its pursuit of Raj Rajaratnam and the so-called expert networks on which many hedge funds rely to gain an edge. Under growing public pressure, Congress recently passed a law banning insider trading by its own members. Britain, Hong Kong and dozens of other jurisdictions have passed tougher rules or strengthened enforcement. Those targeted include not just professional traders but also corporate executives, their advisers, friends and family, board members and others.
This debate will turn in part on the basic question of whether insider trading should be illegal at all. Opposing prohibition may seem radical, but it has a long, distinguished academic pedigree that includes Milton Friedman and Henry Manne. This camp argues that the costs of regulation and prosecution outweigh the benefits, given the many grey areas that make it hard to build cases. Moreover, asymmetric information is a fact of life. All sorts of economic agents profit from knowing more than others. A miner who knows there is gold under someone's land, for instance, doesn't have to disclose it to the owner making an offer. But the opponents' main argument concerns efficiency. If those with an information advantage were allowed to trade freely, prices would more quickly find their correct level, benefiting everyone. Those with inside knowledge that a company was in trouble would sell or short its shares, providing an early-warning system for the market as a whole.
The regulators behind the crackdown counter that it is being executed in the name of fairness. When a trader makes millions from a tip provided with a nudge and a wink by a company director, thousands of other investors each lose out in a small way, they argue. Harvey Pitt believes this type of thing has a corrosive effect on market integrity over time. If the typical punter comes to believe that the deck is stacked against him, he may walk away from the table. And the fewer investors there are in markets, the higher the cost of raising capital for companies. This is particularly worrying at a time when economies are fragile and public confidence in stockmarkets has been dented by the 2008 meltdown and subsequent scandals and technological breakdowns.
Beyond this there is, for more egregious cases at least, the smell-test argument. An investment banker working on a high-premium takeover can be fairly sure that the target firm's share price will rise when the deal is announced. If his purchase of a stake just beforehand is not a breach of fiduciary duty, what is?
Even those who support a ban may find themselves agreeing with the motion. A balance always needs to be struck in enforcement. The SEC has limited resources and must police many other areas, some of which are more directly linked to the causes of the financial crisis. Is it neglecting some of these as it steps up the hunt for insider traders?
Then there is the risk that overzealous enforcement has the unintended consequence of paralysing legitimate activities, blocking the flow of information that is the lifeblood of financial markets. This worry forms the backbone of Stephen Bainbridge's support for the motion. He favours keeping insider trading illegal, primarily on the ground that it is theft of intellectual property belonging to the company that issued the shares. But Mr Bainbridge thinks American law enforcers have taken their crusade too far, driving an unnecessarily thick wedge between expert networks and the money managers who rely on their insights to make judgments about the fate of companies.
Those entering the debate may wish to ponder this point from another angle. Privileged information comes in many forms. Paying an executive to reveal his company's quarterly profits ahead of their public release is one thing; overhearing him discussing the upcoming results with a colleague in a restaurant is quite another. I look forward to a lively discussion of where the line should be drawn. And I hope that all participants find it equally profitable.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the American "government has secured 56 guilty pleas or convictions out of 63 people charged with insider trading since late 2009".
Many of the cases brought in this latest anti-insider-trading crusade have involved hedge fund traders and other market analysts, with a special focus on so-called expert networks. The Economist has explained how these networks work and what impact the legal crusade is having:
Expert networks are matchmakers that link clients with experts. A hedge fund that trades pharmaceutical stocks, for example, might use an expert network to find a doctor who can explain how a new cancer drug works. The network would set up a phone call and pay the doctor handsomely.
Such networks have recently caught the eye of American regulators, who fret that investors may be using them to ferret out illegal inside information … [As a result,] some hedge funds are suspending their use of such networks, for fear of falling foul of the law. Others are making their traders jump through legal hoops before allowing them to speak to an expert. A few are abandoning networks altogether, and finding their own experts.
I am not one of those who think that insider trading ought to be legalised. On the contrary, I have defended a prohibition of insider trading—if not the precise prohibition established by current law—as a necessary way of protecting corporate property rights in information. See, for example, my SMU Law Review article "Insider Trading Regulation: The Path Dependent Choice between Property Rights and Securities Fraud".
The current emphasis on attacking hedge funds and expert networks, however, strikes me as having the potential to chill legitimate market analysis.
In the seminal Supreme Court case of Dirks v SEC, Justice Lewis Powell explained that overly zealous enforcement of insider-trading bans can have a highly detrimental effect on market efficiency:
Imposing a duty to disclose or abstain solely because a person knowingly receives material nonpublic information from an insider and trades on it could have an inhibiting influence on the role of market analysts, which the SEC itself recognizes is necessary to the preservation of a healthy market. It is commonplace for analysts to "ferret out and analyze information," 21 S.E.C. Docket at 1406, and this often is done by meeting with and questioning corporate officers and others who are insiders. And information that the analysts obtain normally may be the basis for judgments as to the market worth of a corporation's securities. The analyst's judgment in this respect is made available in market letters or otherwise to clients of the firm. It is the nature of this type of information, and indeed of the markets themselves, that such information cannot be made simultaneously available to all of the corporation's stockholders or the public generally. [My emphasis]
Notice that Mr Powell expressly endorsed allowing market analysts to meet with and question corporate officers and others who are insiders to produce informational judgments unavailable to the public in general.
Facilitating such meetings is precisely what expert networks do. To be sure, that doesn't give the networks a licence to facilitate tipping by insiders. As USA Today reported, however:
The conviction of billionaire Raj Rajaratnam, 53, co-founder of Galleon Group, sent a clear message to Wall Street: Prosecutors have zero tolerance for investors who break the law by trading on—and profiting from—secret market-moving information before it becomes publicly available to all investors.
By pursuing a strong equal-access standard in which information must be available to the public before it can be used by traders, the crusade by the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice prosecutors is inconsistent with Mr Powell's endorsement of market analysts' work. As such, there is a serious risk that the crusade is chilling legitimate market analysis of precisely the sort Mr Powell intended to protect.
Insider trading is pernicious, deleterious and—appropriately—a crime. Since organised American securities markets began, market participants have understood that insider trading is the theft of information belonging to others for inappropriate personal gain. It is, therefore, impossible to justify insider trading as benefiting markets, as a "victimless" crime, or as being worthy of less government prosecutorial vigour than classic blue-collar theft of tangible property.
A "crackdown on insider trading [that has] gone too far" suggests current civil and criminal insider-trading law-enforcement cases may ensnare conduct that isn't—or shouldn't be—deemed unlawful, may be politically motivated, or will not actually deter insider trading. Each of these concerns is without basis in fact or theory. Current insider-trading cases have all been "plain vanilla".
First, they do not pose a threat to legitimate activities, such as research, because government case selection has been thoughtful, conservative and subject to appropriate checks and balances. Indeed, the aggregation of voluntary guilty pleas and convictions by prosecutors, and civil settlements by the Securities and Exchange Commission, are ample evidence that current cases haven't gone too far. Second, there's no evidence of any "political motivation" behind the cases brought, as borne out by the results to date. And finally, the likelihood that insider trading will never be completely eradicated does not offer a rationale for refusing to pursue clear cases of which government prosecutors become aware. The same is true for a whole host of other crimes against society, but no one suggests that pursuing crimes should cease because every year brings additional instances of the same misconduct.
Over the past decade, crimes affecting our financial and capital markets have seriously eroded the public's confidence in those markets, exacerbated by the past few years of economic hardship and fraudulent market schemes. Confidence in the integrity of our markets is crucial if corporate enterprises are to raise necessary capital that improves everyone's standard of living, by creating new jobs and new opportunities for economic growth. And economic growth is the fuel that ensures the continuation of our democratic ideals. The harm caused by insider trading is manifest and permeates our markets, our economic well-being and ultimately our political freedom.
From recent cases, we've learned that the mantra claiming insider trading is a victimless crime is untrue. Even if we can't always identify all the victims of a crime, or there are both specific and general victims, that does not render this illegal conduct victimless. Rather, insider trading victimises large numbers of people, and that can have even more devastating consequences than crimes directed at specific individuals. It results in reduced market efficiency, diminishes confidence in our markets, and discourages both sophisticated and unsophisticated investors from entrusting their funds to a marketplace that may be "rigged". It isn't a novel proposition that promoting fairness and confidence in the market by enforcing and deterring insider trading leads to increased market integrity and an efficient marketplace. Nor is it a unique concept that the failure to promote fairness and confidence by failing to enforce and adequately deter insider trading leads to a corrupt and malfunctioning marketplace.
Public companies and those who seek to utilise our capital markets to generate capital for new businesses, or the growth and expansion of existing ones, depend on markets that can readily attract available capital. But if the game is rigged, only masochists will play. A significant component of a successful enforcement programme is not only catching and prosecuting insider traders, but also ensuring the imposition of penalties commensurate with the crime. Congress increased insider-trading penalties in 1988 and 2002 for good reason: policing insider trading is difficult, especially given the secrecy of its nature. Thus penalties must be adequate effectively to deter would-be violators. Deterring insider trading is crucial to improved market confidence, efficiency and integrity in this post-financial crisis environment.
Comments from the floor
Dear Sir,
I strongly disagree. It is intrinsically wrong your argument stating it has gone too far. I think when someone in a company or a bank gets short, and speculates against the public trying to gain a profit is the same thing as when one kid tries to pull over a scheme to take the candy form other kids away. I think such a stance as your is faulty in moral and ethical grounds. The other problem is perhaps that some law systems tend to be to severe, and with that I would agree. It is not understandable the death penalty, torture, life imprisonment, long sentences for lesser crimes etc. I also do not understand the tax evasion laws, which act instead as investment encouragement policies, rather as witchcraft hunting policies. I think rather the problem with some flawed law systems is the puritanical essence instead of having an ethical and problem solving scope. Bankers, and people working in the finance industry are not doing anything. Yes, you read it right, they are just giving credit away at a higher interest rate than the one they got from a central bank or federal reserve. It it people in the engineering, service, manufacturing, and public service who are doing something for the sake of society. It is time due that Bankers stick to their jobs, and start to act morally like most other examples.
I understand that a member of Congress can trade on the information they receive while serving on a committee. This is the ultimate insider trading. I have been told that there have been at least three efforts to shut this activity in recent years. But each effort has been blocked by members of Congress. As an investment manager, I would be tossed out of the profession and possibly into jail if I did what they do in Washington. I contend that unless this practise is shut down, the integrity of government in the US will decline into anarchity. M Burpee
Dear Sir,
Insider trading goes the central tenet of markets: That the price resulting from the balance of supply and demand will achieve the most efficient allocation of resources. Of course, that will only work (even in theory) if we posit that transaction costs are zero and all market participants are totally informed.
So never mind who "owns" insider information or whether it is a "victimless" crime. Markets are free because they are regulated, and they are so for the public good. Anyone who breaches those regulations potentially destroys that market's functioning for the public good.
Dear Sir,
I think we're missing the point here. Should a politician be able to trade on insider information, not what can a hedge fund do. The very thought that an elected official would even think to game the system is reprehensible He or she was sent to Washington, DC by their constituents for the bettterment of the constituency not for the politician to line their pckets with easy money thus only seeking to enhance their life.
Until we clamp down of this behavior our entire political system will remain right where it is ~ the sad thing is that this is the best that a civilized society can offer.
Allowing a politician to vote on their own laws and not have to abide to what I have to as a registerer representative of the securities industry, is ridiculous.
One would think that the lobbyists for the financial industry (The god guys - like Pimco, Vanguard) would push for political reform, that way John Q. Public will regain confidence in our industry once again.
As long as one group consistantly has an advantage over another, people will constantly question the integrity of the system and the rules that manage all of the players.
Dear Sir,
Supposing, for arguments sake, a trader has contact with a Feng Shui expert and perhaps someone who can read a CEO's mind - and with their advice he is able to beat the market every time, can he be considered an inside trader. After all he fits in to all the criteria, except for the source and method of collecting the information. I have used the former's general newsprint advise sometimes.
You can only stick to the limits of the written law. Cannot chase beyond it.
Dear Sir,
Insider trading. "This house believes that the crackdown on insider trading has gone too far". This is wrong because of the fuzzy definition of Insider trading before the law. It's tough to distinguish market intuition from insider trading a problem illustrated by the Swiss nation bank departure of its Chairman because the mistermeaner, or mistermint of his wife.
Insider trading is like jumping the Q. Some of the practises that traders have accepted have eroded the publics confidence in the stock market.
Derivatives and hedge funds have broken up many good companies in the name of quick profits.
Real estate agents are seen in conflict of interest when they buy properties on speculation without any money, in anticipation of these properties increasing in value.
Why then does a trader do the same thing with stocks and it is acceptable?
If you do not pay for a stock you cannot trade it.
Dear Sir,
Insider trading is as natural as sex, prostitution or other human conduct. The ilegality of it comes "artificially" inasmuch antitrust or related syntetic wrongs. If not a crime, the conduct can be just lightly regulated but indeed not pursued as wiches or wizards back in the 1600's.
For traders price diferentials and arbitrage are natuaral and the lag of information is as old as the Old testament.
Aristotle put it clearly in the Politics:
"There is the anecdote of Thales the Milesian and his financial device, which involves a principle of universal application, but is attributed to him on account of his reputation for wisdom. He was reproached for his poverty, which was supposed to show that philosophy was of no use. According to the story, he knew by his skill in the stars while it was yet winter that there would be a great harvest of olives in the coming year; so, having a little money, he gave deposits for the use of all the olive-presses in Chios and Miletus, which he hired at a low price because no one bid against him. When the harvest-time came, and many were wanted all at once and of a sudden, he let them out at any rate which he pleased, and made a quantity of money. Thus he showed the world that philosophers can easily be rich if they like, but that their ambition is of another sort. He is supposed to have given a striking proof of his wisdom, but, as I was saying, his device for getting wealth is of universal application, and is nothing but the creation of a monopoly. It is an art often practiced by cities when they are want of money; they make a monopoly of provisions."
Dear Sir,
Most Hedge funds profit exclusively from trading listed shares. Therefore payments for nonpublic information is a direct transfer from public to private markets. Certainly more information is reflected in the public price, but as long as informational asymmetries exist there will be systematic winners and losers. The game will only end once the losing faction is out of money.
Dear Sir, Constant vigilance is the price of freedom, ... and capitalism. Rapid response to evolving tactics is crucial on the battlefield, .. and in finance. Each recession is usually the result of new finance instruments and/or opportunities being abused. Response is required. The markets are not rational. They are greedy as heck and the greater good is not considered. Therefore, regulations. Weirdly, like children, the markets find comfort in these rules and the expectation of their enforcement.
In a time when Hedge-Fund managers have salaries that are dare I say, Emperor-like? When their net-worth is so large they could employ an entourage of Spec-Ops body guards and still have a king's ransom left over. It begs the question, is their economic effort really worth the massive sums of monetary income being showered on them? Or are they simply gorging themselves at the table of OPM?
There are numerous articles detailing how Hedge Fund managers meet with Congress and Senators and how politicians tip their hand in order to give Hedge Fund managers the 'inside edge' on investing.
Of course, these pet Hedge Fund managers cannot be prosecuted, because that would then lead directly back to their Political masters.
That is just one instance I thought of in the last ten seconds. Given a few days of research I could find hundreds if not thousands of loop-holes in the system that has been created.
But how about this? The Hedge-Fund managers promise to use their VAST wealth to research Immortality and Free Energy and We the People get off their back. (Caveat: They have to mass-market both or the deal is off.)
Dear Sir,
What's the world coming to when crooks can't even make a dishonest living any more? I mean it's well known that the best way to make a killing in the market is to help create and then ride a series of boom and bust cycles, milking the system. And any laws interfering with this are an obvious determent to the proper functioning of a corrupt free market, a corruption we've all come to depend on for our next Mercedes.
So the best thing to do is to eliminate all laws regarding market transactions freeing the market to do what it was originally designed to do, and does best, help the rich get richer by robbing the poor naive stockholder.
After all, the ultimate definition of Darwinian morality is survival of the fittest at the expense of the weakest, and that's all we're doing, just following our genetic programing like the good (and mindless) little animals we are.
Dear Sir,
Quite simply any legal "crackdown" can only be going too far if its ramifications are being borne by those who are not engaged in the targeted malfesance; such as "insider trading".
Dear Sir,
Insider trading is the same as allowing the house to play with a marked deck.
Dear Sir, 2 Pre-questions must be asked:
1. Are the current laws what they ought to be?
2. How strictly and equally are the current laws being enforced?
Dear Sir,
Insider trading is like pissing in the pool. It sounds dirty, but really isn't that big a deal.
Dear Sir,
First of all I resent the fact that you have the effrontery to self-address my remarks to "Dear Sir". You are NOT dear to me nor are you a "sir".
You are The Economist; a criminal apologist organization dedicated to 'debating' actions & practices that are CLEARLY ILLEGAL, DAMAGING, FRAUDULENT and FINANCIALLY SUBVERSIVE.
I don't want to join your spurious 'debate'. I want to see you and your ilk HANDCUFFED and CARTED OFF TO FEDERAL PRISON.
Dear Sir,
allow me to say that SEC is only enforcing the existing laws.Providing evidence for such prosecution is hard enough ,so I think that sentences given in such cases will deter future cases of insider trading.
If there are laws that do not produce effects because some people game the system and assist each other to pass by the rules in order to make a profit ...all the trust in the system will go.
So the high profile cases as Mr Rajaratnam are only to reminde everybody the rule of law .
Insider trading is the virus of the financial system. Regulation must be carried through to deter the majority of this unlawful behavour. There will always be some who slip by regulations.
Hedge funds and any system that encourages trade on shares that a tradere does not own has to b e seen as unlawful and counterproductive to legitimate trading.
There will always be a pont of deminishing returns on the amount of regulation. Regulators have to find the right mix and make it dynamic enough.
Dear Sir,
Cynically you could say insider trading will happen - always has/always will and that it is part of human nature to seek an advantage and exploit it.
There is however a significant difference between seeking advice/information from an expert such as Mr Bainbridge describes:
"a doctor who can explain how a new cancer drug works."
This information would be accessible to anyone with the time/opportunity and likely these days to be found freely on the INTERNET.
(why anyone would pay handsomely for this type of information is debatable in its own right).
The issue arises when information is disclosed/discussed which will directly impact the profits and/or share price of a company.
By its very purpose this information cannot be widely publicised as to do so defeats the purpose of exploiting it in the open market.
You may ask who loses if someone buys/sells shares based on this information and makes a profit - the market is a complex interaction and there is always asymmetric information.
In this situation the market is a zero sum game in order for someone too profit someone else has too lose.
Insider trading is a crime and we cannot just shrug our shoulders.
As insider trading is a crime it needs to be posecuted to the fullest extent and be seen to be prosecuted/prescribed harshly so I have to vote against the motion.
Dear Sir, why are business and finance seen to be the victims of happenings like insider trading? Because, trade does not take place, in the manner that it should, because of reasons, and this is bad for everyone trading. Parties indulge in insider trading, not for themselves, but for everyone. But, only a few are made to account for it. This is not an excuse for insider trading. We use systems which are ineffective sometimes, and we cannot discard the systems when they are ineffective. I am not a trader, and I don't know, what insider trading means.
Dear Sir,
Rothschild's family moved to the capitals of the world in the 18th century to take advantage of what is called insider trading.
It has been happening since long.
The number of people involved in the finance business today is miniscule even if you add Wall Street, London, Europe and Singapore.
They also form formal and informal social groups and exchange information like any other social group. It is impractical to stop the communication.
They have sophisticated computer systems, expert advice. They recruit clever people. They can crunch numbers and make split second decisions.
They have all the trading. Insider trading is a euphemism when they try to cheat each other. It hardly bothers the public.
The problem occurs when ordinary people's money is handed over to them by law like 401k.
The problem occurs when the Govts intentionally keep the bank interest rates at zero leaving no alternative to the ordinary man.
In effect the govt is funneling the savings of the people to this miniscule minority to do with it as they please.
Further individuals who trade are competing with their superiors in resource and information.
Dutch, Jews and Gujaratis control diamond trading now.
Nobody bothers because they are not using resources of public, ordinary citizens.
The problem lies in that the Govts are not allowing alternate investment opportunities for the common man. So common men rushed to invest in housing thinking they are escaping these monsters.
But the Wall Street not only wiped out the investment opportunity, but also threw or still throwing out millions illegally from their homes, to teach the serfs a lesson, that they can not escape their stranglehold.
In the meantime, they have extracted 26 trillion dollars from the govt for committing these misdeeds.
Since they have bought all Govts, all politicians, Govt employees are also their serfs. Hence expect very little change.
Dear Sir,
If I understood your opening remarks and Mr. Bainbridge's motion correctly, the issue here is not to discuss wether insider trading should be deemed legal, as proposer and opposition both agree that it should be banned; the purpose of the debate is rather to strike a balance in the enforcement of existing insider trading rules, so that an "overzealous enforcement" by administrative authorities does not indirectly prohibit the exercise of certain activities which are themselves legitimate (that is, which are not per se illegal), such as market analysis.
Bainbridge's motion asserts that market analysis plays a positive role in that it helps to preserve a "healthy market". However, the "latest anti-insider-trading crusade", so it is argued, has caused hedge funds to suspend or refrain from using expert networks. The argument that analysts have an overall positive effect on the market, I think, is undisputed. Analysts help investors make informed investment decisions. If asymmetric information is a fact of life, it is unreal to expect that the every investor will understand the specifics of the oil, tech, energy or whatever industry he or she is studying to invest on, and what the long-term and short-term trends of that industry are likely to be. Even though raw information could be found online, raw information often cannot be interpreted easily without specific knowledge.
With that in mind, while I agree with Mr. Bainbridge's premise that market analysis as an industry should not be discouraged, I would like to have clarified in the debate, what exactly would it mean to lessen the equal-access standard against which market analysts should be tried (as suggested in the last paragraph). Wouldn't this create a negative incentive for investors (other than hedge funds, for example) who cannot afford the service of experts/analysts to exit the market altogether? Also, wouldn't this create an even stronger incentive for analysts to pursue illegitimate market analysis (based not on studying the information already made public and imprinting their expertise on it, but on gathering inside information from the outset)?
I would also like to read Mr. Pitt's arguments on whether he agrees to the statement that SEC's pursuing insider-trading within market analysts is detrimental to legitimate market analysis in the sense that it scares customers away (hedge funds, in this case). And, even if it is true that those enforcement actions have negative consequences, should this be considered at all? Couldn't the argument be made that customers, in order to protect themselves, will start looking for services with better controls; or that firms will start monitoring their services better to attract more customers, all this as a result of strong enforcement actions?
This is a great debate, strong arguments on both sides; looking forward to read the rest of it.
When Jon Corzine is free after at worst, stealing client money held by MF Global, or at best, violating compliance laws, which itself would land him in prison if the laws are enforced...
Regulators seeking to jail mid-level corporate employees who let leak out information of questionable value, is a joke.
But Jon Corzine is a major Obama fundraiser, and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Such a person is above the law, of course.
When Corzine is free, a crackdown on insider trading is just an attempt to distract from the incompetence in prosecuting REAL crimes in the financial system.
Dear Sir,
The decision to agree or disagree is extremely difficult. On the one hand, Mr Pitt's analysis relies on extreme faith in the government and that when it says it has acted judiciously, it has. It relies on logical fallacies--for example, that because many cases resulted in guilty pleas implies legitimacy, or that there was no political motivation because the SEC said so. He seems unable to recognize Mr Bainbridge's focus on the definition of insider trading.
On the other hand, many people have not been prosecuted. Although Bainbridge convincingly argues that the SEC has been pushing the envelope with some of their new cases, many people who should be prosecuted on what he would consider the proper definition of the crime are not. This becomes a question of what 'too far' means.
I suppose that Bainbridge is more convincing, so I must vote against.
Dear Sir,
The public must have confidence in the market. For this to happen, the market must be fair. However, defining what is just is a debate unto itself. Therefore, I believe government agencies should be working to raise the perception of fairness in markets. For markets to be more participatory and efficient the public needs to perceive them as fair. Cracking down on "insider trading" only accelerates the notion that markets are "unfair" and there will always be someone on the other end waiting to manipulate them. This notion discourages participation in markets. There are, of course, obvious cases where abuse has occurred, and the SEC should continue to go after those cases, bu the SEC needs to be careful in choosing what it labels as "insider trading."
With this in mind, I believe labeling expert networks as insider trading is incorrect. If you are an analyst whose sole role is to research pharmaceutical stocks of course you are going to seek out expert opinions. This is the very foundation of an efficient market! Asking a doctor how a new drug works does not give that analyst an unfair advantage. They must still form their own opinion on the drug and how it relates to the economy. Now, if the doctor was paid to give out confidential information about, say, whether or not a drug was set to be approved, then this should be considered inside information. But it is not the place of regulator's to go after this person, that is the duty of the firm the doctor works for.
Dear Sir,
I voted against. We all know what insider trading is and when it passes the smell test. I don't think the insider trading laws nor the enforcement of them are strong enough. If a director of a bank enriched himself on other's expense because he knew what others didn't, why doesn't the bank in question get sanctioned, be fined 50% of their revenue. lose their banking license or other penalty severe enough to cripple their operation and send a message that insider trading is unacceptable?
If Goldman knew that there was a real potential of them going out of business for this behavior, I would feel more confident they would have done everything to prevent it. Without incentives, compliance to insider trading is not high on an executive's list.
Dear Sir, such investigations can never go too far, however an attempt may be made to select cases thoughtfully for enquiry keeping investors sentiments in mind. Also keeping a close watch on the 'expert groups' and such nexus by authorities may be of help in preempting mega frauds.
Dear Sir,
The issue under discussion comes into relevance as only a few with before-market-information are taking advantage of it. Few questions I would like to add which will motivate the discussion in right direction:
1. Why one considers use of pre-market information with executives but not media and brokerage house where information arise before publication and hence used as well?
2. When companies buy-back or sell their stake in their own companies, why it is not considered insider trading when information on which they trade appears via lag?
3. Stringent policy should ensure that speculation through margin instruments and options/futures does not spoil the market as they are not being used for intended purpose they born for!
4. why not a repository of information is created where it becomes mandatory for all listed companies to post timely updates about themselves and all can see & watch the market movement of stocks (this will bring transparency as we can judge the superimposition of information and stock movements)?
These queries are genuine to a investors as they come to know about information by backtracking movement in their investments. would like to hear from some expert who can place some static thoughts on above issues.
Dear Sir,
It is strange that this debate is at all being done. It is clear that there is big difference between 'intelligent analysis' and 'insider trading'. There is no denying that victims of insider trading are far more than can be thought of. The case of Rajaratnam goes on to show how seamlessly are corporate lobbies and honchos connected. Fair trials and punishment can only deter the nexus and 'future' case.
Dear Sir,
I am strongly against the motion. I think the crackdown is still not enough and not all the culprits have been caught as yet. Just to make my point, here's another example - What would have happened if Osama Bin Laden had received the information about the mission to kill him from someone (who could have received large sum of money for the information) within the US President's close circle? I am hoping the panel would unanimously agree that leaking that kind of information should be considered as criminal offence of jeopardizing national security. Why should we treat any other such breach of trust and leaking of confidential information for personal gain but which may impact the entire country any differently?
Dear Sir,
High frequency treading become a cause of this creak down or disaster. You sell 1 commodity more then 5 times how can we accept by doing this practice that we are doing a fair trade are we honest with our profession. These all points must be part of this debate that what is a root cause why you are trading on next coming 100. Don't make the whole world wall street.
Muhammad Abbas Khan
Dear Sirs,
I must vote "no" for two reasons.
(1) The resolution does not adequately distinguish between types of securities. Any perception that there is an "excessive" crackdown on insider trading of public equities, such as LSE or NYSE issues, is entirely unrelated to whether there is an "excessive" crackdown on insider trading of market-traded derivatives (e.g., commodity and currency futures)... let alone synthetic derivatives, cherry-picked mortgage-backed securities, and so on. Thus, I cannot accept the motion as a general proposition, because for some categories of securities or market participants (such as members of Congress and their staffs, as Professor Bainbridge has himself rightly noted), any answer will be different.
(2) As noted by Mr Pitt, the available data does not support characterizing the SEC's actions as a "crackdown"... and certainly does not support characterizing the supine posture of European regulators as anything but relaxed. A broader view of the number of investigations might well lead to a slightly different conclusion, but I seriously doubt it: At least in the US, any recent increase in prosecutions or investigations follows more from our odd Presidential cycle than anything else.
Dear Sir,
The opening remarks ended up being wasted on a microscopic analysis of fine detail theory (to leave aside the namedropping of economics whose own stock is currently approaching junk status).
The only question that even matters is whether the public can have confidence in the market. For this to happen, the market must be fair. End of story.
Insider trading is the antithesis of fairness. You cannot have confidence in a money-go-round being run for the benefit of a select few insiders. It is, frankly, somewhat hilarious of a proposition that trading is being somehow too severely policed at the moment - quite the opposite! The SEC is now entirely discredited in the public's view. Especially concerning the leech-like behaviour of hedge funds, it would be much better to shut that whole edifice down and see if anyone (other than the super rich) actually suffers at all.
To put it simply, however - if you are researching the market, and you have access to inside sources, you are not allowed to use those sources for any trading purposes. Much better that financial analysists be permanently barred from trading full stop, since the temptation to abuse inside information seems too great.
Finally, may I suggest that you rename your publication to 'The Banker', rather than 'The Economist'. The two professions are not at all synonymous and you are very blatanly siding with the former these days.
Dear Sir,
Given the term "Insider Trading" describes an illegal act, is it not the duty of all branches of government and business to vigorously pursue said illegal act?
To do otherwise is:
A dereliction of duty and the abdication of personal responsibility.
That dangerous thin edge of the wedge that leads to even more outrageous behaviour being unchallenged.
Pragmatically, a self-defeating market nightmare as the erosion of confidence forces the fair and transparent to leave a potentially corrupt market for other investments with level playing fields.
Dear Sir,
Doesn't there have to be a crackdown first, in order for it then to have gone too far?
Insider trading is rampant, what percent has been brought to justice? 1% ? .01%? I would argue insider trading is so pervasive and regulatory bodies so inadequately funded that a "crackdown" isn't even a possibility.
Dear Sir,Any amount of restrictions placed to eradicate insider trading wont be doing too much .Every ounce of Govt energy and resources ought to be used to root out this evil.Though ,i suspect that the crooks can always find ways and means to circumvent the vigil because there is too much profits for the greedy and the crooked in insider trading .Such traders have no sense of social responsibility or personal integrity. they are money fanatics and should be hunted down and eliminated just like religious fanatics.They need be condemned by society ,caught named and shamed andsent to jail confiscating all their wealth and branded for life as criminals especially since they are well-heeled people who does it sue to over-greediness
Dear Sir,
What a preposterous motion!
Crackdown on crime never goes far enough and it certainly never erodes public confidence.
It's lack of it that does.
I vote an indignant con.
Dear Sir,
Whereas I understand Pr. Bainbridge's opinion that targeting Hedge Funds might seem like overkill, it is not obvious to me that these Expert Networks have any other justification besides supporting Insider Trading. Why even should Hedge Funds be given the opportunity to perform better? Supporting these Expert Networks will encourage competitions between these Networks. And the only way for these Networks to differentiate will be to push the boundaries and see how far they can go.
Dear Sir,
Let me just spell out what the simplest sort of insider trading may be. I am, say, an investor in an oil company. The company I own shares of strikes oil somewhere. I don't know, because there is still no announcement, but Mr Insider and Mr Insider's Friend do. They buy my shares for a trifle more than they were worth yesterday. When the announcement comes, share prices will flash up. I'm defrauded of part of the profit on my investment. Not out of superior wisdom, or reasoning, or anything else but a privileged access to confidential information.
Insider trading is famously difficult to identify, but when identified it has been, it should by all means be repressed.
Dear Sir,
Insider trading is a crime, except in Italy.
Or does the house believes that insider trading is a loyal behavior?
I don't think so, so crackdowns on insider trading are never enough.
Dear Sir,
I do not accept the premise that SEC enforcement amounting to bringing an average of twenty cases per year since 2009 constitutes a "crackdown" or or even "overzealous enforcement," much less a "crusade."
Given the hundreds of thousands of people in the industry, are we to believe that there are not so many as sixty clear-cut crooks in your midst?
Sixty is only an impressive number when compared to zero. The stepped-up SEC enforcement only feels like a crackdown to an industry that (despite the reams of paper regulations) is far too used to facing toothless rules while being spared the accountability of consequences through enforcement.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
Fundamentally, insider information is like having a view of the future, which provides opportunity to consider how to deal with events to come, and how to have sufficient protection, in the event the known future should not take place exactly as expected.
Contrast that to common knowledge derived from experience and news information, and it would appear that to know from insider information is clearly different than experience or training.
"Going too far?" where would you draw the line to allow profits and benefit derived from insider knowledge? Should they be allowed to keep 10% of their insider knowledge gain, because it's so small that why prosecute?
When a person gains an advantage from inside information and uses it for personal gain, there is no such thing as going too far.
Dear Sir,
On something of a side note, it is fitting that Mr. Bainbridge chose to quote Justice Powell's opinion in Dirks v. SEC. Powell is the only Supreme Court Justice who practiced securities law under the 33 and 34 acts prior to sitting on the Court. As such, lawyers specializing in securities often regard his opinions more highly than other SCOTUS securities opinions.
More to the point, I believe it is a mistake to consider insider trading enforcement in isolation. Insider trading is but one small aspect of a mightily complicated financial regulatory system. There is also tremendous uncertainty in the market regarding the nature and effect of changes under the Dodd-Frank bill, for example. Regulatory tightening across the board makes many investment opportunities in the US seem increasingly unattractive. There's a lot of talk about a liquidity trap, which makes one wonder to what extent regulatory uncertainty is responsible. Personally, I am a small c legislative conservative. I think it is best to tackle large problems one small step at a time. Ratcheting up regulation across the board is overly stressful on an already vulnerable financial system and may result in uneven enforcement of financial regulations.
There is also a strong perception that the SEC is pursuing these insider trading cases as a matter of public relations and convenience. The SEC has been criticized roundly for its toothlessness during the Bush years and its leadership is eager to demonstrate the change of pace under President Obama. The insider trading cases were relatively easy to make, particularly with email providing such a wealth of easily accessed and analyzed evidence.
It seems likely that as the SEC exhausts the opportunities that sprouted from the successful Rajaratnam prosecution, the number of insider trading cases will taper off. Although Mr. Pitt's point that so far the SEC has only brought conservative cases is apt, that is likely owing to the broad array of easy prosecutions/civil cases available. As those low hanging fruit are exhausted, the SEC will turn to less clearly guilty defendants. Dirks v. SEC is an excellent example of the SEC bringing a terrible prosecution against an underserving defendant. The SEC is not known for its judgment when selecting whom to pursue for insider trading. Admittedly this is a prospective theory, and I can't claim that it is true until the SEC proves me right or wrong.
A last point is that the insider trading cases have almost exclusively targeted hedge funds (and their corporate tippers). While these inside traders have committed crimes, they are certainly not the individuals or institutions responsible for the systematic fraud that undermined the markets in 2007-2008. To me, it seems that SEC enforcement strategy is all flash and no bang. They are pursuing figures marginal to the market failures leading to the recession purely out of convenience rather than in pursuit of effective regulation. It distracts from the real problems without really advancing financial regulatory effectiveness.
Dear Sir, While certainly disagreeing with the motion that the crackdown on insider trading has gone too far, it is also true that improved openness of publicly traded entities financial statements - especially balance sheets - could reduce the quantity and, therefore, impact of insider knowledge.
Some managements are deliberately opaque in their communications at best and omit vital information at worst. Hidden surprises remain a major threat to investors. There should be consequences for Boards and Auditors that fail to unearth and disclose important information that managements of publicly traded companies are hiding.
Dear Sir,
Dear Sir,
Always beware of remarks like "there is the risk that overzealous enforcement has the unintended consequence of paralysing legitimate activities, blocking the flow of information that is the lifeblood of financial markets.
Then ask yourself the opposing question: What is the harm of not enough enforcement?
We should have learned that even unopened doors can lead to harmful effects by those who choose to cheat the system.
To open any door is folly and asking for more corruption.
Surely we have learned that in the past 4 years.
Dear Sir,
If insider trading was aborted wouldn't we be left with many companies facing financial ruin? Market competition would become lopsided, favouring a pure market and mitigating risk all-round. For those that couldn't compete within the market – with additional costs to new entrants because of the nature by which perfect markets would operate – because of moral hazard, I fear that any loosening of the current rules governing insider dealing would lead to economic chaos.
Dear Sir,
Market efficiency and fairness is essencial in driving new participants and maintaining existing ones in a capital market. In my opinion, rules and laws are only as good as its enforcement is. By cracking down on people that uses inside information to gain an edge, we are probably not having any - or maybe a very small - influence on returns of market participants, but we improve both liquidity and the image of fairness that the whole society has on capital markets. And this will benefit everyone


text:
Your first look at what's happening around Milwaukee. All of the latest events you can't miss in the city.
On Tap Today: I love a parade
Did you survive your polar bear dip? Or did you just watch and shake your head? Either way, it's on to day two of the New Year. There's not much going on -- unless you count the Rosebowl!
It's Rosebowl Day of course, and that means the 123rd annual Tournament of Roses Parade -- televised at 10 a.m. on ABC, NBC and HGTV. After that, it's the Rosebowl at 4 p.m., Wisconsin vs. Oregon (but you knew that), on ESPN.
Other telly events tonight include a few season premieres -- "The Bachelor" at 7 p.m. on ABC, "Antiques Roadshow" at 7 p.m. on PBS (a preview from TV Guide: appraisers visit Tulsa, Okla., "where the owner of Chinese rhino-horn drinking cups learns he may be a millionaire") and "Unsung" at 9 p.m. on TV One. »Read Full Blog Post
- You can log in to this system either through Facebook or using your JSOnline public profile. JSOnline public profile. Please note that your public profile login will be different than your JS Everywhere login.
- You can personalize your public profile with a photo. You can also use that profile to sign up for email newsletters and alerts.
- While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.
- While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.
- We reserve the right to close commenting on specific stories.
Cool, I learned a new word today: Rosebowl. Wait, um, that's not a real word!
Heey---How about a little love for the Pulaski(Wi)High School band, invited to march AGAIN in today's Rose Parade after appearing in 2007. They represent the Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri and Illinois district for high school participation. Pretty damn neat for me as an alumni. As per usual no coverage from you.
Comments »
Read and share your thoughts on this story.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I like numbers, so I like the fact that at my 4 week weigh in I have a little number thingy going on. Yerp, slight maths geek, party of one....
Can't wait until I weigh 73.8....
So I was hoping for a 200g loss this morning, to take me from 83.5 to 83.3 and give me 4kg lost in 4 weeks. But I gained 200g instead, weighing in at 83.7. Gah. I KNOW a (small, tiny) gain is normal now and then. And I am 'blaming' the weights yesterday for the gain, since I feel smaller, and think I am holding some water. I did up my leg weights since they felt too easy...
Anyways, thats done. I shall hope for a loss next week instead. And I will actually only weigh myself once a week from now on. This whole weighing everyday is not good for my head, so I will quit it.
Today I think I'll go for a walk with running intervals. It is only getting to 20C today, so that isn't too hot, and it is looking a little cloudy. If it does end up too hot I'll go to the gym and do my cardio there!
* Just as a side note, I realise that I have had a small gain in a month, but it isn't my period. I don't get one for medical reasons. I wish, I would have something to blame for being a b&^%*!
That is a big deal because I didn't want to. I talked myself into a day off and was happy to take that day off. But then I sparked, read a few blogs and realised that I wasn't tired, I wasn''t due for a rest day and blaming a skipped workout on 'listening to my body' wasn't gonna fly if my body could work out. So I did. Toddled off to the gym and did my weights and 20 minutes on the bike at a 6-8 resistance (changed it up to keep things interesting). Got it done :)
I wrote a whole piece about how I ate badly today. But, really, it wasn't that bad! I had a good breakfast then met my best friend (fresh off a 10 hour flight from Japan) for lunch at a restaurant. We shared tapas. Then we burnt some calories speed shopping and expanding my 'teacher appropriate' wardrobe. Then I had a square of chocolate before I decided to go to the gym. Dinner was 2 tacos with lots of salad and I had an ice cream for dessert. Not the BEST of days, but nothing for me to be getting stressed over! AND I generally have found that a spike in calories for one day usually results in a loss the next days weigh in. So I shall stop stressing and just give myself a damn star.
Now, I need a vote. Yesterday I went for a walk for my fitness. I didn't exactly speed walk, so I'm wondering if I should count it as an active rest day? I think I should, since I didn't really get my heart rate up much. I mean I still count it as exercise, and gave myself a sticker, but I don't know if I should take my planned rest day tomorrow or not. Or should I just see how I feel?
Can y'all tell I'm in a worrying mood? I am worried about a lot of things (mainly money things) so I think I am projecting on to what I can control right now, which is myself.
On top of my world
Today I toddled off to the gym for my first day of strength work. And work I did. Built up quite a sweat in the weights area, before I went and did my cardio programme. Since the strength part is short (15 minutes) my trainer said that I could follow it with my cardio programme to make it worth my while coming to the gym. However, I may up my leg weights, since they felt a little easier. My arms burned, though!
The 'plan' (not that I have a plan, because it is easier to stick to a non-plan. Failure is too easy with a firm plan) is to do strength, followed by cardio, twice per week, and cardio another 2-3 times per week. Hopefully that will help the weight fall off a little easier :)
I went and set up my class today. I put up posters, did my seating plan, stocked my library corner and organised and planned. Then I came home and laminated resources. The fun life of a teacher, yes? Luckily a senior teacher was at school with me today to answer all my stupid questions and give me some tips. Everyone at the school is so nice and supportive which will really help in the coming weeks and months. I am having a day off teacher stuff tomorrow but heading back into school on Friday to finish most of the setting up!
I'm posting this because I am bored, and I like knowing what other people are eating because it gives me ideas. Maybe this will give someone dinner ideas?
Monday - Sesame chicken (Spark recipe) with brown rice and broccoli
Tuesday - Chicken stirfry with cabbage, bok choy, broccoli and carrot, served on singapore noodles with teriyaki sauce
Wednesday - Spaghetti and meatballs with pasta sauce - Make better with turkey or chicken meatballs! (Mine are just beef mince) Served with broccoli
Thursday - Slow cooker deviled sausages with steamed potatoes, silverbeet and broccoli
Friday - TACO NIGHT!!!!! Again, you could make it healthy with chicken or turkey mince, but we prefer beef
Saturday - Lamp chops with corn cobs and broccoli
Sunday - Slow cooker beef stew with potato and broccoli
Right, so from that we can all see the broccoli is on special for 98c a head at the moment. And I love broccoli! It is my favourite veggie!
I realise not all of these recipes are super healthy...and they aren't supposed to be. Deviled sausages are high in calories, so I only have 1 sausage and load up on the veggies. Tacos aren't awesome (well they taste awesome, but you know what I mean), so I have 2 and call it a treat dinner (it is Friday, after all!). And I load up the salads.
Anyways, that might give someone a dinner idea for the week!


text:
|Energy - drag featured antiperspirants
|Mentholatum medicated Re-air
Deodorant gel 30 g
|Rifle a deodorant
Cream 20 g
|Mentholatum medicated Re-air
Deodorant mist 15 ml
|Mentholatum medicated
Rifle a foot finger cream 20 g
|Mentholatum medicated Re-air
Deodorant lotion 25 ml
|Mentholatum medicated Re-air
Deodorant liquid 30 ml
|Rifle a deodorant
Cream 55 g
|Excel S 38ml
Spray type.
|Special-Exch cream 30 g
Effects long-lasting cream type
|Cool アセーヌ
Beige 20
|アセーヌ smooth deodorant
White 20 piece
|アセーヌ smooth deodorant
Beige 20
|[シリカクリン] deodorant insoles
Men's color: black
|[シリカクリン] deodorant insoles
For women color: beige
|[Rohto pharmaceutical] oxy deodorant
230 Ml body lotion
|[Rohto pharmaceutical] oxy
パーフェクトデオスライム 50 g
|[Rohto pharmaceutical] oxy
45 Ml deodorant liquid
|[Rohto pharmaceutical] oxy
Deodorant liquid spray 15 ml
If you take some time to re-stock new products for you.
[ Medical care products ]
Rifle a series's firm sterilize bacteria that cause odor and reduce the odor from deodorant agents. The long-lasting effect.
Rifle a foot finger cream prevents yallingup foot odor, etc. Firmly stick to cream type. Will chop in the shoes (pumps or boots), is recommended that wipes the shoes when they go out on occasion, foot odor comes to mind.
|Benefits and effects
Skin sweat odor and perspiration
|Dosage and administration
Apply to an appropriate amount. , Etc-so easily between the toes and stiffens.
|Active ingredient
|Benzalkonium chloride, クロルヒドロキシ aluminium
|Other ingredients.
Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide solution, cyclopentasiloxane, polyacrylate acid alkyl, concentrated Glycerin, POE-POP Dimethicone copolymer, isostearic acid, silylated silica handling, menthol, sericite, hydroxyapatite, zinc oxide, Dimethicone, ethanol
|Content amount
|20 g
|Sales origin
|Rohto pharmaceutical co., Ltd.
|Ads responsibility
|(Shares) energy, Tel: 0242-85-7380
This product cannot be shipped to United States from the store.
Please contact the store for further information.


text:
- 265Promote
Art Print
Shine a lightby Skye Zambrana
Collect your choice of gallery quality Giclée, or fine art prints custom trimmed by hand in a variety of sizes with a white border for framing.
This is really cool Skye! and well done to... I love the color saturation, the concept, and the overall composition!
See More Comments


text:
By Section
- Selected:
- All Sections
- Selected:
By Columnist
By Insider
- Selected:
- All Insiders
- Selected:
12 results for "david pollack"
From unheralded signees to All-AmericansKipp Adams
It has often been said that recruiting is the lifeline of college football, and the BCS era heavily supported that statement. The schools that take home the national championships are typically brimming with former ESPN 300 prospects and highly regar...Blog | July 11, 2013
Spring questions: Who provides the sacks?David Ching
Editor's note: Each day this week, we'll ask a question that Georgia's football team faces this spring as it moves toward the 2013 season. Today's question: Who will supply the pass rush now that two-time All-American Jarvis Jones has entered the NFL...Blog | March 04, 2013
Recruiting flashback: Fred GibsonDavid Ching
Editor's note: As we approach national signing day and consider the future of Georgia's football program, we'll also look backward into the Bulldogs' recruiting history. Over the next few weeks, we'll talk with several former Georgia standouts about ...Blog | January 30, 2013
Game breakdown: Georgia vs. NebraskaDavid Ching
No. 7 Georgia and No. 16 Nebraska meet on New Year's Day in Orlando, Fla., in one of the highest-profile non-BCS games of this bowl season. The key to Tuesday's game might be discerning which of them actually takes that reality seriously. It's not...Blog | December 31, 2012
Jones, Jenkins chasing sack recordDavid Ching
ATHENS, Ga. -- With one game left in the season, Jarvis Jones is 1.5 sacks away from matching Georgia's single-season sack record. But if it's up to one of his teammates, Jones won't hold the record long even if he does break David Pollack's recor...Blog | December 17, 2012
Video: Fowler, Pollack break down SECDawgNation staff
Chris Fowler and David Pollack break down Alabama's 32-28 victory over Georgia and look ahead to the BCS championship game....Blog | December 01, 2012
The Georgia Top 10: Week 11David Ching
ATHENS, Ga. -- Rare is the instance where a 38-0 victory is deceptive, but that is accurate where Georgia's win at Auburn on Saturday is concerned. Auburn (2-8, 0-7 SEC) provided almost no resistance as No. 5 Georgia (9-1, 7-1) rolled to a win tha...Blog | November 12, 2012
Pollack-palooza: Taking on hot topicsESPN.com staff
ESPN college football analyst and former Georgia Bulldog David Pollack dishes on his expectations for USC, the strength of the SEC, the futures of Texas and Notre Dame and more. Listen here. • Pollack gives his overrated and underrated team ...Blog | August 21, 2012
Art of fade pass: Murray schools PollackESPN.com staff
...Blog | August 09, 2012
Around the Hedges in 80 Days: J. JonesDavid Ching
Forty-two days remain until Georgia kicks off its season opener against Buffalo on Sept. 1. In the days counting down to the opener, DawgNation will profile, with our "Around the Hedges in 80 Days" series, a Bulldogs player we expect to make an impac...Blog | July 21, 2012
Video: Pollack, others on Petrino firing
...Blog | April 11, 2012
Recapping Richt's history against UFDavid Ching
Lost in all the talk about Georgia's failings against Florida is the notion that the Gators have been really, really hard to beat throughout the last few decades. This year, however, might be Georgia's best opportunity in years to reassert itself ...Blog | October 26, 2011


text:
Search Results: 'english bulldog'
English Bulldogs for Beginners
eBook (ePub): $7.97
Download immediately.
The English Bulldog is a very serious, devoted and loyal breed of dog. They are a very attention-seeking dog and are not considered appropriate for homes where they would be left alone for extended... More > periods of time. The English Bulldog has been bred as a companion dog, and really does desire and require constant attention from its owners. The breed is typically a very calm and well-behaved dog, although they are considered a dominant breed and must learn that the humans are in charge in the household. The English Bulldog will bond very strongly with its family, and often has difficulty in re-homing after that bond has been established. Scroll up... and click on "Buy Now" to deliver almost instantly to your iPad or other reading device.< Less
Benny the Bulldog
Calendar: $14.49
Ships in 3-5 business days.
Benny the Bulldog is a local legend on the streets Amsterdam, check out his Calendar and you'll see why!
Bucky Bulldog 2010 Calendar
Calendar: $14.24
Ships in 3-5 business days.
This calendar celebrates Buckingham Millson, our English Bulldog.
Rocky the Bulldog Calendar
Calendar: $18.97
Ships in 3-5 business days.
Enjoy fabulous pictures of our male English Bulldog, Rocky! He's such a wonderful dog!!! AKC registered and he will be available to stud as soon as he's old enough.
English Bulldog • Models
Calendar: $36.66
Ships in 3-5 business days.
The Essential Guide to Owning and Raising French Bulldogs
eBook (ePub): $7.97
Download immediately.
French Bulldog breeders surprised the English when they renamed a toy version of the English Bulldog after their own country. The Bulldog had long been a representative of English culture. However,... More > the English had not accepted the smaller version of the Bulldog that the French people came to love. In the 1800's, toy Bulldogs were exported from England to France. French Bulldog Breeders began to breed specific traits in this smaller Bulldog to distinguish it from the English version. Today there are bullies and frenchies as well as American Bulldogs. This book covers several aspects of French Bulldogs such as: - How To Stop Your French Bulldog From Excessively Barking - Choosing a reputable breeder - Grooming Your French Bulldog - Strategies For Behavior Training For French Bulldogs - Training Your French Bulldog In Socialization and so much more! Scroll up... and click on "Buy Now" to deliver almost instantly to your iPad or other reading device.< Less
The Bulldog Calendar 2013
Calendar: $38.93
Ships in 3-5 business days.
Merci à Butch, Dolly, Dusty, XL, Tee Tee (hommage à notre Olde Wise) pour leur participation
Buckingham Millson, Esq.
Hardcover: $29.20
Ships in 6-8 business days.
A short photo book commemorating Bucky and celebrating him in our lives. He's been such a blessing!
The life of Rosie Marie Rosenberg
Paperback: $10.00
Ships in 3-5 business days.
This is a biography of Rosie Marie Rosenberg. She was recently diagnosed with having life threatening tumors. Although she will not stay on this earth forever, her legacy will live on.
The life of Rosie Marie Rosenberg
eBook (PDF): $0.00
Download immediately.
This is a biography of Rosie Marie Rosenberg. She was recently diagnosed with having life threatening tumors. Although she will not stay on this earth forever, her legacy will live on.
Top 10see more >
Eden and Her Happy
Paperback: $11.96
My Calendar
Calendar: $17.99
Growing Up With Raleigh:...
Hardcover: $38.40
Short Stories by Archie
Paperback: $14.95
Emporium Workbook 3rd...
Paperback: $16.12
PRICELESS - A Successful...
Paperback: $6.65
Morning Radio Revisited:...
Paperback: $29.95
An Abridged History of...
Paperback: $10.00
SurvCE 4.0 Reference
Paperback: $15.00
HELL's HORROR HELL's...
Paperback: $8.95


text:
Arizona Sports Blogs
ArizonaSports.com Blogs
Seattle Seahawks' Marshawn Lynch is very thankful for reporters' questions
Haboob Blog | December 21, 2014 11:45 pmAfter being fined earlier in the season for skipping out on his media obligations, Lynch has come up with new and creative ways to fulfill those obligations.
Frank Caliendo reads 'Twas the night before Christmas' as only he can
Haboob Blog | December 19, 2014 2:10 pmFrank Caliendo is at it again -- sharing his awesome sports impressions with the world, this time with a little holiday spirit.
The greatest reaction to winning a car ever
Haboob Blog | December 18, 2014 10:44 pmFir one lucky Cardinals fan, the night went from enjoyable to euphoric.
Big Red Wolf Report: After the Rams, before the Seahawks
Ron Wolfley | December 18, 2014 12:11 pmWhat's at stake? Only a division title and the top seed in the NFC.
Arizona Cardinals introduce world to 'Spruce Arians'
Haboob Blog | December 17, 2014 5:47 pmIt's been decided: The Arizona Cardinals won the internet on Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2014.
Liam Neeson, John Wall join forces to promote some basketball
Haboob Blog | December 17, 2014 10:41 amOn Dec. 25, the New York Knicks will host the Washington Wizards, with the game being televised on ESPN.
Bowl games for everyone: The 2014 edition!
Vince Marotta | December 17, 2014 9:09 amBack in 2008, the Arizona State Sun Devils, then coached by Dennis Erickson, limped through a 5-7 season and failed to qualify for a bowl game. There's really only one thing worse than playing in...
Awesome kid sends awesome letter, signed jersey to J.J. Watt
Haboob Blog | December 16, 2014 3:41 pmA seven-year-old football player sent his signed jersey to Texans DE J.J. Watt.
Atlanta Braves are losing even in a self-created, fictitious scenario
Haboob Blog | December 15, 2014 8:36 pmThe Atlanta Braves have been one of the better MLB franchises for the past 20-plus years. They've only had a sub-.500 record in three seasons since 1991.
Best recruitment video ever? Best recruitment video ever
Haboob Blog | December 15, 2014 10:46 amIt's not uncommon for high school athletes to put together highlight videos in an effort to impress schools enough to offer them a scholarship.


text:
Reuters poll: RBI to hold rates on December 18
MUMBAI (Reuters) - The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is expected to keep interest rates unchanged on Tuesday, according to a new Reuters poll, with respondents split over whether it will cut the cash reserve ratio (CRR) for banks.
The RBI has left rates on hold since a 50 basis point cut in April, and expectations for a further cut have been pushed from December into the first quarter of 2013 following guidance by the central bank in late October.
Of 41 analysts polled, 37 expect the RBI to keep the policy repo rate unchanged at 8 percent in December.
Respondents were almost evenly divided on expectations for a cut in CRR, a tool the Reserve Bank of India has been using to ease a cash crunch and prod banks to loosen lending rates. At 4.25 percent, CRR is at its lowest since 1976.
Of the 33 respondents, 16 expect a CRR cut on Tuesday of either 25 or 50 basis points, while most also expect a further CRR cut in the March quarter.
While expectations are near-unanimous for an interest rate cut in the March quarter, 20 of 36 respondents expect 50 basis points of cuts, which is deeper than the 25 basis point expected in the October pre-policy poll. The RBI is expected to review monetary policy in January and again in March.
"Given the fact that growth is in shambles, and inflation is sort of coming under control, I think they will reiterate the guidance this time and say a rate cut is likely in January," said Abheek Barua, chief economist with HDFC Bank in New Delhi.
RBI Gov. Duvvuri Subbarao said in the October policy review there was a "reasonable likelihood" of further easing in the January-March quarter, when inflation is expected to trend down.
India's economy grew at 5.3 percent in the September quarter and is on track for its slowest performance in a decade for the fiscal year that ends in March.
Headline inflation is expected to rise to 7.6 percent in November from a year earlier, compared with 7.45 percent in October, a separate Reuters poll showed. The data is scheduled around 0630 GMT on Friday.
The central bank has been infusing liquidity in the market by buying bonds through open market operations (OMOs), a practice that many economists expect to continue instead of making further CRR cuts.
"The pecking order for policy most likely would be OMOs followed by CRR cut (in January) followed by repo rate cut (in March)," said Shubhada Rao, chief economist at YES Bank. (Additional reporting by Somya Gupta and Ruby Cherian from Bangalore polling team; Editing by Tony Munroe and Simon Cameron-Moore)
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
Trending On Reuters
BJP unlikely to form Jammu & Kashmir government - polls
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will not win enough seats to form a government in Jammu and Kashmir, two exit polls showed on Saturday, dampening its hopes of taking control of the state for the first time. Full Article
Fund Raising
Flipkart raises $700 million in fresh funding. Full Article
Reforms Push
Modi may order insurance, coal reforms if vote delayed - officials. Full Article
Reuters Exclusive
India looks to sway Americans with nuclear power insurance plan Full Article
To Boost Growth
Crank up public spending to revive growth - chief economic adviser. Full Article
Bold Steps
SpiceJet rescue plan marks bold bet on Indian aviation recovery. Full Article
New Airline
Tata, Singapore Air venture Vistara to take off on Jan 9. Full Article
Online Sales
Knock knock. Who's there? Amazon's best-selling holiday author. Full Article
Hacking Attack
N.Korea says did not hack Sony, wants joint probe with U.S. Full Article
Reuters Poll
BSE Sensex to hit 32,980 by December 2015 Full Article
Reuters India Mobile
Get the latest news on the go. Visit Reuters India on your mobile device Full Coverage