Jump to content

Ripple's request for the SEC's Internal Trading Policies is GRANTED.


Recommended Posts

The SEC should settle. The SEC should go after the criminals who are manipulating the markets causing pump and dumps, along with the scam ICOs. 

They should provide guidance and regulatory clarity while working the participants of the XRP ecosystem, which yes includes the company spearheading its development- Ripple. 

What a sham the SEC has become. They are not protecting the common investor. What Clayton and Hinman did is wrong. 

Let XRP prosper and let the market decide the winners. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, RipMcGillicuddy said:

In contrast, I'd say it's likely they are being swayed by the JPM/Goldman Sachs types to stifle competition. 

I believe this could be true. To think that using XRP is cheaper and faster and disrupts the legacy banking system. The legacy system must be pressuring and lobbying to stop a complete shift.

It's too late though. If not XRP, there will be something else. They should adapt quickly and join in before they become modern day blockbusters to incoming netflixes. It's not coming. It is already here. And here to stay. I agree with your sentiment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
Quote

 

Jeremy Hogan

@attorneyjeremy1

Let's think about a worse-case situation for the SEC: It has internal policies that list SPECIFIC items that are being investigated and warns SEC employees that they not should trade them. XRP is NOT listed. Why not? If I'm the Judge, I certainly want to know why.

And it might not be THIS document but if I was Ripple, I certainly would have asked for the names of any of the 4,300 SEC employees who have traded XRP since 2014 to the present. I am very curious to know the answer to THAT. Very curious indeed.

 

 

 

In March 2009, H. David Kotz, then Inspector General (IG) of the SEC, released a report outlining the questionable trading activity of two lawyers employed by the SEC’s enforcement division. IG Kotz admitted in subsequent testimony before Congress that the SEC lacked a compliance system capable of tracking and auditing employees’ trades [1]. This report and testimony, as well as the accompanying public outrage, spurred Mary Shapiro, then SEC Chairman, to impose new, stricter internal rules, beginning in August of 2010, whereby SEC employees must (i) refrain from buying or selling stocks of firms under SEC investigation; (ii) have their transactions pre-approved, and; (iii) order their brokers to provide transaction-level information to the SEC. [2]

In our article, Stock Trades of SEC Employees, we investigate the efficacy of this new regime in restricting informed trading in the SEC workforce. This investigation began with a Freedom of Information Act request we filed to collect all the SEC’s data on trades executed by the SEC workforce (collected under the new regime). In response to privacy concerns, the responding data included tickers, dates, direction (buy/sell), and dollar amount, but no information on the employee (name, position, tenure, etc.).

The responding data included about 7,000 trades for $65 million in exchange traded securities from August 2009 to December 2011. This amounts to less than one trade per employee per year, and about $7,000 in traded dollar volume per employee per year. Outside of these exchange traded securities, most SEC employees conduct the bulk of their investing in brokered mutual funds.

Turning to returns, SEC employees beat the market by about 5% overall and by 8% in U.S. stocks (on average, per annum). These abnormal returns come not from buying winners, but rather by avoiding losers (i.e., SEC employees tend to be good at selling securities prior to price declines). In dollar value terms, this trading leads to the average SEC employee earning a relatively modest $600 in abnormal profits per year (about 5% of what corporate insiders earn via insider trading [3]).

These results are indicative of SEC employees being either: (i) skilled investors, (ii) lucky investors, or (iii) privately informed. We cannot confirm that our results are driven by trades on non-public information. While we do observe some unusual trading patterns around certain SEC activity (e.g., trading prior to enforcement actions and after whistleblower tips), several other innocent and viable explanations exist for our results. For example, SEC employees are likely very familiar with securities markets, accounting, and financial analysis, and they may just be good stock pickers.

Our primary aim is to provide evidence that the current SEC employee trading policy is questionable, even if our abnormal return results are attributable to innocent explanations that are hard to test or rule out. Even an appearance of financial impropriety potentially undermines the credibility of the SEC with its stakeholders.  At a minimum, we hope our evidence encourages the SEC to (i) reassess the consistency of trading rules when firms are under investigation; (ii) review procedures related to selecting case staff assigned to handle investigations; (iii) assess the methods followed by the ethics group that approves trades; and (iv) drill down on specific individuals’ trades to assess whether abnormal returns are isolated to particular divisions or locations. Alternatively, the issues highlighted in the linked paper would be solved by a simple, bright-line rule prohibiting SEC employees from trading in individual stocks. These policies exist in some law firms and accounting firms, and we believe that while potentially draconian, such a policy is the simplest way to abrogate the concerns of the even the most cynical observer.

Edited by Julian_Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is very interesting  with regards the right to Fair Notice claims Ripple are making

Here Clayton just one month before suing ripple telling the public that SEC are duty bound to give clarity and fair notice - although he does not use those exact words, but it is the exact meaning IMO 

https://twitter.com/boy_xrp/status/1407519870871298050

 

 

 

 

Edited by Julian_Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The essence of the case, ACCORDING TO THE SEC'S OWN FILINGS, is that Ripple, Chris and Brad, should have known XRP was a security. BUT If any SEC employees have purchased or traded XRP, then of course this case has NO MERIT. Simply put, it would instantly make this case worthy of dismal. The SEC can not allege wrong doing in relation to securities law, if its own employees did not even know they may be breaking it, in relation to XRP purchasing or trading, it would be a double standard that stretches incredulity beyond belief =

IMO - CASE DISMISSED

THIS IS AN ANGLE THAT COULD PLAY OUT REALLY WELL FOR RIPPLE ESPECIALLY WITH A SYMPATHETIC COURT AND IT'S FAIR NOTICE DEFENCE, WELL PLAYED RIPPLES LEGAL TEAM :)

Want to bet Ripple has inside knowledge of what some SEC employees may have been up to!

Edited by HAL1000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RipMcGillicuddy said:

In other news...Andreesen-Horowitz launches $2Billion crypto fund and brings none other than former SEC official Billy Hinman on to advise. 

That's interesting, bringing the fox into the hen-house. Andreesen-Horowitz fund raises for Ripple, Hinman—right-hand of Clayton—gives somewhat clarity to ETH and BTC, Clayton sues Ripple, and now Hinman advises Adreesen-Horowitz. 

Next, will Ripple hire Clayton to advise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HAL1000 said:

If any SEC employees have purchased or traded XRP, then of course this case has NO MERIT. Simply put, it would instantly make this case worthy of dismal.

 

So, Mary Jo White just needs to pull out her Nano, show the court and...

 

Case Closed!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.