Susan Rice owns up to $600,000 in Trans Canada stock

[Wounded Bear]

She bought the shares over 4 years ago you dimwit.

If you think her continued ownership of the shares constitutes insider trading then clearly the meaning of insider trading has sailed so far over your head you couldn't grasp it if you tried to beat Baumgartner's record.

She bought them after plans for the pipeline were announced, dimwit,...and the pipeline has never been fully approved, dimwit. So does she know something that the general public doesn't...dimwit?

And if she knows something that the general public doesn't because she is part of the Obama Administration, then that is insider trading defined. Priviledged information.

That's even how you defined it.

It's really pretty basic stuff, but evidently difficult for a guy who has worked in the capital market for the last 30 years....

Blowhard much? What a joke.

[Wounded Bear]

double penetration

[Wounded Bear]

The project will go ahead. The pipeline will get built.

If you'd like to make a bet on that I'm happy to take the other side.

And no one is debating whether the pipeline will be constructed or not, but please continue constructing your strawman that you can defeat in order to save face because you have embarrassed yourself with ignorant statements....


Personally, I believe it will be built, but that's not the topic of discussion here and you know it.

[CalgaryHawkFan]

WB, to be clear, she's buying stock in TC, or she's buying shares in THIS PROJECT?

Because TC already is a profitable company whether this particular project gets greenlit or not.

[Wounded Bear]

WB, to be clear, she's buying stock in TC, or she's buying shares in THIS PROJECT?

Because TC already is a profitable company whether this particular project gets greenlit or not.

Yes, buying stocks in the company in which this project could favorably affect the stock prices.

I understand that TC is a very profitable company as it stands.

Good catch.

[ctc]

She bought them after plans for the pipeline were announced, dimwit,...and the pipeline has never been fully approved, dimwit. So does she know something that the general public doesn't...dimwit?

And if she knows something that the general public doesn't because she is part of the Obama Administration, then that is insider trading defined. Priviledged information.

That's even how you defined it.

It's really pretty basic stuff, but evidently difficult for a guy who has worked in the capital market for the last 30 years....

Blowhard much? What a joke.

My thought at this juncture would be for you to take this rare, insightful analysis and conclusion you've arrived at down to the SEC office. They are very interested in insider trading cases these days (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/...g-a-wider-net/). Or at the very least to your local newspaper. I'm sure they'd love to get a scoop of this proportion. This is an opportunity for you to make a name for yourself like never before, maybe even like this guy has done.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...on-to-sac.html

Do keep us informed of the SEC's response (or the newspapers) to your 'unique' insight regarding basic stuff about insider trading. And we look forward to seeing your name in headlines.

[Wounded Bear]

My thought at this juncture would be for you to take this rare, insightful analysis and conclusion you've arrived at down to the SEC office. They are very interested in insider trading cases these days (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/...g-a-wider-net/). Or at the very least to your local newspaper. I'm sure they'd love to get a scoop of this proportion. This is an opportunity for you to make a name for yourself like never before, maybe even like this guy has done.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...on-to-sac.html

Do keep us informed of the SEC's response (or the newspapers) to your 'unique' insight regarding basic stuff about insider trading. And we look forward to seeing your name in headlines.

Stop. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Listen, if want to start commenting on these types of threads in an intelligent manner, perhaps a few classes regarding both financial and political ethics may help you understand simple concepts like conflict of interest as well as insider information and/or priviledged information.

Look those terms up, skippy. You'll begin to see what the grownups are talking about.

[ctc]

Stop. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Listen, if want to start commenting on these types of threads in an intelligent manner, perhaps a few classes regarding both financial and political ethics may help you understand simple concepts like conflict of interest as well as insider information and/or priviledged information.

Look those terms up, skippy. You'll begin to see what the grownups are talking about.

I'm dead serious.

The SEC is paying for the type of information that you think you have. This is the road to riches for you. Think of the glory. I'm sure there are an army of lawyers that are willing to work pro bono on a case like this it will make their careers as well. What could you be waiting for?

And as an aside every year we have to sit and listen to lectures from compliance and their lawyers drone on about precisely this type of thing. Clearly you know more than they do. Working in compliance you could make a fortune these days. I guarantee you could more than double your income working compliance for even a mid-sized institution. You should take your new found knowledge and run with it.

And as i said, keep us informed of the SEC's response or the newspapers or the lawyers. Don't be afraid.

And when you go to the SEC you can mention me as an inside trader as well. I also own the stock from about six years ago, in part based on Keystone. And I too know that the admin is going to approve the pipeline. So clearly I too am guilty of insider trading. As well as anyone who bought the stock around the time of the original announcement and also knows (like chf for example) and still owns it. Kind of like the longest trade ever, six years and still going.

[ctc]

Historically the illegality of insider trading has been based on trades which are based on material non-public information that results or could result in personal or pecuinary gain for the individual or organization. The important element of the crime being the action based on the knowledge. Knowledge by itself is no crime, it requires action.

http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm

Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include "tipping" such information, securities trading by the person "tipped," and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information.

What his interpretation says is that anyone who has inside information related to a security which he or she owns is now engaged in illegal insider trading. How they came by the shares or how long they've owned the shares is irrelevant.

Under his interpretation a corporate executive, owns shares, knows they are about to make an acquisition which will be decidedly beneficial to the company is guilty of illegal insider trading. So any executive of any publicly traded organization is always guilty of insider trading. They meet his basic requirement of being a holder of material non-public information that could affect the price of a stock from which they could benefit.

He's turned the world upside down so that mere knowledge of an event that results in personal or finanacial gain is a crime. No action required.

And that's why I encourage him to pursue his novel interpretation of the law. See how much shrift the SEC gives him with that sad story.

[Yellowknifer]

The same SEC that helped the bankers manipulate LIBOR for money? Those SEC?

Clearly an ethical bunch over there.

[ctc]

The same SEC that helped the bankers manipulate LIBOR for money? Those SEC?

Clearly an ethical bunch over there.

The great irony in that one is they kept interest rates for consumers lower than they would have been otherwise didn't they.

[Yellowknifer]

The great irony in that one is they kept interest rates for consumers lower than they would have been otherwise didn't they.

The great irony here is they ****ed over many bond holders completely and utterly. God forbid you save money.

As far as I can tell, I have you pegged completely.

Either you are

a: A retard who has a good enough memory to pass some tests but not actually understand the questions on them.

or

b: A sociopath who deserves jail time.

[ctc]

The great irony here is they ****ed over many bond holders completely and utterly. God forbid you save money.

As far as I can tell, I have you pegged completely.

Either you are

a: A retard who has a good enough memory to pass some tests but not actually understand the questions on them.

or

b: A sociopath who deserves jail time.

But i thought you were a man of the people? Constantly decrying how the gov't screws people over for the benefit of the illuminati? Now the gov't does something that screws the illuminati for the benefit of the people and your complaining. So what side of the fence are you on?

[Yellowknifer]

But i thought you were a man of the people? Constantly decrying how the gov't screws people over for the benefit of the illuminati? Now the gov't does something that screws the illuminati for the benefit of the people and your complaining. So what side of the fence are you on?

Yeah, certainly no pension funds invest in bonds. Cities? Nah.

But let's trust the SEC. Clearly they are an infallible investment investigation commission!

[ctc]

Yeah, certainly no pension funds invest in bonds. Cities? Nah.

But let's trust the SEC. Clearly they are an infallible investment investigation commission!

Pension funds do, but not cities. And no one has said trust the SEC. They're far from perfect. I've simply pointed to the historical interpretation of what constitutes illegal insider trading. if you'd like to align yourself with the wounded one's interpretation of criminal behaviour for this type of insider trading have at it. Call up any lawyer and see if he's willing to take your case. See how far you get with that.