|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
In the UK, the government is currently in the process of effectively trying
to remove "buyer beware" from financial markets altogether.
What I don't understand is why financial products (esp derivatives) are
deemed so different from anything else. Nobody expects to be able to sue a
car salesman if they buy the wrong car.
Rus
-----Original Message-----
From: Sentinel Trading [mailto:rjbiii@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 10 May 1999 23:50
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re[2]: CFTC Case Update
What I don't understand is why the CFTC even exists, it seems to just
provide
another layer of government regulations. I can sell anything I want claim or
no
if it concerns equities, with no regulation what so ever. I can even trade
other
peoples money without a series 7, I just can't be a commercial broker.
Why the distinction between the Futures Market and the Equities Markets?
Isn't
that an implication that the futures market is crooked, in it's very need
for
such a layer of regulation.
Seems to me that it's just another layer of government, and a way to take
funds
to regulate something that is not in need of regulation.
What ever happened to buyer beware. Or do we all need uncle Sam to be or
shepherd.
____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject: Re: CFTC Case Update
Author: Alan Myers
Date: 5/10/99 6:15 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: tj
Subject: Re: CFTC Case Update
>an educated public is the best first line of defense in the prevention
>of fraud and purveyors of false hopes and dreams.
I agree with this. I think that the purveyors can be counted upon to help
educate the public without violation of their right to free speech. If the
CFTC exists to protect the public, then the legislation needs to be about
what you can't omit. You should be able to make any claims that you want
(satisfying free speech). If you are being compensated directly, then you
should have to back them up with something more substantial than "R.X. in
Idaho made $50,000 last month with this system/newsletter/method."
It seems to me that the CFTC has incredibly restrictive regulations that
don't accomplish their worthy objectives. Hopefully, losing the case would
cause them to re-examine their raison d'etre and look at the efficiency of
the regulations now on the books.
They (the CFTC) can't claim to be doing a very good job of protecting the
public. Just look at one issue of "Futures" or TASC. The lack of
enforcement of the existing regulations are a widespread joke. They've made
it too difficult to convict someone deserving, which is not a lot different
than no regulation at all. It's even worse than no regulation if they are
fighting difficult, costly marginal cases with big penalty payoffs to
maximize publicity. They need to shut down all of the vermin, not just the
big ones. Volume counts.
~Alan
|