[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Jake Bernstein vs. NFA . . . Comment



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

Walt Downs wrote:

> Many traders, and especially the public in general, find the markets
> quite addictive. It is not a business to them, it is a drug. They
> move from trade to trade, always looking for the next "fix". When
> this happens it is sad to see. But, when someone takes advantage
> of this, it is an absolute moral disgrace.

I have to disagree here.  Unless deception is being used, I can't
imagine anything wrong with this.  If certain people derive excitement
from trading, and wish to acquire information about it, then it is not
our place to decide that they ought not to be allowed to do so, or that
it would be wrong to facilitate this "habit."  At least in the
securities business, with the proper skill and information, the odds can
be turned in their favor, as opposed to gambling.  Anything can be
abused, but we must respect the moral autonomy of persons to conduct
their own personal affairs, even if that includes doing so unwisely.  If
someone like Bernstein wishes to assist them in their pursuit, I cannot
imagine what would be inherently wrong with that, as long as deception
is not used.  I would assume, though, that many casual players of the
market see the practical side of the issue (increasing their income) as
being central to their involvement, rather than just the thrill of the
trade.  Risk-seeking does play a role in our society, though - but if
facilitating this behavior would be wrong, then the same could be said
about helping people engage in other risky activities, such as rock
climbing, parachute jumping, etc.

I've seen Bernstein's infomercial, and while it may be a little heavy on
hype (as is the normal practice with these things), I find it less so
that the spots on futures options -  where the *extreme* risk of this
strategy is hardly given proper shrift.  While it is certainly not as
easy to be successful in securities trading as many would hope, we
cannot make the mistake of regulating the sale of information so tightly
that legitimate benefit is stifled.  Proper disclosure does need to be
made, though - and that is more than just stating that it "involves
risk."

Regards,
A.J.