Discussion:
ASIC and ACCC, and penalties
(too old to reply)
Pelican
2018-06-03 21:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Readers will have noticed a discussion arising from events in the Royal
Commission into banking concerning penalties for wrong-doing. There is
a contrast between the enforcement of competition law (civil penalties
only) by ACCC and enforcement of corporate regulatory law (criminal
penalties) by ASIC, and consumer protection law by both. It's something
of a mess.

An ABC article refers to the anomalies, and points out the obvious -
ASIC is not fit for purpose, the law is ineffective, and governments of
both flavours have been asleep at the wheel -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/crime-as-misdemeanours-tale-of-two-law-enforcement-agencies/9830742

The article also makes the interesting general observation "While
research suggests the seriousness of a penalty does little to deter
general criminal activity, white collar crime appears to be the
exception". I agree with that observation, which raises the issue of
how we should go about deterring undesirable activity, both generally
and in the commercial world.

Meanwhile, our prisons are taking in greater numbers of people, all too
many of whom have a significant (or very significant) mental or social
disability.

We learn too slowly.
Rod Speed
2018-06-03 21:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelican
Readers will have noticed a discussion arising from events in the Royal
Commission into banking concerning penalties for wrong-
doing. There is a contrast between the enforcement of competition law
(civil penalties only) by ACCC and enforcement of corporate regulatory law
(criminal penalties) by ASIC, and consumer protection law by both. It's
something of a mess.
An ABC article refers to the anomalies, and points out the obvious - ASIC
is not fit for purpose, the law is ineffective,
Yes.
Post by Pelican
and governments of both flavours have been asleep at the wheel -
Nope, the problem is that there isnt any easy or hard way to stop the
utter obscenitys that have been exposed by the banking royal commission.

Its hard enough to stop the worst anticompetitive behaviour.
Post by Pelican
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/crime-as-misdemeanours-tale-of-two-law-enforcement-agencies/9830742
The article also makes the interesting general observation "While research
suggests the seriousness of a penalty does little to deter general
criminal activity,
That’s very arguable indeed with crimes like rape and murder.
Post by Pelican
white collar crime appears to be the exception". I agree with that
observation, which raises the issue of how we should go about deterring
undesirable activity, both generally and in the commercial world.
The problem is catching them doing it, most obviously with
those who steal to pay for their gambling addiction etc.

In spades with giving stupid advice on very risky investments
to those who should be being advised to invest more safely.
Post by Pelican
Meanwhile, our prisons are taking in greater numbers of people, all too
many of whom have a significant (or very significant) mental or social
disability.
We learn too slowly.
Its not really a question of learning. The problem with the prisons
is that now that we no longer keep those with severe mental
problems in locked wards anymore, there is nowhere else to
put them when they do serious crime except prisons. Its just
not viable to do nothing to punish them with the most serious
violent crimes even if their problem is due to FAS etc.

The short story is that there is no solution.
Pelican
2018-06-03 21:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
Readers will have noticed a discussion arising from events in the
Royal Commission into banking concerning penalties for wrong-
doing.  There is a contrast between the enforcement of competition law
(civil penalties only) by ACCC and enforcement of corporate regulatory
law (criminal penalties) by ASIC, and consumer protection law by
both.  It's something of a mess.
An ABC article refers to the anomalies, and points out the obvious -
ASIC is not fit for purpose, the law is ineffective,
Yes.
Post by Pelican
and governments of both flavours have been asleep at the wheel -
Nope, the problem is that there isnt any easy or hard way to stop the
utter obscenitys that have been exposed by the banking royal commission.
Its hard enough to stop the worst anticompetitive behaviour.
Post by Pelican
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/crime-as-misdemeanours-tale-of-two-law-enforcement-agencies/9830742
The article also makes the interesting general observation "While
research suggests the seriousness of a penalty does little to deter
general criminal activity,
That’s very arguable indeed with crimes like rape and murder.
Post by Pelican
white collar crime appears to be the exception".  I agree with that
observation, which raises the issue of how we should go about
deterring undesirable activity, both generally and in the commercial
world.
The problem is catching them doing it, most obviously with
those who steal to pay for their gambling addiction etc.
In spades with giving stupid advice on very risky investments
to those who should be being advised to invest more safely.
Post by Pelican
Meanwhile, our prisons are taking in greater numbers of people, all
too many of whom have a significant (or very significant) mental or
social disability.
We learn too slowly.
Its not really a question of learning. The problem with the prisons
is that now that we no longer keep those with severe mental
problems in locked wards anymore, there is nowhere else to
put them when they do serious crime except prisons. Its just
not viable to do nothing to punish them with the most serious
violent crimes even if their problem is due to FAS etc.
The short story is that there is no solution.
Your solution is well-known.
de chucka
2018-06-03 22:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
Readers will have noticed a discussion arising from events in the
Royal Commission into banking concerning penalties for wrong-
doing.  There is a contrast between the enforcement of competition law
(civil penalties only) by ACCC and enforcement of corporate regulatory
law (criminal penalties) by ASIC, and consumer protection law by
both.  It's something of a mess.
An ABC article refers to the anomalies, and points out the obvious -
ASIC is not fit for purpose, the law is ineffective,
Yes.
Post by Pelican
and governments of both flavours have been asleep at the wheel -
Nope, the problem is that there isnt any easy or hard way to stop the
utter obscenitys that have been exposed by the banking royal commission.
Its hard enough to stop the worst anticompetitive behaviour.
Whistle-blowers are really he only way unless the manipulation is blatant
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/crime-as-misdemeanours-tale-of-two-law-enforcement-agencies/9830742
The article also makes the interesting general observation "While
research suggests the seriousness of a penalty does little to deter
general criminal activity,
That’s very arguable indeed with crimes like rape and murder.
No it isn't
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
white collar crime appears to be the exception".  I agree with that
observation, which raises the issue of how we should go about
deterring undesirable activity, both generally and in the commercial
world.
The problem is catching them doing it, most obviously with
those who steal to pay for their gambling addiction etc.
That is just stealing, not really the matter under discussion
Post by Rod Speed
In spades with giving stupid advice on very risky investments
to those who should be being advised to invest more safely.
Post by Pelican
Meanwhile, our prisons are taking in greater numbers of people, all
too many of whom have a significant (or very significant) mental or
social disability.
We learn too slowly.
Its not really a question of learning. The problem with the prisons
is that now that we no longer keep those with severe mental
problems in locked wards anymore, there is nowhere else to
put them when they do serious crime except prisons. Its just
not viable to do nothing to punish them with the most serious
violent crimes even if their problem is due to FAS etc.
Nice off-topic rant
Post by Rod Speed
The short story is that there is no solution.
Certainly is and that is to gaol the Directors and managers who are
involved in market manipulation.
Pelican
2018-06-03 22:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
Readers will have noticed a discussion arising from events in the
Royal Commission into banking concerning penalties for wrong-
doing.  There is a contrast between the enforcement of competition
law (civil penalties only) by ACCC and enforcement of corporate
regulatory law (criminal penalties) by ASIC, and consumer protection
law by both.  It's something of a mess.
An ABC article refers to the anomalies, and points out the obvious -
ASIC is not fit for purpose, the law is ineffective,
Yes.
Post by Pelican
and governments of both flavours have been asleep at the wheel -
Nope, the problem is that there isnt any easy or hard way to stop the
utter obscenitys that have been exposed by the banking royal commission.
Its hard enough to stop the worst anticompetitive behaviour.
Whistle-blowers are really he only way unless the manipulation is blatant
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/crime-as-misdemeanours-tale-of-two-law-enforcement-agencies/9830742
The article also makes the interesting general observation "While
research suggests the seriousness of a penalty does little to deter
general criminal activity,
That’s very arguable indeed with crimes like rape and murder.
No it isn't
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
white collar crime appears to be the exception".  I agree with that
observation, which raises the issue of how we should go about
deterring undesirable activity, both generally and in the commercial
world.
The problem is catching them doing it, most obviously with
those who steal to pay for their gambling addiction etc.
That is just stealing, not really the matter under discussion
Post by Rod Speed
In spades with giving stupid advice on very risky investments
to those who should be being advised to invest more safely.
Post by Pelican
Meanwhile, our prisons are taking in greater numbers of people, all
too many of whom have a significant (or very significant) mental or
social disability.
We learn too slowly.
Its not really a question of learning. The problem with the prisons
is that now that we no longer keep those with severe mental
problems in locked wards anymore, there is nowhere else to
put them when they do serious crime except prisons. Its just
not viable to do nothing to punish them with the most serious
violent crimes even if their problem is due to FAS etc.
Nice off-topic rant
Post by Rod Speed
The short story is that there is no solution.
Certainly is and that is to gaol the Directors and managers who are
involved in market manipulation.
The Royal Commission isn't about market manipulation. Market
manipulation is fundamentally about anti-competitive behaviour (as
opposed to consumer protection). That should be with ACCC because ACCC
is about dealing with anti-competitive behaviour. ACCC should also have
criminal sanctions available for appropriate cases.

ASIC currently has market manipulation in the area of corporate
regulation, and it really doesn't have a clue how to handle it.
de chucka
2018-06-03 22:32:33 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Nice off-topic rant
Post by Rod Speed
The short story is that there is no solution.
Certainly is and that is to gaol the Directors and managers who are
involved in market manipulation.
The Royal Commission isn't about market manipulation.
What has that got to do with your OP

Market
Post by Pelican
manipulation is fundamentally about anti-competitive behaviour (as
opposed to consumer protection).  That should be with ACCC because ACCC
is about dealing with anti-competitive behaviour.  ACCC should also have
criminal sanctions available for appropriate cases.
True
Post by Pelican
ASIC currently has market manipulation in the area of corporate
regulation, and it really doesn't have a clue how to handle it.
True
Rod Speed
2018-06-03 22:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
Readers will have noticed a discussion arising from events in the Royal
Commission into banking concerning penalties for wrong-
doing. There is a contrast between the enforcement of competition law
(civil penalties only) by ACCC and enforcement of corporate regulatory
law (criminal penalties) by ASIC, and consumer protection law by both.
It's something of a mess.
An ABC article refers to the anomalies, and points out the obvious -
ASIC is not fit for purpose, the law is ineffective,
Yes.
Post by Pelican
and governments of both flavours have been asleep at the wheel -
Nope, the problem is that there isnt any easy or hard way to stop the
utter obscenitys that have been exposed by the banking royal commission.
Its hard enough to stop the worst anticompetitive behaviour.
Whistle-blowers are really he only way unless the manipulation is blatant
But those arent likely with the banks and other FIs. In
spades with what the ANZ has just got caught doing.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/crime-as-misdemeanours-tale-of-two-law-enforcement-agencies/9830742
The article also makes the interesting general observation "While
research suggests the seriousness of a penalty does little to deter
general criminal activity,
That’s very arguable indeed with crimes like rape and murder.
No it isn't
Yes it is. We will never know how many didn’t do the crime because
of the severe penaltys that apply if they get caught doing it.

And its clear that most who do those crimes put quite a bit
of effort into ensuring that they wont get caught doing those
crimes, essentially because of the penaltys that apply.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
white collar crime appears to be the exception". I agree with that
observation, which raises the issue of how we should go about deterring
undesirable activity, both generally and in the commercial world.
The problem is catching them doing it, most obviously with
those who steal to pay for their gambling addiction etc.
That is just stealing,
That happens to be the most common white collar crime.
Post by de chucka
not really the matter under discussion
Yes it is when he moved on to penaltys for white collar crime.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In spades with giving stupid advice on very risky investments
to those who should be being advised to invest more safely.
Post by Pelican
Meanwhile, our prisons are taking in greater numbers of people, all too
many of whom have a significant (or very significant) mental or social
disability.
We learn too slowly.
Its not really a question of learning. The problem with the prisons
is that now that we no longer keep those with severe mental
problems in locked wards anymore, there is nowhere else to
put them when they do serious crime except prisons. Its just
not viable to do nothing to punish them with the most serious
violent crimes even if their problem is due to FAS etc.
Nice off-topic rant
It isnt off topic, he moved on to that himself.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
The short story is that there is no solution.
Certainly is and that is to gaol the Directors and managers who are
involved in market manipulation.
Trouble is proving who did it with large organisations like the ANZ.
de chucka
2018-06-03 22:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
Readers will have noticed a discussion arising from events in the
Royal Commission into banking concerning penalties for wrong-
doing.  There is a contrast between the enforcement of competition
law (civil penalties only) by ACCC and enforcement of corporate
regulatory law (criminal penalties) by ASIC, and consumer protection
law by both. It's something of a mess.
An ABC article refers to the anomalies, and points out the obvious -
ASIC is not fit for purpose, the law is ineffective,
Yes.
Post by Pelican
and governments of both flavours have been asleep at the wheel -
Nope, the problem is that there isnt any easy or hard way to stop the
utter obscenitys that have been exposed by the banking royal commission.
Its hard enough to stop the worst anticompetitive behaviour.
Whistle-blowers are really he only way unless the manipulation is blatant
But those arent likely with the banks and other FIs. In
spades with what the ANZ has just got caught doing.
Bit of heat and people/companies do roll-over in this case it seems to
be JP Morgan
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/crime-as-misdemeanours-tale-of-two-law-enforcement-agencies/9830742
The article also makes the interesting general observation "While
research suggests the seriousness of a penalty does little to deter
general criminal activity,
That’s very arguable indeed with crimes like rape and murder.
No it isn't
Yes it is. We will never know how many didn’t do the crime because
of the severe penaltys that apply if they get caught doing it.
True but unlike your 'normal' crime gaol does seem to be a deterrent
Post by Rod Speed
And its clear that most who do those crimes put quite a bit
of effort into ensuring that they wont get caught doing those
crimes, essentially because of the penaltys that apply.
Exactly
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
white collar crime appears to be the exception".  I agree with that
observation, which raises the issue of how we should go about
deterring undesirable activity, both generally and in the commercial
world.
The problem is catching them doing it, most obviously with
those who steal to pay for their gambling addiction etc.
That is just stealing,
That happens to be the most common white collar crime.
True
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
not really the matter under discussion
Yes it is when he moved on to penaltys for white collar crime.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In spades with giving stupid advice on very risky investments
to those who should be being advised to invest more safely.
Post by Pelican
Meanwhile, our prisons are taking in greater numbers of people, all
too many of whom have a significant (or very significant) mental or
social disability.
We learn too slowly.
Its not really a question of learning. The problem with the prisons
is that now that we no longer keep those with severe mental
problems in locked wards anymore, there is nowhere else to
put them when they do serious crime except prisons. Its just
not viable to do nothing to punish them with the most serious
violent crimes even if their problem is due to FAS etc.
Nice off-topic rant
It isnt off topic, he moved on to that himself.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
The short story is that there is no solution.
Certainly is and that is to gaol the Directors and managers who are
involved in market manipulation.
Trouble is proving who did it with large organisations like the ANZ.
Yes it is a problem but that should not stop ASIC trying. It
concentrates the minds of those in charge of the consequences of dodgy
actions
Rod Speed
2018-06-03 23:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
Readers will have noticed a discussion arising from events in the
Royal Commission into banking concerning penalties for wrong-
doing. There is a contrast between the enforcement of competition law
(civil penalties only) by ACCC and enforcement of corporate regulatory
law (criminal penalties) by ASIC, and consumer protection law by both.
It's something of a mess.
An ABC article refers to the anomalies, and points out the obvious -
ASIC is not fit for purpose, the law is ineffective,
Yes.
Post by Pelican
and governments of both flavours have been asleep at the wheel -
Nope, the problem is that there isnt any easy or hard way to stop the
utter obscenitys that have been exposed by the banking royal commission.
Its hard enough to stop the worst anticompetitive behaviour.
Whistle-blowers are really he only way unless the manipulation is blatant
But those arent likely with the banks and other FIs. In
spades with what the ANZ has just got caught doing.
Bit of heat
More than a bit of heat in this case.
Post by de chucka
and people/companies do roll-over in this case it seems to be JP Morgan
That’s not a whistle blower, that’s one of the criminals putting up their
hands.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/crime-as-misdemeanours-tale-of-two-law-enforcement-agencies/9830742
The article also makes the interesting general observation "While
research suggests the seriousness of a penalty does little to deter
general criminal activity,
That’s very arguable indeed with crimes like rape and murder.
No it isn't
Yes it is. We will never know how many didn’t do the crime because
of the severe penaltys that apply if they get caught doing it.
True but unlike your 'normal' crime gaol does seem to be a deterrent
It is with 'normal' crime too in the same way.

Not with everyone tho, particularly with the dregs of society, in
many ways jail time is a badge of honour with the worst of them.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
And its clear that most who do those crimes put quite a bit
of effort into ensuring that they wont get caught doing those
crimes, essentially because of the penaltys that apply.
Exactly
So the original is very arguable, as I said.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
white collar crime appears to be the exception". I agree with that
observation, which raises the issue of how we should go about
deterring undesirable activity, both generally and in the commercial
world.
The problem is catching them doing it, most obviously with
those who steal to pay for their gambling addiction etc.
That is just stealing,
That happens to be the most common white collar crime.
True
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
not really the matter under discussion
Yes it is when he moved on to penaltys for white collar crime.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In spades with giving stupid advice on very risky investments
to those who should be being advised to invest more safely.
Post by Pelican
Meanwhile, our prisons are taking in greater numbers of people, all
too many of whom have a significant (or very significant) mental or
social disability.
We learn too slowly.
Its not really a question of learning. The problem with the prisons
is that now that we no longer keep those with severe mental
problems in locked wards anymore, there is nowhere else to
put them when they do serious crime except prisons. Its just
not viable to do nothing to punish them with the most serious
violent crimes even if their problem is due to FAS etc.
Nice off-topic rant
It isnt off topic, he moved on to that himself.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
The short story is that there is no solution.
Certainly is and that is to gaol the Directors and managers who are
involved in market manipulation.
Trouble is proving who did it with large organisations like the ANZ.
Yes it is a problem but that should not stop ASIC trying.
They do try.
Post by de chucka
It concentrates the minds of those in charge of the consequences of dodgy
actions
It clearly didn’t with the ANZ or ComBank or AMP etc etc etc.
de chucka
2018-06-04 02:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
Readers will have noticed a discussion arising from events in the
Royal Commission into banking concerning penalties for wrong-
doing.  There is a contrast between the enforcement of competition
law (civil penalties only) by ACCC and enforcement of corporate
regulatory law (criminal penalties) by ASIC, and consumer
protection law by both. It's something of a mess.
An ABC article refers to the anomalies, and points out the obvious
- ASIC is not fit for purpose, the law is ineffective,
Yes.
Post by Pelican
and governments of both flavours have been asleep at the wheel -
Nope, the problem is that there isnt any easy or hard way to stop the
utter obscenitys that have been exposed by the banking royal commission.
Its hard enough to stop the worst anticompetitive behaviour.
Whistle-blowers are really he only way unless the manipulation is blatant
But those arent likely with the banks and other FIs. In
spades with what the ANZ has just got caught doing.
Bit of heat
More than a bit of heat in this case.
Post by de chucka
and people/companies do roll-over in this case it seems to be JP Morgan
That’s not a whistle blower, that’s one of the criminals putting up
their hands.
Roll-over or whisteblower that is what is needed
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/crime-as-misdemeanours-tale-of-two-law-enforcement-agencies/9830742
The article also makes the interesting general observation "While
research suggests the seriousness of a penalty does little to
deter general criminal activity,
That’s very arguable indeed with crimes like rape and murder.
No it isn't
Yes it is. We will never know how many didn’t do the crime because
of the severe penaltys that apply if they get caught doing it.
True but unlike your 'normal' crime gaol does seem to be a deterrent
It is with 'normal' crime too in the same way.
Doesn't seem to be
Post by Rod Speed
Not with everyone tho, particularly with the dregs of society, in
many ways jail time is a badge of honour with the worst of them.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
And its clear that most who do those crimes put quite a bit
of effort into ensuring that they wont get caught doing those
crimes, essentially because of the penaltys that apply.
Exactly
So the original is very arguable, as I said.
maybe
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
white collar crime appears to be the exception".  I agree with
that observation, which raises the issue of how we should go about
deterring undesirable activity, both generally and in the
commercial world.
The problem is catching them doing it, most obviously with
those who steal to pay for their gambling addiction etc.
That is just stealing,
That happens to be the most common white collar crime.
True
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
not really the matter under discussion
Yes it is when he moved on to penaltys for white collar crime.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In spades with giving stupid advice on very risky investments
to those who should be being advised to invest more safely.
Post by Pelican
Meanwhile, our prisons are taking in greater numbers of people,
all too many of whom have a significant (or very significant)
mental or social disability.
We learn too slowly.
Its not really a question of learning. The problem with the prisons
is that now that we no longer keep those with severe mental
problems in locked wards anymore, there is nowhere else to
put them when they do serious crime except prisons. Its just
not viable to do nothing to punish them with the most serious
violent crimes even if their problem is due to FAS etc.
Nice off-topic rant
It isnt off topic, he moved on to that himself.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
The short story is that there is no solution.
Certainly is and that is to gaol the Directors and managers who are
involved in market manipulation.
Trouble is proving who did it with large organisations like the ANZ.
Yes it is a problem but that should not stop ASIC trying.
They do try.
yep
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
It concentrates the minds of those in charge of the consequences of
dodgy actions
It clearly didn’t with the ANZ or ComBank or AMP etc etc etc.
because afaik nobody in this situation has faced criminal charges
Rod Speed
2018-06-04 07:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
Readers will have noticed a discussion arising from events in the
Royal Commission into banking concerning penalties for wrong-
doing. There is a contrast between the enforcement of competition
law (civil penalties only) by ACCC and enforcement of corporate
regulatory law (criminal penalties) by ASIC, and consumer protection
law by both. It's something of a mess.
An ABC article refers to the anomalies, and points out the obvious -
ASIC is not fit for purpose, the law is ineffective,
Yes.
Post by Pelican
and governments of both flavours have been asleep at the wheel -
Nope, the problem is that there isnt any easy or hard way to stop the
utter obscenitys that have been exposed by the banking royal commission.
Its hard enough to stop the worst anticompetitive behaviour.
Whistle-blowers are really he only way unless the manipulation is blatant
But those arent likely with the banks and other FIs. In
spades with what the ANZ has just got caught doing.
Bit of heat
More than a bit of heat in this case.
Post by de chucka
and people/companies do roll-over in this case it seems to be JP Morgan
That’s not a whistle blower, that’s one of the criminals putting up their
hands.
Roll-over or whisteblower that is what is needed
But no one rolls over till they have been caught.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/crime-as-misdemeanours-tale-of-two-law-enforcement-agencies/9830742
The article also makes the interesting general observation "While
research suggests the seriousness of a penalty does little to deter
general criminal activity,
That’s very arguable indeed with crimes like rape and murder.
No it isn't
Yes it is. We will never know how many didn’t do the crime because
of the severe penaltys that apply if they get caught doing it.
True but unlike your 'normal' crime gaol does seem to be a deterrent
It is with 'normal' crime too in the same way.
Doesn't seem to be
See above.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Not with everyone tho, particularly with the dregs of society, in
many ways jail time is a badge of honour with the worst of them.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
And its clear that most who do those crimes put quite a bit
of effort into ensuring that they wont get caught doing those
crimes, essentially because of the penaltys that apply.
Exactly
So the original is very arguable, as I said.
maybe
No maybe about it
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Pelican
white collar crime appears to be the exception". I agree with that
observation, which raises the issue of how we should go about
deterring undesirable activity, both generally and in the commercial
world.
The problem is catching them doing it, most obviously with
those who steal to pay for their gambling addiction etc.
That is just stealing,
That happens to be the most common white collar crime.
True
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
not really the matter under discussion
Yes it is when he moved on to penaltys for white collar crime.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
In spades with giving stupid advice on very risky investments
to those who should be being advised to invest more safely.
Post by Pelican
Meanwhile, our prisons are taking in greater numbers of people, all
too many of whom have a significant (or very significant) mental or
social disability.
We learn too slowly.
Its not really a question of learning. The problem with the prisons
is that now that we no longer keep those with severe mental
problems in locked wards anymore, there is nowhere else to
put them when they do serious crime except prisons. Its just
not viable to do nothing to punish them with the most serious
violent crimes even if their problem is due to FAS etc.
Nice off-topic rant
It isnt off topic, he moved on to that himself.
Post by de chucka
Post by Rod Speed
The short story is that there is no solution.
Certainly is and that is to gaol the Directors and managers who are
involved in market manipulation.
Trouble is proving who did it with large organisations like the ANZ.
Yes it is a problem but that should not stop ASIC trying.
They do try.
yep
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
It concentrates the minds of those in charge of the consequences of
dodgy actions
It clearly didn’t with the ANZ or ComBank or AMP etc etc etc.
because afaik nobody in this situation has faced criminal charges
ANZ is about to.
Pelican
2018-06-04 21:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by de chucka
because afaik nobody in this situation has faced criminal charges
ANZ is about to.
Individuals, not corporations.
de chucka
2018-06-03 21:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelican
Readers will have noticed a discussion arising from events in the Royal
Commission into banking concerning penalties for wrong-doing.  There is
a contrast between the enforcement of competition law (civil penalties
only) by ACCC and enforcement of corporate regulatory law (criminal
penalties) by ASIC, and consumer protection law by both.  It's something
of a mess.
An ABC article refers to the anomalies, and points out the obvious -
ASIC is not fit for purpose, the law is ineffective, and governments of
both flavours have been asleep at the wheel -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/crime-as-misdemeanours-tale-of-two-law-enforcement-agencies/9830742
The article also makes the interesting general observation "While
research suggests the seriousness of a penalty does little to deter
general criminal activity, white collar crime appears to be the
exception".  I agree with that observation, which raises the issue of
how we should go about deterring undesirable activity, both generally
and in the commercial world.
Meanwhile, our prisons are taking in greater numbers of people, all too
many of whom have a significant (or very significant) mental or social
disability.
We learn too slowly.
As as a small trader on the ASX I've always assumed that the market is
not honest and that 'insider trading' and manipulation occurs at all
levels. My wife is a chartest and it is fascinating to watch the blips
in prices as these occur, the tactic is to get onto these quickly before
the market in general reacts.
Pelican
2018-06-03 22:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Readers will have noticed a discussion arising from events in the
Royal Commission into banking concerning penalties for wrong-doing.
There is a contrast between the enforcement of competition law (civil
penalties only) by ACCC and enforcement of corporate regulatory law
(criminal penalties) by ASIC, and consumer protection law by both.
It's something of a mess.
An ABC article refers to the anomalies, and points out the obvious -
ASIC is not fit for purpose, the law is ineffective, and governments
of both flavours have been asleep at the wheel -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/crime-as-misdemeanours-tale-of-two-law-enforcement-agencies/9830742
The article also makes the interesting general observation "While
research suggests the seriousness of a penalty does little to deter
general criminal activity, white collar crime appears to be the
exception".  I agree with that observation, which raises the issue of
how we should go about deterring undesirable activity, both generally
and in the commercial world.
Meanwhile, our prisons are taking in greater numbers of people, all
too many of whom have a significant (or very significant) mental or
social disability.
We learn too slowly.
As as a small trader on the ASX I've always assumed that the market is
not honest
That's wrong. The market isn't an ethical thing. You mean that there
are people who will cheerfully take anything that isn't nailed down,
whether in the market or in church. What a surprise!
Post by de chucka
and that 'insider trading' and manipulation occurs at all
levels.
At some levels, sometimes. We also have laws and market regulators who
are supposed to deal with that kind of market manipulation. Just like
traffic cops who deal with speeding and drunk drivers. You know about
them speedsters and drunk drivers - does it stop you driving?
Post by de chucka
My wife is a chartest
What a shame.
Post by de chucka
and it is fascinating to watch the blips
in prices as these occur, the tactic is to get onto these quickly before
the market in general reacts.
The point you make is that the market can be a very clear indicator of
value for those who choose to participate. It also has a goodly number
of fuckwits, who do really stupid things at the drop of a hat. Apart
from any number of shonks.
de chucka
2018-06-03 22:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Readers will have noticed a discussion arising from events in the
Royal Commission into banking concerning penalties for wrong-doing.
There is a contrast between the enforcement of competition law (civil
penalties only) by ACCC and enforcement of corporate regulatory law
(criminal penalties) by ASIC, and consumer protection law by both.
It's something of a mess.
An ABC article refers to the anomalies, and points out the obvious -
ASIC is not fit for purpose, the law is ineffective, and governments
of both flavours have been asleep at the wheel -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/crime-as-misdemeanours-tale-of-two-law-enforcement-agencies/9830742
The article also makes the interesting general observation "While
research suggests the seriousness of a penalty does little to deter
general criminal activity, white collar crime appears to be the
exception".  I agree with that observation, which raises the issue of
how we should go about deterring undesirable activity, both generally
and in the commercial world.
Meanwhile, our prisons are taking in greater numbers of people, all
too many of whom have a significant (or very significant) mental or
social disability.
We learn too slowly.
As as a small trader on the ASX I've always assumed that the market is
not honest
That's wrong.
No it is not as you go onto explain

The market isn't an ethical thing.  You mean that there
Post by Pelican
are people who will cheerfully take anything that isn't nailed down,
whether in the market or in church.  What a surprise!
Post by de chucka
and that 'insider trading' and manipulation occurs at all levels.
At some levels, sometimes.  We also have laws and market regulators who
are supposed to deal with that kind of market manipulation.  Just like
traffic cops who deal with speeding and drunk drivers.  You know about
them speedsters and drunk drivers - does it stop you driving?
No but unfortunately the authorities are not that good at cracking down
on it as your OP states
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
My wife is a chartest
What a shame.
Not at all we make a very good living from her skills combined with mine
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
and it is fascinating to watch the blips in prices as these occur, the
tactic is to get onto these quickly before the market in general reacts.
The point you make is that the market can be a very clear indicator of
value for those who choose to participate.
If it was based on value alone looking at the fundamentals would be all
you need to make money on the stock-market

It also has a goodly number
Post by Pelican
of fuckwits, who do really stupid things at the drop of a hat.
True and they lose money

  Apart
Post by Pelican
from any number of shonks.
Exactly including those who manipulate the market.
Pelican
2018-06-03 22:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Readers will have noticed a discussion arising from events in the
Royal Commission into banking concerning penalties for wrong-doing.
There is a contrast between the enforcement of competition law
(civil penalties only) by ACCC and enforcement of corporate
regulatory law (criminal penalties) by ASIC, and consumer protection
law by both. It's something of a mess.
An ABC article refers to the anomalies, and points out the obvious -
ASIC is not fit for purpose, the law is ineffective, and governments
of both flavours have been asleep at the wheel -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-04/crime-as-misdemeanours-tale-of-two-law-enforcement-agencies/9830742
The article also makes the interesting general observation "While
research suggests the seriousness of a penalty does little to deter
general criminal activity, white collar crime appears to be the
exception".  I agree with that observation, which raises the issue
of how we should go about deterring undesirable activity, both
generally and in the commercial world.
Meanwhile, our prisons are taking in greater numbers of people, all
too many of whom have a significant (or very significant) mental or
social disability.
We learn too slowly.
As as a small trader on the ASX I've always assumed that the market
is not honest
That's wrong.
No it is not as you go onto explain
The market isn't an ethical thing.  You mean that there
Post by Pelican
are people who will cheerfully take anything that isn't nailed down,
whether in the market or in church.  What a surprise!
Post by de chucka
and that 'insider trading' and manipulation occurs at all levels.
At some levels, sometimes.  We also have laws and market regulators
who are supposed to deal with that kind of market manipulation.  Just
like traffic cops who deal with speeding and drunk drivers.  You know
about them speedsters and drunk drivers - does it stop you driving?
No but unfortunately the authorities are not that good at cracking down
on it as your OP states
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
My wife is a chartest
What a shame.
Not at all we make a very good living from her skills combined with mine
She makes it - you spend it.
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
and it is fascinating to watch the blips in prices as these occur,
the tactic is to get onto these quickly before the market in general
reacts.
The point you make is that the market can be a very clear indicator of
value for those who choose to participate.
If it was based on value alone looking at the fundamentals would be all
you need to make money on the stock-market
 It also has a goodly number
Post by Pelican
of fuckwits, who do really stupid things at the drop of a hat.
True and they lose money
Post by Pelican
  Apart
from any number of shonks.
Exactly including those who manipulate the market.
You have a very unsophisticated understanding of markets and market
participants. Shonks are just chancers and petty thieves, like
financial advisers, snake-oil merchants, used care salesman, real estate
agents, politicians, and the like, who are always with us. Basically,
shonks are those who sell something that's too good to be true.

Those who manipulate markets are not shonks. They are an entirely
different category, and somewhat harder to deal with. It's the
difference between those selling defective products to consumers, and
those who engage in secret in anti-competitive behaviour, which damage
markets and the economy.
de chucka
2018-06-03 22:50:43 UTC
Permalink
snip

wn on it as your OP states
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
My wife is a chartest
What a shame.
Not at all we make a very good living from her skills combined with mine
She makes it - you spend it.
We both make it and both spend it
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
and it is fascinating to watch the blips in prices as these occur,
the tactic is to get onto these quickly before the market in general
reacts.
The point you make is that the market can be a very clear indicator
of value for those who choose to participate.
If it was based on value alone looking at the fundamentals would be
all you need to make money on the stock-market
  It also has a goodly number
Post by Pelican
of fuckwits, who do really stupid things at the drop of a hat.
True and they lose money
Post by Pelican
   Apart
from any number of shonks.
Exactly including those who manipulate the market.
You have a very unsophisticated understanding of markets and market
participants.  Shonks are just chancers and petty thieves, like
financial advisers, snake-oil merchants, used care salesman, real estate
agents, politicians, and the like, who are always with us.  Basically,
shonks are those who sell something that's too good to be true.
Those who manipulate markets are not shonks.  They are an entirely
different category, and somewhat harder to deal with.  It's the
difference between those selling defective products to consumers, and
those who engage in secret in anti-competitive behaviour, which damage
markets and the economy.
de chucka
2018-06-03 22:58:17 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
   Apart
from any number of shonks.
Exactly including those who manipulate the market.
You have a very unsophisticated understanding of markets and market
participants.  Shonks are just chancers and petty thieves, like
financial advisers, snake-oil merchants, used care salesman, real estate
agents, politicians, and the like, who are always with us.  Basically,
shonks are those who sell something that's too good to be true.
Those who manipulate markets are not shonks.  They are an entirely
different category, and somewhat harder to deal with.  It's the
difference between those selling defective products to consumers, and
those who engage in secret in anti-competitive behaviour, which damage
markets and the economy.
If you want to use that definition so be it. I think that shonky
describes the manipulators and those who run fast and loose with
corporate law perfectly
shonky (ˈʃɒŋkɪ)
adj, -kier or -kiest
1. of dubious integrity or legality
2. unreliable; unsound

Your understanding of the stock-market is up there with your
understanding of most matters, non-existent.
Pelican
2018-06-03 23:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
   Apart
from any number of shonks.
Exactly including those who manipulate the market.
You have a very unsophisticated understanding of markets and market
participants.  Shonks are just chancers and petty thieves, like
financial advisers, snake-oil merchants, used care salesman, real
estate agents, politicians, and the like, who are always with us.
Basically, shonks are those who sell something that's too good to be
true.
Those who manipulate markets are not shonks.  They are an entirely
different category, and somewhat harder to deal with.  It's the
difference between those selling defective products to consumers, and
those who engage in secret in anti-competitive behaviour, which damage
markets and the economy.
If you want to use that definition so be it. I think that shonky
describes the manipulators and those who run fast and loose with
corporate law perfectly
shonky (ˈʃɒŋkɪ)
adj, -kier or -kiest
1. of dubious integrity or legality
2. unreliable; unsound
Your understanding of the stock-market is up there with your
understanding of most matters, non-existent.
Hit a nerve, eh?
de chucka
2018-06-04 02:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
   Apart
from any number of shonks.
Exactly including those who manipulate the market.
You have a very unsophisticated understanding of markets and market
participants.  Shonks are just chancers and petty thieves, like
financial advisers, snake-oil merchants, used care salesman, real
estate agents, politicians, and the like, who are always with us.
Basically, shonks are those who sell something that's too good to be
true.
Those who manipulate markets are not shonks.  They are an entirely
different category, and somewhat harder to deal with.  It's the
difference between those selling defective products to consumers, and
those who engage in secret in anti-competitive behaviour, which
damage markets and the economy.
If you want to use that definition so be it. I think that shonky
describes the manipulators and those who run fast and loose with
corporate law perfectly
shonky (ˈʃɒŋkɪ)
adj, -kier or -kiest
1. of dubious integrity or legality
2. unreliable; unsound
Your understanding of the stock-market is up there with your
understanding of most matters, non-existent.
Hit a nerve, eh?
Yep, ignorance always does
Pelican
2018-06-04 08:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
   Apart
from any number of shonks.
Exactly including those who manipulate the market.
You have a very unsophisticated understanding of markets and market
participants.  Shonks are just chancers and petty thieves, like
financial advisers, snake-oil merchants, used care salesman, real
estate agents, politicians, and the like, who are always with us.
Basically, shonks are those who sell something that's too good to be
true.
Those who manipulate markets are not shonks.  They are an entirely
different category, and somewhat harder to deal with.  It's the
difference between those selling defective products to consumers,
and those who engage in secret in anti-competitive behaviour, which
damage markets and the economy.
If you want to use that definition so be it. I think that shonky
describes the manipulators and those who run fast and loose with
corporate law perfectly
shonky (ˈʃɒŋkɪ)
adj, -kier or -kiest
1. of dubious integrity or legality
2. unreliable; unsound
Your understanding of the stock-market is up there with your
understanding of most matters, non-existent.
Hit a nerve, eh?
Yep, ignorance always does
Must be frustration for you to be permanently in pain.
de chucka
2018-06-04 20:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
   Apart
from any number of shonks.
Exactly including those who manipulate the market.
You have a very unsophisticated understanding of markets and market
participants.  Shonks are just chancers and petty thieves, like
financial advisers, snake-oil merchants, used care salesman, real
estate agents, politicians, and the like, who are always with us.
Basically, shonks are those who sell something that's too good to
be true.
Those who manipulate markets are not shonks.  They are an entirely
different category, and somewhat harder to deal with.  It's the
difference between those selling defective products to consumers,
and those who engage in secret in anti-competitive behaviour, which
damage markets and the economy.
If you want to use that definition so be it. I think that shonky
describes the manipulators and those who run fast and loose with
corporate law perfectly
shonky (ˈʃɒŋkɪ)
adj, -kier or -kiest
1. of dubious integrity or legality
2. unreliable; unsound
Your understanding of the stock-market is up there with your
understanding of most matters, non-existent.
Hit a nerve, eh?
Yep, ignorance always does
Must be frustration for you to be permanently in pain.
Not permanently only when I read your posts
Pelican
2018-06-04 21:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
   Apart
from any number of shonks.
Exactly including those who manipulate the market.
You have a very unsophisticated understanding of markets and
market participants.  Shonks are just chancers and petty thieves,
like financial advisers, snake-oil merchants, used care salesman,
real estate agents, politicians, and the like, who are always with
us. Basically, shonks are those who sell something that's too good
to be true.
Those who manipulate markets are not shonks.  They are an entirely
different category, and somewhat harder to deal with.  It's the
difference between those selling defective products to consumers,
and those who engage in secret in anti-competitive behaviour,
which damage markets and the economy.
If you want to use that definition so be it. I think that shonky
describes the manipulators and those who run fast and loose with
corporate law perfectly
shonky (ˈʃɒŋkɪ)
adj, -kier or -kiest
1. of dubious integrity or legality
2. unreliable; unsound
Your understanding of the stock-market is up there with your
understanding of most matters, non-existent.
Hit a nerve, eh?
Yep, ignorance always does
Must be frustration for you to be permanently in pain.
Not permanently only when I read your posts
Masochist, eh?
de chucka
2018-06-04 22:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
   Apart
from any number of shonks.
Exactly including those who manipulate the market.
You have a very unsophisticated understanding of markets and
market participants.  Shonks are just chancers and petty thieves,
like financial advisers, snake-oil merchants, used care salesman,
real estate agents, politicians, and the like, who are always
with us. Basically, shonks are those who sell something that's
too good to be true.
Those who manipulate markets are not shonks.  They are an
entirely different category, and somewhat harder to deal with.
It's the difference between those selling defective products to
consumers, and those who engage in secret in anti-competitive
behaviour, which damage markets and the economy.
If you want to use that definition so be it. I think that shonky
describes the manipulators and those who run fast and loose with
corporate law perfectly
shonky (ˈʃɒŋkɪ)
adj, -kier or -kiest
1. of dubious integrity or legality
2. unreliable; unsound
Your understanding of the stock-market is up there with your
understanding of most matters, non-existent.
Hit a nerve, eh?
Yep, ignorance always does
Must be frustration for you to be permanently in pain.
Not permanently only when I read your posts
Masochist, eh?
yep

I got involved with a sadist who reused to beat me ;-)
Pelican
2018-06-04 22:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Pelican
Post by de chucka
Post by Pelican
   Apart
from any number of shonks.
Exactly including those who manipulate the market.
You have a very unsophisticated understanding of markets and
market participants.  Shonks are just chancers and petty
thieves, like financial advisers, snake-oil merchants, used care
salesman, real estate agents, politicians, and the like, who are
always with us. Basically, shonks are those who sell something
that's too good to be true.
Those who manipulate markets are not shonks.  They are an
entirely different category, and somewhat harder to deal with.
It's the difference between those selling defective products to
consumers, and those who engage in secret in anti-competitive
behaviour, which damage markets and the economy.
If you want to use that definition so be it. I think that shonky
describes the manipulators and those who run fast and loose with
corporate law perfectly
shonky (ˈʃɒŋkɪ)
adj, -kier or -kiest
1. of dubious integrity or legality
2. unreliable; unsound
Your understanding of the stock-market is up there with your
understanding of most matters, non-existent.
Hit a nerve, eh?
Yep, ignorance always does
Must be frustration for you to be permanently in pain.
Not permanently only when I read your posts
Masochist, eh?
yep
I got involved with a sadist who reused to beat me ;-)
...and you both enjoyed the experience.

Fran
2018-06-04 00:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
As as a small trader on the ASX I've always assumed that the market is
not honest and that 'insider trading' and manipulation occurs at all
levels. My wife is a chartest and it is fascinating to watch the blips
in prices as these occur, the tactic is to get onto these quickly before
the market in general reacts.
We've got a very different strategy to you, but we too have done very
well out of our ASX involvement. We invested all the money after we
sold one of our farms. If making money had been our only objective in
live, investing would have been the way to go in terms of simple
financial return. It suits us now we're old and in drought, but it
doesn't warm the soul as much as having doe eyed cattle and owning
gorgeous countryside.
de chucka
2018-06-04 03:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by de chucka
As as a small trader on the ASX I've always assumed that the market is
not honest and that 'insider trading' and manipulation occurs at all
levels. My wife is a chartest and it is fascinating to watch the blips
in prices as these occur, the tactic is to get onto these quickly
before the market in general reacts.
We've got a very different strategy to you, but we too have done very
well out of our ASX involvement.  We invested all the money after we
sold one of our farms.  If making money had been our only objective in
live, investing would have been the way to go in terms of simple
financial return.
Doing it my way is hard work and I'm now wondering when enough is enough

   It suits us now we're old and in drought, but it
Post by Fran
doesn't warm the soul as much as having doe eyed cattle and owning
gorgeous countryside.
Not wrong. If things get to much a cuppa watching the horses and view or
fixing a pipe/fence/tending the trees or veggies puts one in a good mood
Loading...