Open Thread
Need a Hand?
Your Next Project Starts with BrownstonerMost Recent Articles
Need a Hand?
Your Next Project Starts with Brownstoner
“Sure but what is the rule that distinguishes the lawyer from the rail worker? It’s easy enough to say lawyer guilty, railworker not guilty . . . Letting people off the hook just because they have sypathetic looking blue collar isn’t a rule of law.”
lechacal, if you want to make this about class (white collar vs. blue collar), you got the wrong guy. My opinion is based on their actual knowledge of material non-public information. Lawyer in the room negotiating the deal has actual knowledge. Railroad workers had a hunch.
You could change the scenario to 2 junior associates on a MetroNorth passenger train who happened to notice “suits” in the adjacent freight yard and made the same guess as the rail workers, and, much as I loathe lawyers, I wouldn’t prosecute them either.
“Well you know – the article goes on to say the “Unwashed” don’t like taking showers b/c it saves water – oy!”
One of the women takes a wash cloth to her privates and armpits everyday and just reserves a full shower for a few times per week. This hardly counts as unwashed.
etson, the original post was a Gartman rant!!!!!
Speaking of the rise of the “unwashed”…..
On every other Friday night, there is a dance sponsored by “Parent without Partners” held at the K of C hall on Quentin Road in Gravesend. Some documentarian should do a film on this event, because it harkens back to a different era in NYC.
Although most of the folks there are of modest means, they come dressed the the 9’s, and they are all fabulous ballroom dancers. It is an uplifting sight to see these folks, most of whom are in their 70’s, if not 80’s, dance together with such grace. As I said, they harken back to the days when “going out” meant dressing up and spending a night on the town.
I know about this event because I sometimes tend bar there on a volunteer basis.
“By daveinbedstuy on November 1, 2010 10:20 AM
At some point you have to announce. it’s an art form as to when!!!”
Generally speaking, you don’t announce before you have a signed deal in hand unless something forces your hand. The ability to say no and not do a deal might be the only negotiating leverage you have. Once you’re publicly committed you might as well bend over and take the I-beam on contract terms. [exceptions abound of course]
Find it funny that the original article desribes this as ‘good research’ though. Either way it’s just speculation and not real investment.
hahaha – so you think it’s the smelly Europeans that are influencing Americans to not wash?
perhaps – I will say though that some Asians DO smell – Indian folks smell. It could be the spices they cook with? I find Mexican men to smell of cologne more than “Bounce” freshner sheets though
Well you know – the article goes on to say the “Unwashed” don’t like taking showers b/c it saves water – oy!
“If you’re the secretary to an in-house lawyer and you become aware of an upcoming earnings announcement or some M&A activity, can you trade on it? [answer = no]”
Agreed. But, she has actual knowledge of material non-public information. Her case I’d turn down.
If, however, she merely thought she saw a troubled look on the CFO’s face after he came out of a meeting with her boss, and took a guess that earnings were going to come in below expectations and traded on her hunch, that’s a tougher case, but I’d likely take it on. She had no material inside information, but, by virtue of her position, was privy to it, i.e., unlike the rail workers, she interacted directly with the CFO as part of her job. Could go either way with her.
“CGar on November 1, 2010 10:17 AM
In lechacal’s hypo, I think the lawyer in the room negotiating the deal would be guilty of insider trading even if the deal cratered at the last minute.”
Sure but what is the rule that distinguishes the lawyer from the rail worker? It’s easy enough to say lawyer guilty, railworker not guilty, but that is simply an outcome and not a rule of law. The law must be objective. The law must be capable of application to any potential set of facts. Letting people off the hook just because they have sypathetic looking blue collar isn’t a rule of law.