Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
That is because she has so confused the issue in her mind that she has blended two unrelated portions of the same bill into one issue and now refuses to let go of the concept that they are one.
Looks someone knew what would happen with the Enron loophole
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
That is because she has so confused the issue in her mind that she has blended two unrelated portions of the same bill into one issue and now refuses to let go of the concept that they are one.
evince
Truthmatters
http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/Hearings_1997/chapman.htm
On Tuesday of this week, representatives of the futures exchanges presented to the Committee a proposal that would eliminate the application of Shad-Johnson to the professional markets created under Section 6 of the bill. If this were done, it would lead to futures and other derivatives based on a single equity security being traded on the commodities exchanges free from virtually all government regulation.
Why does the creation of a blanket exemption for these markets give us such concern? We do not know what particular problems might arise from totally unregulated derivatives markets in equity products. We do know that there is a strong relationship between trading in derivatives and related cash markets. We also know that there is, at best, incomplete information on the extent or nature of trading in these markets. We also know that a market in which regulators have no legal ability to require trading reports, to impose "circuit breakers," position limits, trading halts or margin requirements if they should prove necessary, to obtain the information required to monitor the markets, or to mandate fair competition among participants, is a market that could present great potential dangers for the nation's regulated securities markets. To preclude regulators from having the means to step in if necessary to address systemic risk is neither wise nor necessary in order to achieve the primary objectives of this bill.
On Tuesday of this week, representatives of the futures exchanges presented to the Committee a proposal that would eliminate the application of Shad-Johnson to the professional markets created under Section 6 of the bill. If this were done, it would lead to futures and other derivatives based on a single equity security being traded on the commodities exchanges free from virtually all government regulation.
Why does the creation of a blanket exemption for these markets give us such concern? We do not know what particular problems might arise from totally unregulated derivatives markets in equity products. We do know that there is a strong relationship between trading in derivatives and related cash markets. We also know that there is, at best, incomplete information on the extent or nature of trading in these markets. We also know that a market in which regulators have no legal ability to require trading reports, to impose "circuit breakers," position limits, trading halts or margin requirements if they should prove necessary, to obtain the information required to monitor the markets, or to mandate fair competition among participants, is a market that could present great potential dangers for the nation's regulated securities markets. To preclude regulators from having the means to step in if necessary to address systemic risk is neither wise nor necessary in order to achieve the primary objectives of this bill.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Thanks again for proving you have no clue when it comes to this topic. Again, you have proven my point.
evince
Truthmatters
I admitt I dont have as much knowledge on this subject as you likely have SP but it will just spur me to learn more.
Ill be working on the subject over the time and will get back to it when I can feel I have upped my ante.
It may take me some time as I have some big personal commitments coming up this summer. An empty rental house next month and the Illness of my FIL who I will likely end up taking care of.
For now Im going to go on hold with this subject.
Ill be working on the subject over the time and will get back to it when I can feel I have upped my ante.
It may take me some time as I have some big personal commitments coming up this summer. An empty rental house next month and the Illness of my FIL who I will likely end up taking care of.
For now Im going to go on hold with this subject.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I appreciate the fact that you are willing to learn more on the differences. Like I said, I do understand the confusion as the media and the politicians have muddled the two together as though they are one to an extent. Likely for the same reasons. A lack of understanding of the futures market. Which again is understandable.
What you quote here proves SF correct and you wrong. It is ironic you posted it in answer to a post that said that Shad-Johnson dealt with index and individual stock futures and not commodities....
Which doesn't change that what you quoted directly stated that the Shad-Johnson accord directly worked with index and individual stock futures. That it mentions that one of the dudes was the Chair of a committee with "commodities" in its name doesn't change that one salient fact.
Again, ironic that the actual paragraph you quoted literally informed you that SF was right.
LOL. I'll be quiet then. I was answering as I read.
