So if I was an insider at Enron...[w]ould that mean the claim was false?
No, it wouldn't. However - and I'll assume that this was done unwittingly, as it's somewhat uncharacteristic to make someone else's point for them in an argumentative discussion - that example illustrates, exactly, why your points are risibly specious.
You're not making these claims as an "insider" on the dealing or proprietary desks that you're grinding an axe against: you're on the outside, essentially watching history. The numbers you see are the product of individual decisions and innumerable economic collisions, calculated and random. When you see a print, the story is long over and the market, even ninety seconds later, is different.
That doesn't mean that manipulation doesn't occur, nor does it mean that you're always wrong; however it does mean that your assertions are little more than guesses, no matter the lustre of savvy that you seek to impart to them.
I'm not going to post any examples...
Not that you could, either. At least, not before the regulators had launched a case, giving you and the other retailites a chance to jump and point, LOL.
Less artfully: even a broken clock is right twice a day.
...of creative order flow...
"Creative" order flow? What does that mean?
I'm talking about transactions. What does order flow have to do with anything?
...but maybe you could share some that you know of.
I don't know, from seeing prints, what the individuals' intentions were, who the opposing sides were, whether the various sides were acting as agents or principals, and various other aspects that would go into the determination of whether or not the transaction was 'manipulative', whether that's meant in a descriptive or a regulatory sense.
Evidently you've got a special gift there, my friend.
I know you said you can't, but I'm an optimist at heart.
No, you hold an exclusive claim to that brand of clairvoyance. Oh, that you might use it to increase freedom, property rights and peacefulness!
:-)
LPS5 |
