Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Naked Truth - Big Kahuna a Myth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BGR who wrote (72717)	10/30/1999 10:02:00 AM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86076

BGR, I agree that no entity would try to engineer an index unless it was to its benefit. This 'benefit' could extend beyond mere trading profits, however. As an outsider to Wall Street, I see much of the deal-making there as insular. For example, Goldman Sachs is happy to include other money-center banks as co-underwriters of IPOs, even though they are competitors. Of course, this is done to diffuse risk, but it is also done as an implied quid pro quo - "now, be sure to include us in that Sycamore Networks offering in October." Also in the Wall Street circle are the institutional clients of the money center banks. If the GE pension fund is laden with calls on the SPX, then Morgan Stanley might show their loyalty by helping them unload in an opportune manner. Their actions may result in a loss on their own books, but it would simply be considered a business expense, just as I might take one of my clients out to dinner. But, do I believe in a concerted, conspiratorial effort to rig the markets? No. There is too much simple human selfishness at work in the markets for such an effort to be successful. And so I agree that 'manipulation' cannot be a variable in a market model. If or when it occurs, it seems to occur for different reasons than at other times, and thus is indistinguisable from noise. AA