Have you actually looked into the allegations and the response from Jane Street? By your logic companies can commit any fraud in India because if they get caught you can just say: hey cant trust the country.
I think you tried to narrow down my general statement. What I'm saying is: not all countries and their regulatory bodies are equal. India is a pretty top-down country with quite a protectionist policy.
And I'm saying wallstreet has a reputation of breaking the rules. Like a lot. Are you suggesting regulatory bodies in the US are somehow better? The whitehouse literally has a shitcoin.
> And I'm saying wallstreet has a reputation of breaking the rules.
Among whom does wall street hold this reputation? Breaking which rules? How can that be, in an incredibly regulated industry where the government will try to put you in prison for just breathing? As they're doing to Andrew Left right now.
As far as I can tell, this is only a commonly held opinion among people whose primary source of knowledge on wall street is a DiCaprio movie. Rules are broken everywhere in the world, but nowhere do you have as many controls to prevent that as on wall street.
There's a reason why just about everyone with significant amounts of money trusts US financial infrastructure, fraud and rulebreaking is uncommon.
I have! JS was engaged in standard arbitrage and did nothing wrong. SEBI is coming after them because JS being able to do what it was doing is deeply embarrassing.
Standard arbitrage? JS bought stocks worth 572 crores and sold options worth an effective short value of 8,751 crores. 15x more. You dont short 15x your long position to do arbitrage. They were moving the market to suit their positions.
No, all you can read into that is where they believe the fair value to be. If it landed in the middle, you'd obviously have to pick up a much larger delta in options given the liquidity issues on Indian markets.
>They were moving the market to suit their positions.
They were correcting a mispricing, not creating one.
Lets see how that reasoning works out in court then. SEBI sent them a caution notice earlier asking them to stop and they didn't. Calling it a "simple arbitrage" is silly.
It's not that you want teams to be able to go rogue - you want teams to be able to work against a stable mission statement, that doesn't change every 5 minutes as the CEO changes mood
That's on the company owners[1], as represented by its board.
---
[1] Companies like Meta actually has two types of ownership: ownership of the company's current assets (economic equity), which is not the same as ownership of control in the company's decision making (voting power). The owners I reference here are the second category of ownership.
In the example of Meta, a quick search suggests Zuckerberg holds about 61% of the voting power.
reply