Do you remember, your President Nixon?
Do you remember, the bills you have to pay?
Or even yesterday?
Have you been un-American?
Do you remember, the bills you have to pay?
Or even yesterday?
Have you been un-American?
Watch the Video of David Bowie here: young americans
Thoughts On WikiLeaks:
First, I think most of what WikiLeaks has exposed falls into the embarrassing category versus the State Secret category. Too much of our government (as is true in most governments) is classified as Top Secret, when the main criteria appears to be embarrassment. Is anyone shocked to find that many middle eastern governments feel Iran's President Ahmedinejad is a threat to peace in the region? Or that Russia's Dmitri Medvedev is considered "Robin" to Vladimir Putin's "Batman". Certainly no one likes the thought of private conversations exposed to the world, but we all know that in today's world there is very little that is truly private, especially when it comes to any form of communication. As the old saying goes, "If you'd be embarrassed if your mother read it on the front page of the paper, then don't say it or do it."
Now obviously certain government operations are much better if kept secret. Police should be allowed to develop their cases in secrecy. Its better if terrorist organizations don't know the counter-terrorist methods being used against them. Its better for national security if our military can develop weapons and strategies in secret. Yes, secrecy is a good thing, but often times governments can head down a slippery slope classifying everything as secret and persecuting anyone who tries to shine the light.
An extreme example of this is "Batman" Putin's Russia, where 52 journalists have been murdered since 1992 ( link to current journalist death count Russia ).
Every now and then it is up to the citizens of their countries to shine the light on those dark corners of government, sometimes the glare is harsh, but other times it is very enlightening. "Do you remember, your President Nixon?" Do you remember Woodward and Bernstein, and the resignation of President Nixon. We as citizens have an obligation to seek the truth, and to hold our elected officials to very high standards of accountability. Firms like WikiLeaks, with their raw data dumps (no editing as to what may be truly harmful to a nations security) are dangerous, but it's so hard to say who the right editor should be. Real news organizations have wrestled with this for years, and more times than not have gotten it right. It comes down to ethics. Unfortunately the blogosphere is a bit short on editors and ethics.
WikiLeaks has said that they are going to expose information taken from the hard drive of an executive of one of the largest US financial institutions. Is this something that should be exposed to the world? This is a private company with corporate secrets, does the world have the right to see the inner workings of a private company? Now if this company was doing something illegal, or unethical, than their shareholders and the appropriate authorities should be notified. But should everything on that hard drive be made public? What about proprietary research or methods of doing business that gave this company a competitive advantage, are you doing the shareholders any favors by sharing this data with the companies competitors. Of course not, editing is a very useful tool, it allows for the innocent to be protected, and yes Virginia, there are innocents out there.
In summary, I'm a fan of more information, especially when it exposes illegal or unethical behavior. But information, just for the sake of information, when no regard is given to the consequences of what might happen to those exposed is wrong. I know WikiLeaks argument is that the world should judge how to interpret the data. My argument is that a reasonable, ethical editor should first determine that the information doesn't harm the innocent before it is exposed.
For the lighter side of the WikiLeaks controversy watch: Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange SNL parody in HD
Thoughts On Insider Information:
While on the subject of information gathering, I thought I would throw my two cents worth into the discussion on insider information. Rarely a day goes by that we don't read something about the SEC's deepening investigation into insider trading and expert networks. To most in the profession, it appears that a highly chastened SEC, is stretching a bit in trying to protect the "little guy" by criminalizing data-gathering. Expert networks are groups of individuals that gather hard-to-obtain information for their own use or for sale to other investors. There is a difference between hard-to-obtain information and material non-public information.
The SEC says they are trying to make the markets "fair" for the "small investors." While that's a noble sounding cause, what exactly is fair? Is it fair to all, that no insider information is reflected in the price of a stock, so the day after the small investor buys he is blindsided by some corporate announcement that tanks the stock? Or would it have been "fairer" if insiders were allowed to trade on their knowledge, notifying the public whenever they did so. Therefore when the small investor buys the stock the day before a surprising corporate announcement, he is pleasantly surprised to find that the stock barely moves on the news.
See, I believe that if information, whether material non-public or just hard-to-obtain, is allowed to be traded on, then the price of a stock will come closer to reflecting all information. This will make all markets more efficient and fairer. The more information that is reflected in a stocks price, the more efficiently priced that stock will be, and subsequently the less susceptible to shocks it will be. This to me is the best way to protect small and large investors alike. The markets become much more volatile and dangerous the more the SEC restricts the flow of information. We have already seen this happen with Sarbanes-Oxley. Volatility has noticeably increased around quarterly earnings announcements because companies are afraid/unwilling to share material information prior to earnings announcements. This does not protect the little guy.
Market efficiency is an important goal, but fairness does not mean equal, it means equal opportunity. If individuals, or groups of individuals, work hard to obtain information and then trade on that information, it benefits all investors by making the markets more efficient. Fewer surprises, and more stability will go a long way in instilling confidence in the markets.
Wow, Did Obama Really Say This?
In President Obama's speech on December 7, regarding extending the tax cuts, he said the following:
"I've said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. Then, people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people. And I was not willing to see them get harmed."
So let me get this straight, the American people are being held hostage. By who? By high-end people? Are these "high-end" people not Americans? Or are they simply Americans that have worked hard, gotten good educations, taken risks, become successful. By this speech the President has shown that he is not Americas President, he is only the President of a portion of America, he doesn't even believe that successful, wealthy people are Americans. He stated it as clear as can be, and not one reporter questioned that stance.
"All night, you want the young American, young American."
Be careful out there, and keep the lights on,
Chris Wiles, CFA
For prior Rockhaven Views visit:
This article contains the current opinions of the author but not necessarily those of the Rockhaven Capital Management. The author’s opinions are subject to change without notice. This article is distributed for informational purposes only. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein are based upon proprietary research and should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed.
No comments:
Post a Comment