←back to thread

518 points bwfan123 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
thedailymail ◴[] No.44484295[source]
>While these actions were not a breach of any regulation, SEBI said that the “intensity and sheer scale” of their intervention, and the rapid reversal of their trades “without any plausible economic rationale, other than the concurrent activity in and impact on their positions in the BANKNIFTY index options markets,” was manipulative.

I don't get the basis for regulatory action if they weren't in "breach of any regulation." Not a fan of financial skullduggery, but it does seem important for government agencies to play by explicit, non-arbitrary rules. (Or maybe this article just got it wrong?)

replies(3): >>44484552 #>>44484673 #>>44485763 #
1. throwaway2037 ◴[] No.44485763[source]
In finance, regulation has two major flavours: prescriptive (specific) and "in spirit" (broad). US is mostly prescriptive, but the Howey test is a good example of "in spirit". Singapore is basically the inverse. Both can work well.