Peter Lik

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Aaron801 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,173
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

MyReality wrote:

If the masses is the US middle class, I do not think they can afford his prints. The masses eat at McDonald's and other fast food. I think mister Lik's clients are sit-down restaurant people or maybe upper middle class.

To find people where the majority of them look like they are in good shape, you have to go to the Bay Area or San Diego area in California.

And yet, I know that there are wealthy people who prefer nothing more than fast food... Look at the president of the US! The same is true for taste in the arts as there are plenty of rich folks with pretty unsophisticated tastes, which I think (with all due respect) is maybe the market niche that someone like Peter Lik is able to capitalize on...

-- hide signature --

my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS +1 more
MyReality
MyReality Contributing Member • Posts: 802
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

True.  Every rule has an exception.

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro +8 more
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,760
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

MyReality wrote:

I have been thru two of his physical galleries and have never seen anything that I thought was faked. He claims his pictures a natural. I tend to trust someone more who spends a month in a nature blind in a forest. He is not the type of photographer that Lik is. I consider Lik's photos to be somewhere between a picture and a graphic.

Just his website gives me more reason to trust him.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
SPorter New Member • Posts: 4
Re: Peter Lik

If photographers were his clients, I'm sure he would be a lot more interested in keeping them happy. But, they are not, so it's really doesn't matter all that much what we think. He's a marketing genius, he knows his market, and does it extremely well.

stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,760
Re: Peter Lik

SPorter wrote:

If photographers were his clients, I'm sure he would be a lot more interested in keeping them happy. But, they are not, so it's really doesn't matter all that much what we think. He's a marketing genius, he knows his market, and does it extremely well.

Except "what we think" was the subject of this thread.

My feeling is that he mostly creates cliche' schlock that is generally worthless from an artistic standpoint. But oh so jealous me would jump at the chance to do what he does.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 10,836
Re: Peter Lik

stevo23 wrote:

roytempest wrote:

I was fortunate enough to travel to Las Vegas on business last week and, while I was there, took a quick look inside one of Peter's very expensive stores. Being a member of the proletariat, obviously I didn't buy any of his work.

I remembered that there is a lot of controversy in the photography community around his work.

I am not knowledgeable enough to know how "original" his work is, but I know there has been some controversy around whether certain images are composite, how much PP is reasonable, and the relative merits of his extraordinary ability to self-promote.

That said his images certainly are striking.

Thoughts?

The complaint is that they're mostly just cliche' and lack originality and I tend to agree.

He has also come up the whole representation issue before. Where he has implied photos are one thing when they clearly aren't. Calling it lying.......

Many of his images are quite stunning in person and certainly some are quite beautiful. I enjoyed walking through his Caesars gallery. Color me jealous actually.

Dude's good. No argument there

And if I had that portfolio and was able to promote myself into that kind of prosperity, I wouldn't pay much attention to my critics.

I am sure he doesn't. The critics don't pay the bills

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,880
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

lilBuddha wrote:

Teila Day wrote:

Bill Ferris wrote:

Whether we're talking about his photos of Horseshoe Bend, Antelope Canyon, various night skyscape compositions or other of his photos, Lik has lead the public infatuation with a variety of locations and subjects. Most anybody who's visited and photographed these places in the last decade, whether they know it or not, have been influenced in those decisions by Mr. Lik.

I was thinking that most people shooting the canyons would've been shooting the canyon(s) irrespective of his work with the plethora of photographs of the popular Canyons and other points of interest posted online.

A second point most comments have missed is Mr. Lik's skill at building and maintaining his personal brand.

Absolutely. Photography is about business first as far as I'm concerned... if you have that Lik'd (couldn't help myself) then you'll realize a palatable profit irrespective of your level of expertise.

Lik understands better than most that the reason a person will pay 10s of millions of dollars for a Picasso is, it's a Picasso.

I think he understands it like most people understand it... An original Picasso sells for what it does because it's an investment blessed by discerning individuals who heavily invest in art. Nothing against Mr. Lik, but I don't think he's in that category yet but I hope he hits a home run in that context.

I do not. As much as I like marketing outside the confines of the established art world, I'd prefer it done more honestly.

Marketing outside of the establishment isn't dishonest by default.  It's business... No different than some car guy going on and on about how about how an exotic motorcar will increase in value... when most depreciate; but nothing wrong with artificial markets to keep/drive prices up.  Again- that's business.

Lady Gaga understands the value of personal brand.

Fact.

Andy Warhol was the master of personal brand and that was generations before a phrase had been coined to identify that concept.

Not a stretch, and practically a true statement.

Peter Lik understands and masters personal brand, as well.

Again.. Fact.

Agreed

Not agreed.

You don't have to agree with truth, but that doesn't change the truth.

My father doesn't listen to contemporary music, but he's heard of Gaga.

Many who listen to contemporary music haven't heard of Gaga.

He doesn't like "modern" art, but he knows of Warhol.

Many don't know Warhol or any well-known artist by their art for that matter.

He does like photography, but he's never heard of Lik. Whilst anecdote ≠ anecdata, I'd wager Lik's penetration into the collective consciousness is not very deep.

I agree..  because most people don't know artists (outside of what's been rehashed to death in secondary school) dead or alive.

This isn't some guy "appealing to the masses and making a few bucks." His photography has established trends the public and other photographers embrace. He's also built a personal image and brand thay support an elite pricing structure for his product: himself.

To me he does very well at appealing to the masses and making a lot of bucks (excellent by the way) just like McDonald's or Chick-fil-a.

People pays tens of thousands for his prints, not because the photos are demonstrably better than all others - though his customers undoubtedly hold them in high regard, it's because the prints are Peter Liks.

Those buying his prints (probably) don't make up same market as those hunting down and backdoor trading to acquire a particular Picasso. Two different socioeconomic demographics I'd say.

Well, no. Whilst it is true that most people cannot afford Picasso, the art market contains nearly every range of collectible price.

I didn't mention the "art market" at large.  I was very specific and factual.

And socio-economic status is not just two points on a graph, but every point on the line between.

The example given was exactly two points on a graph and arguably polar opposite.

Collecting art for value is a gamble, but if one accepts that gamble, there are loads of choice within established paths that have better chance of succeeding than buying a Peter Lik.

Caveat emptor, for certain, but that doesn't mean shady marketing gets a pass.

Shady marketing is one thing.... but plain ole' common sense defying marketing isn't any more shady than some grubby guy at a Fair telling you to step-right-up and take a crack at winning a $2 teddy bear for $10 worth of tickets in order to make the attempt at winning... again, that's not shady, it's just so fiscally ridiculous that it's considered 'carnival' (figuratively and actually).

-- hide signature --
lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 4,377
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

Teila Day wrote:

lilBuddha wrote:

Teila Day wrote:

Bill Ferris wrote:

Whether we're talking about his photos of Horseshoe Bend, Antelope Canyon, various night skyscape compositions or other of his photos, Lik has lead the public infatuation with a variety of locations and subjects. Most anybody who's visited and photographed these places in the last decade, whether they know it or not, have been influenced in those decisions by Mr. Lik.

I was thinking that most people shooting the canyons would've been shooting the canyon(s) irrespective of his work with the plethora of photographs of the popular Canyons and other points of interest posted online.

A second point most comments have missed is Mr. Lik's skill at building and maintaining his personal brand.

Absolutely. Photography is about business first as far as I'm concerned... if you have that Lik'd (couldn't help myself) then you'll realize a palatable profit irrespective of your level of expertise.

Lik understands better than most that the reason a person will pay 10s of millions of dollars for a Picasso is, it's a Picasso.

I think he understands it like most people understand it... An original Picasso sells for what it does because it's an investment blessed by discerning individuals who heavily invest in art. Nothing against Mr. Lik, but I don't think he's in that category yet but I hope he hits a home run in that context.

I do not. As much as I like marketing outside the confines of the established art world, I'd prefer it done more honestly.

Marketing outside of the establishment isn't dishonest by default. It's business... No different than some car guy going on and on about how about how an exotic motorcar will increase in value... when most depreciate; but nothing wrong with artificial markets to keep/drive prices up. Again- that's business.

Lying is unethical, regardless of what business it is in. And you are, as an American, using the car business as an ethical guideline?

Lady Gaga understands the value of personal brand.

Fact.

Andy Warhol was the master of personal brand and that was generations before a phrase had been coined to identify that concept.

Not a stretch, and practically a true statement.

Peter Lik understands and masters personal brand, as well.

Again.. Fact.

Agreed

Not agreed.

You don't have to agree with truth, but that doesn't change the truth.

You clipped that and it removes context. My not agreed was followed by the bits below that explained was I was not agreeing with. which is the personal brand comparisons to Lady Gaga and Andy Warhol. More people have heard of wither of them than have heard of Lik. His penetration of public consciousness is fairly small. Unlike either Gaga or Warhol.

My father doesn't listen to contemporary music, but he's heard of Gaga.

Many who listen to contemporary music haven't heard of Gaga.

He doesn't like "modern" art, but he knows of Warhol.

Many don't know Warhol or any well-known artist by their art for that matter.

He does like photography, but he's never heard of Lik. Whilst anecdote ≠ anecdata, I'd wager Lik's penetration into the collective consciousness is not very deep.

I agree.. because most people don't know artists (outside of what's been rehashed to death in secondary school) dead or alive.

No. Because he markets to a small audience.

Shady marketing is one thing.... but plain ole' common sense defying marketing isn't any more shady than some grubby guy at a Fair telling you to step-right-up and take a crack at winning a $2 teddy bear for $10 worth of tickets in order to make the attempt at winning... again, that's not shady, it's just so fiscally ridiculous that it's considered 'carnival' (figuratively and actually).

His sales people would tell customers that their investment is hanging on their wall. Not ethical when there is no reason to expect an appreciation in value.

Unethical by definition.

Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,880
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

lilBuddha wrote:

Marketing outside of the establishment isn't dishonest by default. It's business... No different than some car guy going on and on about how about how an exotic motorcar will increase in value... when most depreciate; but nothing wrong with artificial markets to keep/drive prices up. Again- that's business.

Lying is unethical, regardless of what business it is in. And you are, as an American, using the car business as an ethical guideline?

Police are able to lie. Attorneys (prosecutors) are able to lie which puts ethics into perspective. Ethics is a fanciful concept, especially when you can't rest assured to even be able to find a shining example of ethics at the typical church or Disneyland for that matter.

Ethics is like beauty.. who's beholding it and who controls the context? That's the only real-world thing that matters when it comes to ethics.

Lady Gaga understands the value of personal brand.

Fact.

Andy Warhol was the master of personal brand and that was generations before a phrase had been coined to identify that concept.

Not a stretch, and practically a true statement.

Peter Lik understands and masters personal brand, as well.

Again.. Fact.

Agreed

Not agreed.

You don't have to agree with truth, but that doesn't change the truth.

You clipped that and it removes context. My not agreed was followed by the bits below that explained was I was not agreeing with. which is the personal brand comparisons to Lady Gaga and Andy Warhol. More people have heard of wither of them than have heard of Lik. His penetration of public consciousness is fairly small. Unlike either Gaga or Warhol.

.. and I previously addressed that.

Surely you know that you can't compare a photographer to Lady Gaga. Let's not turn our face from reality as even our common sense tells us that there are a number of porn stars that more people can name than Lik. But that's not relevant because it's a ridiculous comparative analysis. Apples and oranges. Likewise...

He does like photography, but he's never heard of Lik. Whilst anecdote ≠ anecdata, I'd wager Lik's penetration into the collective consciousness is not very deep.

I agree.. because most people don't know artists (outside of what's been rehashed to death in secondary school) dead or alive.

No. Because he markets to a small audience.

I think you mean he simply reaches a small audience, because compared to popular music, hardly anyone is interested in fine visual art if it doesn't contain nudity, so of course the audience is small.

Shady marketing is one thing.... but plain ole' common sense defying marketing isn't any more shady than some grubby guy at a Fair telling you to step-right-up and take a crack at winning a $2 teddy bear for $10 worth of tickets in order to make the attempt at winning... again, that's not shady, it's just so fiscally ridiculous that it's considered 'carnival' (figuratively and actually).

His sales people would tell customers that their investment is hanging on their wall. Not ethical when there is no reason to expect an appreciation in value.

Again, it's no difference than a car dealership carrying on about how a an exotic (motorcar) is an "investment" when most lose value no matter how slowly.

Unethical by definition.

Let's stop with the "ethics" stuff. Here's the bottom line on ethics. A critical and irrefutable facet of ethics is "obeying the law of the land"; when it comes to ethics, different professions have different 'views' (and laws) on ethics. What is not appropriate for a physician (bioethics) may be ok for an attorney per the ABA (American Bar Association) and vice versa... throw common business ethics into the mix and you've added another set of standards to the soup.

Insider trading isn't "ethical" but it's a norm. Remove all the unethical trades and you're left with a trading deficit. I digress.

Adults buying a Lik because they like it is one thing, but for an investment is something else and anyone who can't find the time to do a simple internet search or ask a friend to do it for them is flirting with becoming the next sidewalk 'sucker' getting ripped off.

https://news.artnet.com/market/new-york-times-exposes-peter-lik-photography-scheme-264858

I won't blame Lik for people having a lack of basic common sense.

-- hide signature --
Leswick II Senior Member • Posts: 1,102
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

Insider trading isn't "ethical" but it's a norm.

Not sure by who's account.  If it was a "norm" Martha S. wouldn't put her time in jail. People ignore laws or ethics.  As far as Lik is concerned, it's mostly about marketing.

lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 4,377
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

Teila Day wrote:

lilBuddha wrote:

Marketing outside of the establishment isn't dishonest by default. It's business... No different than some car guy going on and on about how about how an exotic motorcar will increase in value... when most depreciate; but nothing wrong with artificial markets to keep/drive prices up. Again- that's business.

Lying is unethical, regardless of what business it is in. And you are, as an American, using the car business as an ethical guideline?

Police are able to lie.

In America. In the UK, not so much which indicates a different view of ethics.

BTW, legal does not equal ethical.

Attorneys (prosecutors) are able to lie which puts ethics into perspective.

Not in court, as I understand it.

Ethics is a fanciful concept,

No, no it isn't. It is subjective, at least to a point.

especially when you can't rest assured to even be able to find a shining example of ethics at the typical church or Disneyland for that matter.

Ethics is like beauty.. who's beholding it and who controls the context? That's the only real-world thing that matters when it comes to ethics.

Lady Gaga understands the value of personal brand.

Fact.

Andy Warhol was the master of personal brand and that was generations before a phrase had been coined to identify that concept.

Not a stretch, and practically a true statement.

Peter Lik understands and masters personal brand, as well.

Again.. Fact.

Agreed

Not agreed.

You don't have to agree with truth, but that doesn't change the truth.

You clipped that and it removes context. My not agreed was followed by the bits below that explained was I was not agreeing with. which is the personal brand comparisons to Lady Gaga and Andy Warhol. More people have heard of wither of them than have heard of Lik. His penetration of public consciousness is fairly small. Unlike either Gaga or Warhol.

.. and I previously addressed that.

Surely you know that you can't compare a photographer to Lady Gaga. Let's not turn our face from reality as even our common sense tells us that there are a number of porn stars that more people can name than Lik. But that's not relevant because it's a ridiculous comparative analysis. Apples and oranges. Likewise...

Ansel Adams has a recognition beyond the photographic world, Maybe not the same penetration as Gaga, but still outside. As do Weston, Brady, Cartier-Bresson, lange and a few others.

He does like photography, but he's never heard of Lik. Whilst anecdote ≠ anecdata, I'd wager Lik's penetration into the collective consciousness is not very deep.

I agree.. because most people don't know artists (outside of what's been rehashed to death in secondary school) dead or alive.

No. Because he markets to a small audience.

I think you mean he simply reaches a small audience, because compared to popular music, hardly anyone is interested in fine visual art if it doesn't contain nudity, so of course the audience is small.

No, markets. He sets up shop in tourist areas where people with money will see them.

Shady marketing is one thing.... but plain ole' common sense defying marketing isn't any more shady than some grubby guy at a Fair telling you to step-right-up and take a crack at winning a $2 teddy bear for $10 worth of tickets in order to make the attempt at winning... again, that's not shady, it's just so fiscally ridiculous that it's considered 'carnival' (figuratively and actually).

His sales people would tell customers that their investment is hanging on their wall. Not ethical when there is no reason to expect an appreciation in value.

Again, it's no difference than a car dealership carrying on about how a an exotic (motorcar) is an "investment" when most lose value no matter how slowly.

One can go to Bonhams and see Ferraris roll across and sell for far more than it sold for. So it happens. Not so much a Peter Lik.

Regardless, that on industry misleads is not an excuse for anyone else doing it.

Unethical by definition.

Let's stop with the "ethics" stuff. Here's the bottom line on ethics. A critical and irrefutable facet of ethics is "obeying the law of the land";

No, it is not. By definition it is not.

when it comes to ethics, different professions have different 'views' (and laws) on ethics. What is not appropriate for a physician (bioethics) may be ok for an attorney per the ABA (American Bar Association) and vice versa... throw common business ethics into the mix and you've added another set of standards to the soup.

Insider trading isn't "ethical" but it's a norm.

It is illegal. Flat out illegal. Ask Martha Stewart.

Remove all the unethical trades and you're left with a trading deficit. I digress.

Add stock markets to what you are not understanding

Adults buying a Lik because they like it is one thing, but for an investment is something else and anyone who can't find the time to do a simple internet search or ask a friend to do it for them is flirting with becoming the next sidewalk 'sucker' getting ripped off.

https://news.artnet.com/market/new-york-times-exposes-peter-lik-photography-scheme-264858

I won't blame Lik for people having a lack of basic common sense.

People who buy anything for an investment are responible for learing the risks.

That does not then excuse the dishonest. Life is not Zero Sum.

Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,880
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

Leswick II wrote:

Insider trading isn't "ethical" but it's a norm.

Not sure by who's account. If it was a "norm" Martha S. wouldn't put her time in jail.

Speeding is the norm.  Only a fraction of speeders get an infraction on any given day.

Tax cheating is the norm. Only a fraction of tax cheats get legal action levied against them.

Inside trades are as common as water is wet.  Only a fraction get caught..

-- hide signature --
Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,880
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

lilBuddha wrote:

Teila Day wrote:

It is illegal. Flat out illegal. Ask Martha Stewart.

Why on earth would you say something so silly? Speeding is illegal but most drivers in the US drive above the posted speed.

Remove all the unethical trades and you're left with a trading deficit. I digress.

Add stock markets to what you are not understanding

The fact is, what I wrote is correct. Remove all the inside trades and you gut a lot of the trading creating a deficit of trades in this example (a notably lessor amount of trades). People not understanding finance realities is another reason the poor stay poor... they’re oblivious and apathetic to many realities that directly and indirectly affect them.

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/02/10/insider-trading-has-been-rife-on-wall-street-academics-conclude

Makes one want to roll their eyes. This article is akin to someone “bringing to light” the fact that people aren’t honest on their taxes or that millions of people on any given day break the speed limit or don’t come to a complete stop at stop signs... anyone with a lick of sense, in this case financial sense, should know that inside trading is as common as a dusty elephant.

I suggest you research (you shouldn’t even have to!) peer reviewed economic papers to get a better clue to financial reality governing the world..

-- hide signature --

Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com

MyReality
MyReality Contributing Member • Posts: 802
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

"Speeding is the norm. Only a fraction of speeders get an infraction on any given day.
Tax cheating is the norm. Only a fraction of tax cheats get legal action levied against them.
Inside trades are as common as water is wet. Only a fraction get caught."

From what I have seen while driving, speeding is the norm.

I think tax cheating is not the norm, because there are gray areas in the tax code.  Exploiting a grey area or loop hole is not cheating.  Trumps accountants are experts at this in a big way.  The IRS catches most minor tax cheats and corrects their returns.  The major ones are prosecuted.

Insider trading is very minor in total, because most people do not have the knowledge of inside trades to exploit them.

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro +8 more
Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,880
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

MyReality wrote:

"Speeding is the norm. Only a fraction of speeders get an infraction on any given day.
Tax cheating is the norm. Only a fraction of tax cheats get legal action levied against them.
Inside trades are as common as water is wet. Only a fraction get caught."

From what I have seen while driving, speeding is the norm.

it is the norm.

I think tax cheating is not the norm, because there are gray areas in the tax code. Exploiting a grey area or loop hole is not cheating.

I specifically said cheating, not tax avoidance.  There are creative tax code advantages that the average joe can benefit from in the tax code but the average joe expects someone to do the homework for him/her.

Trumps accountants are experts at this in a big way. The IRS catches most minor tax cheats and corrects their returns. The major ones are prosecuted.

The IRS doesn’t catch most cheaters irrespective of the amount owed not paid.

Insider trading is very minor in total, because most people do not have the knowledge of inside trades to exploit them.

That’s incorrect. Most people don’t trade in the first place. If a series of inside trades affect a $6,000,000,000 advantage, then that affects more than just a few people. The bottom line is that money trumps the law, and where there’s a lot of money to be made there’s inside trades. That’s the nut of it.

What gets me is that the average man is so willingly blind to the financial realities of the world.

-- hide signature --

Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com

MyReality
MyReality Contributing Member • Posts: 802
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

Of the total number of people trading in the stock market, including day traders, the number of people with inside corporate knowledge as an advantage, is miniscule.

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro +8 more
thenoilif Senior Member • Posts: 1,209
A great example of.....

how being better at marketing than photography will lead to financial success more often than the opposite.

The private photography studio industry that dominated the 70s up until smartphones was predicated on this concept.

Since smartphones, IG and influencers have taken this model and adapted it to the latest technologies.

lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 4,377
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

Teila Day wrote:

lilBuddha wrote:

Teila Day wrote:

It is illegal. Flat out illegal. Ask Martha Stewart.

Why on earth would you say something so silly? Speeding is illegal but most drivers in the US drive above the posted speed.

What is silly is the way you chop out context to make chasing down the inanities tiresome.

Remove all the unethical trades and you're left with a trading deficit. I digress.

Add stock markets to what you are not understanding

The fact is, what I wrote is correct. Remove all the inside trades and you gut a lot of the trading creating a deficit of trades in this example (a notably lessor amount of trades). People not understanding finance realities is another reason the poor stay poor... they’re oblivious and apathetic to many realities that directly and indirectly affect them.

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/02/10/insider-trading-has-been-rife-on-wall-street-academics-conclude

Makes one want to roll their eyes. This article is akin to someone “bringing to light” the fact that people aren’t honest on their taxes or that millions of people on any given day break the speed limit or don’t come to a complete stop at stop signs... anyone with a lick of sense, in this case financial sense, should know that inside trading is as common as a dusty elephant.

The study doesn't support your claims. First, it is of a relatively recent trend and suggests that a specific act, TARP, is the source of current issues. Current. Your economic theory would mean that act would have no effect, the exact opposite of what the study purports.

Regardless, even were you actually correct; commonality of a unethical act is not an excuse for the act.

Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,880
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

MyReality wrote:

Of the total number of people trading in the stock market, including day traders, the number of people with inside corporate knowledge as an advantage, is miniscule.

If you think that, IMO you're far behind... but let's just agree to disagree on that point.  Again, it's not just about the number of people wrongly trading, but rather the amount of money affected by those who engage in illegal trades.   You're commenting on what doesn't come close to mattering the most.

l--
Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads