personal. views own. views not necessarily correct. value of my views can go down as well as up. 'Moderately nefarious' (the BBC), ex-'tornado of raw emotion'
@mrs_harket@Early90sIndie@inspiralsband I was at the Newport show. Remember jumping up and down next to a bloke in full-on biker leathers wondering how he wasn’t passing-out in the heat.
@odtorson@SMTuffy@Williamw1 Agreed. Whole passporting thing has its issues - if there weren’t opportunities for RegArb even within the EU, ESMA wouldn’t have to wang on so much about common supervisory standards & approaches
@odtorson@SMTuffy@Williamw1 I can’t argue there’s any ‘right’ to free markets but I can believe that to take active steps to prevent/remove free markets in FS shouldn’t be normalised - politicians are supposed to work “for us” & if some vague populist notions knowingly harm “us” then I expect better of them
@odtorson@SMTuffy@Williamw1 That’s fair, although we should be wary of normalising this. And if true (which it is) we should also be clear that the UK’s position (understandable, mendacious or pearl-clutching though it may be, depending on ones perspective) is fair enough as well. It’s *all* politics.
@odtorson@SMTuffy@Williamw1 According to the EC, it will expect “expect stronger safeguards against risks when that third country's impact on the EU markets is high” which understandably includes the UK. But if UK adopts IFR/D, what current real non-politics objections could EC have to equivalence?
@ajtfreeman@sabrush@Williamw1 And he’s not wrong. That would mean loss of ability to enter into UK’s own equivalence decisions (albeit that if HMT takes lead on that process rather than FCA, then UK’s own equivalence process no less political than EU’s)
@sabrush@Williamw1 Which (goodness help me for saying) is fair comment, especially as we haven’t been told what those terms might be. Heck, we’ve even been told that equivalence isn’t on table bc the EC isn’t sure to what we need to be equivalent (presumably until MiFID and MAR reviews complete).
@robertshrimsley Oh aye, but Shorting on an honestly held belief (however rash) that the FT is to publish further revelations isn’t... well it’s not what BaFin alleges: “malicious hedge funds working in coordination with media outlets to bring it down”; or “coordinated short selling attacks”
Still investigating the short sellers tho.
And this makes no sense unless suspicious that one of the shorters was Wirecard staff or a whistleblower or there’s an argument that shorters w no objective but to destroy Wirecard pushed execs to fraud in order to shore-up stock price
@FyldeFan@CrimeGirI This just announced...
But on your point: it’s not just international criminality, it’s domestic too. Accounting and FinServ criminality just *very* difficult to spot and/or prosecute. That’s why FCA etc have a criminal remit too. And in this case, BaFin chose to pursue FT
@CrimeGirI@FyldeFan it’s no surprise: regulators supported Wirecard, investigated journos; audits gave clean bills of health; numbers didn’t add up but only if a FS expert without a confirmation bias looked at them; biggest detractors of Wirecard other than FT were firms which make money shorting