jackgavigan

Indeed, when I did my trader exams back in 2007, the regulations treated foreign exchange very differently from other asset classes as far as pre-positioning was concerned, because of the way the FX market traditionally functioned (e.g. No centralised exchanges), although I believe the regulations have changed in the past few years (i.e. after this particular incident).

It's very telling that the UK regulator presumably didn't see any grounds for prosecution or enforcement action. This is a UK bank dealing with a UK client, in the UK. There's no logical reason for a US prosecutor to be involved.

This happened about a month ago, right? I think it's far too early to conclude they don't bear a grudge. Those crows you see around your hours are probably surveilling your habits and movements, so they can plan your demise.

It's no coincidence that the collective noun for a group of crows is "murder".

;-)

It's deeply saddening to think that hundreds of people were more interested in protecting their position and pension than they were in doing the right thing. It's an astonishing failure of moral courage.

Under the new regulatory regime, a re-run of the 2008 financial crisis would have engendered far less FUD and Lehmans could well have survived. Nobody would have been scared that Lehmans' potential inability would have represented an existential threat to their firm because only the CCPs would have been exposed. (This is a gross simplification but you get the point.)

However, as the article makes clear, the counterparty risk is now all concentrated in just a few CCPs. We also don't know how the market will evolve after central clearing becomes mandatory. The markets have a habit of behaving with a certain ruthless efficiency when it comes to exploiting loopholes or opportunities created by regulation so, like the army that prepares for the last war, the new regulatory regime may not protect against emergent market risks and behaviours.

The fate of London's financial sector will depend on what sort of trade deal the UK and EU negotiate. The worst case scenario would be if the UK was denied access to the single market for financial services, including "passporting". However, the UK imports a lot more from the EU than it exports[1], so countries like Germany and the Netherlands are likely to accept a deal which means London continues as Europe's financial capital, in order to protect their own economies.

1: https://twitter.com/JackGavigan/status/747338413754331136

Specifically, this report on Sky News: https://youtu.be/2Gybrn6XLh0

Unless his name is Paddington.

If that doesn't happen, I would expect the UK to shift from membership of the EU to membership of the European Economic Area (alongside Norway and Iceland) or similar.

1: http://copenhagensuborbitals.com/to-make-fire/

2: https://youtu.be/f-4n-2MtECE?t=25s

DAO token holders can express their agreement or disagreement by choosing which fork they want to attach to.

I think they will. In time, one of us will be proven right.

The attacker tried to exploit a flaw in TheDAO's code to steal its ether, not because it was designed to allow that or because that was the intent of its designers, but because he could.

Well, the Ethereum community can also do something that was neither intended nor planned for. You say that doing so would be a breach of contract. I say: Well, go ahead and sue me.

I beg to differ. If those events come to pass, the DAO will be far from dead!

However, the rest of us are also perfectly free to adopt a fork if we wish.

The media love bad news. It's up to us to combat that negative spin.

https://blog.crazyegg.com/2014/03/03/website-conversion-funn...

Have you profiled your likely userbase? Many businesses run Windows and are, therefore, likely to be using Internet Explorer.

So, while bring "cash-flow positive" means that the company's cash balance isn't decreasing, it doesn't mean that it's profitable.

By the time they launch, the notion of a centralised stock exchange may well be outdated.

This sort of behaviour shouldn't be a disciplinary matter - it should be a criminal matter.

The real problem is that there is no accountability in these organisations. Even if a complaint by Rachel triggered an investigation, the culture in organisations like this is to protect their own. The worst that is likely to happen is that those responsible would be given "words of advice", which is more like a pat on the back than a slap on the wrist.

1: Incidentally, the Border Force is part of the Home Office, which is led by Theresa May, who is behind the push for 1984-style mass surveillance of the UK population.

A lot of weapons testing takes place at China Lake (where the disruption will originate from), including missiles and guided bombs that use combination GPS and inertial guidance systems.

They're probably testing various weapons systems' ability to continue to function in the face of GPS jamming.