FIJI.PM

Dibbo: sticking too close to the letter gets you into trouble like InTrade had with its North Korean missile contracts. Remember that? They had a contract a couple years back, paid out at $1 if NK launched a missile that cleared NK territorial waters as confirmed by DoD or State Dept. While NK did launch such missiles (landed in the Sea of Japan), DoD and State released no statement about it so they closed at $0. That clearly violated the spirit of the contract.

I'm very happy for Matt to rule against me here though. It's a pretty tough call either way.

The problem Eric, is that the 'spirit' of the contract is simply what the majority perceive it to be.

The point of these trades is to accurately predict what will happen.

Someone may have been betting against that InTrade stock because they knew that the US would never officially confirm it.

That seems to me that the person had more accurate information about the stock and so by betting was improving its accuracy.

I think InTrade did the right thing in that case by sticking to the letter - as soon as you start going by the 'spirit' you'll see all sorts of adverse affects where people are basing their trading on how something may be interpreted rather than whether it happens.

I'm sure InTrade (and their users) learnt the lesson of how thorough you have to be with definitions and it's probably important that iPredict (and their users) learn the same.

In summary, the person with the most accurate knowledge is meant to be rewarded for 'sharing' that knowledge. If you don't stick to the letter and go with the spirit instead, you completely distort that incentive, as people won't know if they have the most accurate knowledge - even if they do.

InTrade was widely criticized for its decision on North Korea, and rightly so to my view.

[www.midasoracle.org]

I'm thinking this would be a mighty fascinating case to judicially review once there is a decision. Would get a lot of attention - getting a court to rule on whether the Commodore lost his position or not!

You mean asking a court to judicially review iPredict?? Might run in to a few jurisdictional problems there.

Then we could run a stock on the outcome of the judicial review!

Hahahhhahahahaha... Ha.

peteremcc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem Eric, is that the 'spirit' of the
> contract is simply what the majority perceive it
> to be.
>
> The point of these trades is to accurately predict
> what will happen.
>
> Someone may have been betting against that InTrade
> stock because they knew that the US would never
> officially confirm it.
>
> That seems to me that the person had more accurate
> information about the stock and so by betting was
> improving its accuracy.
>
> I think InTrade did the right thing in that case
> by sticking to the letter - as soon as you start
> going by the 'spirit' you'll see all sorts of
> adverse affects where people are basing their
> trading on how something may be interpreted rather
> than whether it happens.
>
> I'm sure InTrade (and their users) learnt the
> lesson of how thorough you have to be with
> definitions and it's probably important that
> iPredict (and their users) learn the same.
>
> In summary, the person with the most accurate
> knowledge is meant to be rewarded for 'sharing'
> that knowledge. If you don't stick to the letter
> and go with the spirit instead, you completely
> distort that incentive, as people won't know if
> they have the most accurate knowledge - even if
> they do.

Well said peteremcc. It is the normal position of the US to neither confirm or deny events that involve other countries that the US just happens to not get along with.

Those that had not picked up on that may well have felt upset but the judgment of that stock certainly seems to have been both "to the letter" and "within the spirit" of the contract.

It is absolutely essential with contracts on iPredict that, when we trade, we can rely totally on what is stated in the Judging Criteria. In fact the Judging Criteria is a part of the information we should all be using in making our assessments on any stock and it is, therefore, critical that the Judging Criteria be precise and totally reliable.

Let me repeat that -
"It is absolutely essential with contracts on iPredict that, when we trade, we can rely totally on is stated in the Judging Criteria. In fact the Judging Criteria is a part of the information we should all be using in making our assessments on any stock and it is, therefore, critical that the Judging Criteria be precise and totally reliable."

Some of you may find this NewstalkZB to be of interest. It's just possible that Frank Bainimarama is not quite the villan that the world wishes to paint him as being.

The privileges referred are the ones "that privileges one section of the community above another". These are racially based privileges and I believe that the NZ government, amongst many others, are strongly opposed to such things.

$1 it is

Folks, thanks for your patience. FIJI.PM has been closed at $1.

Decision here

As those of you who had a position in the stock at the time it was closed and received an email from me would have seen, we put some effort into researching the events in Fiji and speaking with officials at MFAT and a constitutional expert at Victoria University in coming to this view.

We also came to a position on the wording vs. intent debate that has been going on in this forum. Usually those ideals are aligned but for FIJI.PM they were not. As we explain in the conclusion of the linked document:

It is iPredict's policy to limit its interpretation of a contract to a literal reading of its terms, except when it is manifestly unjust to do so, and refer to a contract's intent only where there is ambiguity in those terms.

Please read the decision. Welcome your feedback and ideas.

Have a good weekend, all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2009 06:04PM by admin.

So be it.

Can't say I am particularly happy, having gone short a bit once it seemed FB was staying in power, but worth a few dollars to clear up the 'intent' versus 'letter of the contract' issue for future contracts.

Obviously a difficult decision and not taken lightly.

Thanks admin. Looks like a very well-reasoned decision and the feedback is appreciated.

Well done on a good decision in my view.

But more importantly, well done a good process for making such a decision, that will hopefully help prevent this in the future.

Not impressed at all - the trade price itself showed that the entire market was confused. The people that "won" this contract were thinking it was obvious they had won and the rest of us were thinking the same.

I was totally banking on the "meeting of the minds" on this contract - ie no real loss of power = no real loss of position. (lets be honest it was more like a "now you see it, now you don't type action)

I realise I am going to be written off as a frustrated and bewildered poor loser but I guess I am going to have to double check ALL my contracts I have entered into.

The confusion is in the closing. Why today? It was obvious to most when it went to 97+cents that they had lost, but to continue it on a week after the fact, even though I realise you would've been researching what was going on, well, it just doesn't ring as fair.

I believe in being informed, always, when trading, but this closing seems more academic than actual. Thats my thoughts, thanks for yours, if you want to debate it further, go talk to an expert.

Despite all this my thoughts are with the people of Fiji. May Frank find what he is looking for soon.

I understand your frustration Lax, but had the trading been about a loss of power, rather than a loss of position, there's no way I would have go long when I saw the announcement.

The contract said position, and he lost the position, so I went long.

As I said earlier though, it's a good lesson for iPredict and us users, to make sure we check the contracts very thoroughly.

Granted.

However is IPredict about getting the quick trade in after the fact or meant to be about accurately predicting what is going to happen?

You won the contract, and I congratulate you on that, but my boy Frank is still in power. Enjoy your bitter victory Pete.

Shouldn't iPredict have placed the stock in Trading Halt as soon as they recognised the uncertainty & commenced their enquiry ?

Once they started secretly consulting on the outcome of the contract with a select few experts , didn't an issue of potential insider trading arise with these experts & their associates ?

I was short, then I was long. Either way, I'm satisfied with Matt's explanation for how the contract has closed and I think we have all learnt something for the future (as well did with the GM contract). Thanks Matt.

Yeah probably a good idea for the future lanacek.

Makes sure trading is on the event and avoids people trading on what they think iPredict will decide.

I disagree...as Matt pointed out days ago, the fact that the contract wasn't closed means that we all had ample opportunity to close out any risk that we were uncomfortable with (as i did on reflection when I moved from being short to being long). The "insider" issue is not different to that present with every contract that we trade and we acknowledge that risk in Ipredict's terms and conditions when we start an account. Somebody out there has superior knowledge on whether Dunedin stadium is a starter, on whether Anderton is going to announce this year that he will not stand at the next election, whether Lee will be National's Mt Albert candidate etc etc. If we don't accept that we shouldn't be trading here.

Ianacek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shouldn't iPredict have placed the stock in
> Trading Halt as soon as they recognised the
> uncertainty & commenced their enquiry ?
>
> Once they started secretly consulting on the
> outcome of the contract with a select few experts
> , didn't an issue of potential insider trading
> arise with these experts & their associates ?


I have to agree that, the uncertainty should have been a full and adequate reason to place the stock in a Trading Halt. The reason for the halt should be announced and, as well consulting with the experts iPredict has access to, the thoughts and reasoning's of the traders should be part of the deliberations in deciding the next step.

There is, however, something we all must keep mind of. iPredict is still very knew, a lot has been learned so far and there is a lot more to be learned. I believe that iPredict is very well run and hopefully, will continue to improve from situations like this.

Now, I know I'm a biased Kiwi but, iPredict is IMHO the best prediction trading site going. It also has one of the best forums that I've been involved with. It certainly great for getting cobwebs out of the gray matter.

ORACLE - If I may say, your own posts have made a significant contribution to the quality of the forum.

Folks thanks all for the feedback.

A number of you have suggested a trading halt is a good idea. I agree, in view of the insider trading issue that you have raised. Through this process, I have been relaxed about trading occurring on this stock, reasoning that allowing trading lets traders who are unwilling or unable to bear the risk associated with this particular contract to share it or move it on to others who can bear the risk. But I take your point on insider trading.

Currently, the system we have has a halting mechanism that doesn't work - essentially the stock looks like it is open, and you find out it is halted only after you click 'Confirm' at the last stage of trading. That is a fast way to annoy a lot of people. On Monday I will ask that a workable halting system be developed for the next time this occurs.

I am confident that insider trading is not an issue on FIJI.PM. Three experts were consulted, only two were made aware that I am from iPredict, and both indicated they had never heard of us. The question put to these experts is whether Bainimarama lost his job, and if so why. I did not reveal my own view at the time, which was in any case still developing. None of the traders holding a position on FIJI.PM at its close last night joined the site after these experts were consulted.

As far as the timing of halting goes, I propose that when an uncertain event like what happened in Fiji 8 days ago occurs, a halt time be announced but trading be allowed to continue for a period to allow traders to close out their position if they want to. Then the halt, then the investigation. How does this sound?

Thanks again for all the feedback.

I think that idea would be good, at least with a halt announcement there is a clear sign of something going on, and potential issues have been discovered to the point it warrants a trade halt.

I know of new traders to iPredict that shorted Fiji stock after the announcement in Fiji thinking they were trading on the future rather than on recent past events. The halt announcement and subsequent trade halt would stop this.

Admin, thanks for all the work that has gone into this and thanks for listening to us. I'm sure that iPredict will continue to improve, grow and entertain in a manner that we can all be happy with.

LaxTrade, totally agree with your thoughts expressed in your first paragraph.

Legs, thanks for your comment. I appreciate it. I appreciate the forum also as, believe it or not, there is no know one in my circle of family and friends who has any interest in politics, the markets or even a bit of healthy debate.

Fair
Open
RESPECTFUL
Unafraid and
Meaningful

woah

I'm happy with the trading halt idea in the form proposed by admin.

There used to be a phrase often used...."The judges' decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into"
I can see the sense in that and I would be happy to accept that as one of the iPredict rules.
It seems to me that a few traders try occasionally to influence other traders, and a few traders try to influence the outcome in close calls. Perhaps that is part of the game.
And it's only a game isn't it?