Slater Arranging Stocks on iPredict re Adam Feeley

As everyone is no doubt aware, Collins has resigned over an email with outlines a campaign by herself and WO to undermine the SFO CEO Adam Feeley (contract: [www.ipredict.co.nz])

The email specifically states (http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/collinsemail.pdf):

Quote

I have also arranged with Matthew Hooton for iPredict ... to have a new stock released so people can invest in the probability of Adam Feeley getting the sack...

.

While we all accept that insider trading is encouraged, actively facilitating smear campaigns against the Serious Fraud Office (of all organisations!) is concerning.

So:

1. What is Mr Hootons comments on the matter?
2. What does Victoria University (via VicLink) think of the iPredict being used in this way by Mr Hooton (this site's "primary purpose is [supposedly] in academic research" after all)
3. What does the FMA, under which authority this site operates think?

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2014 01:35AM by Hamish.

Part of the problem is that New Zealand is too small a market. If someone with an agenda wants to manipulate a stock most of us won't have the funds or the inclination to "correct" the market. Still, if you see a spike or trough with no obvious cause, you know what to do.

I agree at the very least a statement from iPredict should be forthcoming on this matter for the sake of its own integrity.

l think people accept the tiny amount of capital available makes it easy for people to push their agendas and then run off to the media to report what iPredict is saying. Athough I'm not convinced iPredict has any great sway on the public.

I'm not sure there is going to be an easy answer other than increased transparency over what stocks are decided to be run. Perhaps stocks must be suggested by members, particularly ones relating to personalities.

NBR is particularly prone to reporting ipredict markets as some kind of objective fact, despite the fact that they're so easily manipulated by someone with a few hundred spare dollars.

It was clear to me Matthew Hooton had a lot of sway on ipredict last election when this site decided to suspend trading on New Zealand First vote % stocks in order to stop them showing at 5% or more on election day, and banned traders for the crime of buying them.

I hope those days are behind Ipredict.

It will interesting to see what happens on iPredict when we have a change in government, whenever that is.

I presume iPredict was set up just prior to the 2008 election and has mainly operated with a National lead government in power.

There does seem to be a lack of transparency in the stock selection process or maybe just a lack of communication.

I'd really like to know what the email says after "These stocks..."
[www.documentcloud.org]

Just been looking at this, zooming in, squinting...
I think I can make out "generate considerable political pressure and essentially allow the market to decide ..."
Anyone else care to have a go?

For what it's worth, I have no issue with traders who are not affiliated with iPredict attempting to manipulate the market. It adds liquidity by transferring their wealth into our pockets. If NBR et. al. want to report on it, well it's a pay-walled niche mag telling niche readers about things happening on a niche website. Has basically no relevance to the real world.

iPredict helpfully clarified that the site is currently run by students of VicUni (Hi there!) (http://salient.org.nz/news/ipredict-you-predict-we-all-predict):

Quote

Predict is wholly owned by Victoria University and is staffed by students of the University.

Matthew Hooton says that he does pro bono PR for iPredict (so, writing the odd press release?) and suggest stocks to the team there. I do hope that is the true picture of things, but it would really help if iPredict could make a formal statement about how stocks are picked and run. Transparency in how the site is operated is important.

Is this influencing iPredict's current refusal to payout $1 for JC's resignation on contract 'MIN3.DEPART.2014'
[www.ipredict.co.nz]

forum discussion here;
[www.ipredict.co.nz]

[ Hooton / slater/ Judith Collins ? ]


the judgement statement ('fine print') of 'MIN3.DEPART.2014' reads:
[in the 1st sentence of Judging Criteria]
'The purpose of this contract is to forecast the probability that a Minister in the New Zealand government will lose their position as a Minister in 2014'

but iPredict refuses to pay out. [details are on the above forum page].

This confluence of events certainly looks suspicious.

Quote

This confluence of events certainly looks suspicious.

Oh FFS.

iPredict ran a stock specifically on JC resigning [www.ipredict.co.nz] and publicized it on their twitter feed. Why on earth would iPredict run such a stock which highlights her demise, only to then decline paying out MIN3.DEPART to suppposedly cover it up?

Let's keep the conspiracy theories at least marginally credible.

I think I'll change my mind now that this person has flooded the boards with his objections... said no admin ever.

Do you think we still have an admin? They have been awfully quiet lately.

They made the tough call, that's the end of the matter. Best if they don't get too "social" with the traders.

Naw, it's uni holidays. No one's home.

I think MingZi has a point. Sometimes it seems we're on a hiding to nothing on some of these trades. For example, the fine print on the trade to do with John Key knowing who DotCom was before a certain date, leaves open the option that he knew his normal name, before a deed poll change or whatever. That won't trigger the $1 payout.

The other thing I find very strange about the iPredict website is not the limit on the $2500 per person per account over 6 months. It's the fact that once the 6 months is up, you continue to have staggered new funds available, based on the timeline of how you'd put funds in for the first 6 months. It's in their fine print, once again. Does that continue ad infinitum? It forces you to turn over some trades, if others become more important to trade. Is that not a stupid rule? Why not have access to $2500 at the very start of the next 6 month period, the same terms we started with? After all, most of the time we're buying fabricated ipredict trades, not trades off each other. They win, no matter what.