NZ Minister to Depart in 2014

NZ Minister to Depart in 2014

[www.ipredict.co.nz]

Trading suspended.

The question has been posed as to whether a Minister of the current Government not being a Minister in the Government formed following the election would be sufficient for this contract to close at $1. This was not taken into account when writing the contract as that was not the purpose of the contract; however the wording is somewhat ambiguous with regards to whether or not this would be sufficient.

While we can see how the judgement statement wording is ambiguous, the admin's current position is that this is not a Minister departing Government but rather the dissoloution of the Government itself, and would therefore not cause the contract to close at $1.

However, we will leave this here for 24 hours to give traders time to express their views on whether or not this should be sufficient for the contract to close at $1, following which the admin will edit the judgement statement to clarify.

Okay, I'm going to take a vaguely academic approach to this...

The judgement statement says "departure must be permanent and by any means" and says that one way a departure may be permanent is when "leave lasts more than six months and after six months it remains unclear whether the Minister will return." As the judgement statement doesn't give a definition, departure is "the action of leaving, especially to start a journey". (source)

Given the above, a departure from a Ministerial position would be the action of leaving that Ministerial post. Leaving "by any means" would surely include a means arising from the election, given that this will last a minimum of three years which is longer than six months, and after six months it would still be unclear whether the Minister will return to a Ministerial post in the future.

To me, if you don't want it to include things like the election, you need to remove the "by any means" part and replace it with a list of situations which would be acceptable to fulfill the contract.

I just assumed that the purpose of the contract was to test whether a minister would leave office prior to the election, not as part of the election.

As Chris Tremain & Tony Ryall are retiring under the " minister of the current government not being a minister of the government following the election" scenario the contract would automatically close at $1 which is a nonsense. Why have a contract that automatically closes at $1?

I did think it was strange that the price had rocketed to 80c-90c, especially when "Judith Collins to resign" was at 15c as she is the spotlight at the moment.

If we all have to hire lawyers to check each contract before we trade it.... only one group wins there!

Maybe there should have just been one contract "Minister to resign before election"

Another issue to be resolved is whether the completed trades will be reversed once the contract definition has been changed.

Why, because someone thought they had a free lunch? Surely we should be trading the intention of the contract not the fine print.

Trade the big picture, don't try and pick holes in small flaws in the website.

Enjoy it for what it is, a bit of fun.

ps I have no position in this contract



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2014 07:18AM by Patzcuaro1.

Sometimes we do end up trading the "fine print". The Georgie Pie contracts spring to mind... the contract stated that they must launch a "range" of pies, not just one. As soon as they launched a second pie this year the contract closed. And how is one supposed to divine the "intention" of a contract if it doesn't mean exactly what it says?

People may very well have bought shares in this contract expecting ministers to "depart" after the election. That would be a valid interpretation. If that was not the intention and the contract is going to be redefined, then those who took positions in good faith should be reimbursed in my opinion.

I have no position in this contract either, not that it's relevant.

I don't have problem with Georgie Pie closing, it was more than one. I was actually short the contract so took a loss. Losses are a cost of doing business in this game.

It was a certainty that ministers were going to depart after the election, why have a contract that automatically closes at $1? In that case they may as well have started at 99.999c!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2014 11:09AM by Patzcuaro1.

Contract amended.

maxb: One of the purposes of the 24 hour period was to establish whether or not anyone had traded the contract based on a different interpretation. There does not appear to have been. However anyone who believes they have lost money as the result of the amendments to the contract should contact [email protected] so we can sort it out.

Looks like we need MIN3.DEPART2014

NZ Minister to Depart in 2014

[www.ipredict.co.nz]

maxb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sometimes we do end up trading the "fine print".
> The Georgie Pie contracts spring to mind... the
> contract stated that they must launch a "range" of
> pies, not just one. As soon as they launched a
> second pie this year the contract closed...

When I bought short on this I assumed range meant just that, a selection of several pies.And with the fine print stating more than one range of pies, I assumed McDs were unlikely to release more than one range of pies - ie a range of mince n cheeses, a range of apple pies, a range of classic scaldingly hot pies (pre thermonuclear). iPredict closed the stock after a second pie came out, but not a second range as I would've worded it.

But as you say maxB, who cares, thems the breaks in this game and we have to accept the unpires decision.