senior executives have some legal liability responsibilities that deserve compensation
Has an NZ government employee ever been held liable in this way, except when they’ve engaged in out and out fraud or malpractice? I don’t think Don Elder’s paying us back for any of the money he blew gambling on coal prices rising forever, just as a for instance?
I really like the idea of linking highest salaries to the lowest in any organisation. If the boss wants a pay rise she/he needs to figure out a way of paying the lowest more first.
It's not the same thing but Kiwiburn has sold out for the first time ever (1200 tix).
Generally, as any fule kno, a multiple of people will click "Going" or "Like" on Facebook than will actually buy tickets. I think a niche gig will get a fairly predictable level of core support - booking this years name acts and hoping the mainstream hoards will buy your expensive tix is always going to be tricky (I'm surprised the acts' management didn't know this, but I guess NZ is a nice place to maybe go and there aren't that many other bookings on a Monday/Tuesday).
It’s all about committees of other CEO types ratching up the salary and pretending that running an organisation with a guaranteed income from tax money is equivalent to running a company where people actually have to want to buy your product.
The US caps salaries – nobody in the (federal) public service can out-earn the Vice-President. (NZD350k).
NZ on the other hand has some of the highest public sector salaries per capita in the world. (The Met police commissioner gets about NZD600k – despite having 5 times the workforce and 3 times the population).
If NZ capped public sector salaries, I’d suspect that those who want to make money would go and work in something more entrepeneurial, and we’d have no difficulty finding able people to promote who actually want to serve the public. (It would also help private sector businesses by reducing the competition for managers, and encourage people to pursue careers as professionals rather than seeking the big money in management).
Insider trading is the point of prediction markets of this kind in many ways
The incredibly tiny scope, where attempts to do any such thing would be extremely obvious to whoever is watching, something that all the other traders are financially incentivized to do
Which is it: insider trading is intrinsic, or insider trading can't happen?
As Graeme pointed out upthread, iPredict was licensed as a "market for the trading of the futures contracts". If it hadn't, it would have been an illegal lottery.
The government agreed internationally and passed domestic legislation to place requirements on financial institutions to do due diligence on their customers. There wasn't any exception in any of this for "interesting research by academic institutions involving small amounts of money" and consequently, I'd expect that the Minister was advised not to except iPredict from money laundering legislation.
I'd suggest that where possible, laws should offer certainty, not allow workarounds for mates. If the FMA wants to authorise prediction markets, then it should do so properly as they've done with peer to peer lending (something that will end in tears, in my view).
It's all very well taking the traditional NZ "they're a bunch of good blokes eh, let's cut down on the red tape" approach" - until it all goes pear shaped.
why an oil company employee betting on petrol price movements is doing anything unethical - except in terms of possibly misusing their employer’s confidential information
Misusing confidential information is one problem. Having a conflict of interest such that the employee can change a price to make money for themselves (as opposed to setting an optimal price for their employer to make money) is another. In the case of interest rates, there's the possibility of abuse of public office.
Would Vic Uni regard it as ethical to operate a market for stolen goods, just as an academic exercise to find out what prices they sell for?
In pretty much all real futures markets, insider trading is illegal for the above reasons.
Well plugged in politically, anyway. I don't know if anyone else has ever tried something like this, but it strikes me that the FMA wouldn't have been as helpful to a random bunch of kids with a startup or an overseas betting operation like IG Index.
There are a whole bunch of lines of research that would deliver interesting results but aren't legal/ethical. I'm actually surprised that the universities ethics committee approved iPredict, given the scope for insider trading (such as an oil company employee making a few bucks by predicting petrol prices). And they've had seven years to gather data.
Maybe the way out of this would be to lobby to amend the gambling laws.
What they were doing was running a small stakes online casino. Personally, I have no problem with that, but Parliament did some years ago, and they gave TAB and the National Lottery a monopoly of such things.
To get round this, they got the FMA to license them as a futures market. Which worked fine, except that such markets fall roundly inside money-laundering law. The law doesn’t really allow for small-stakes futures markets, because they don’t really exist, except as a way to get around gambling laws.
There's a reasonable argument for allowing small-stakes online gambling, (especially as there isn't any way to stop NZers using offshore sites) but not on a basis that one company gets an end-run round the law by being a university / mates with the National Party.
the North Sea with it’s unending gentle drizzle on shallow and sheltered coastal waters
I just saw this, and it reminded me of the time I was out there on a 50,000t ship in 80knot winds, with waves breaking on the bridge.
So Bridges doesn't like Farrar and is taking his toy away?