Irish Times fined for breaking market rule: Regulation 18

If the Financial Regulator had warned the Irish Times beforehand and if they had ignored that warning, then fair enough. Or if there was some element of insider trading, then fair enough. But for a first offence, it seems disproportionate.

Where does it leave websites across Europe which discuss shares? They presumably will have to stop doing so? Or people will have to give their real name and position.

Does this apply to any products discussed on Askaboutmoney? We don't discuss shares, but what about recommendations for funds?
 
If the Financial Regulator had warned the Irish Times beforehand and if they had ignored that warning, then fair enough. Or if there was some element of insider trading, then fair enough. But for a first offence, it seems disproportionate.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, if they are now 'reviewing its procedures and practices to ensure compliance with the rules.' - ignorance is not an excuse - this should have happened when the regulation was brought in.

Where does it leave websites across Europe which discuss shares? They presumably will have to stop doing so? Or people will have to give their real name and position.
Click to expand...

There's nothing to suggest this is EU legislation...
 
The suggests a work-around:
Last November, Phoenix magazine was fined €5,000 for a similar offence. The magazine now accompanies share items with a disclaimer stating that no element of the article in question is to be construed as a recommendation.
...
The first newspaper to be targeted was the Irish Independent after this writer penned an article stating Swisscom had made an approach to Eircom with a view to making a bid.

Citing the new regulations, the regulator wrote to the Irish Independent asking for the newspaper, among other things, to identify the source for the article.

The Irish Independent wrote back declining to identify the source and the matter was not pursued further.
Click to expand...
 
Could professionals answering on AAM be forced to identify themselves, while amateurs be forced to be labelled as "amateurs"? Not something I'd like to see happening by the way.
 
The IT admitted the breach. So accordingly, it must have thought that 10K was a small price to pay as opposed to fighting the issue. IFSRA seems to have ramped up its activities of late. I wonder how people on the various panels appointed by the Minister are thinking now. Firstly there was criticism of IFSRA for being too slow and now in various forums there are criticisims of it for doing exactly what it was set up to do.At the end of the day, we are talking about EU Directives which must be implemented. To date Ireland's corporate governance record could be called questionable. So may be what we are seeing is a regulator keen on leaving a mark. Interesting too that a while back the former Chairman of the IT was also Chairman of the IFSRA (but I believe he left his role at the IT sometime in January 2007 - so no issue there for present purposes). But to an observer it looks like IFSRA is a potential 'without fear or favour regulator' - but I am sure we could debate that one for days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top