登录
注册
帮助
page
发表于 01-05-2006 - 03:02
Associated Press
Shell Agrees to Settle Bogus Trade Charges
By BRAD FOSS , 01.04.2006, 01:39 PM
Federal commodity-trading regulators on Wednesday announced that a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC has agreed to pay a $200,000 penalty to settle charges of making "fictitious" trades of crude oil futures contracts.
Full text: http://www.forbes.co.../ap2427624.html
精准.石油.论坛 forum.petro-china.com
第一页
壳牌同意就虚假交易赔款
主题评价：
多重回复
#5
- 一介布衣
-
- 群组： 认证会员
- 主题数： 98
- 注册日期： 10-15-2005
tree
发表于 01-05-2006 - 07:43
精准.石油.论坛 forum.petro-china.com
really? do you have arguements for that? I've heard about Shell's two cheatings so far. mius minus minus impression for Shell.
But is it true that "Shell has the poorest R/P ratio among the majors"? where to get information about these about the oil companies? Thx.
精准.石油.论坛 forum.petro-china.comBut is it true that "Shell has the poorest R/P ratio among the majors"? where to get information about these about the oil companies? Thx.
----
来源: 精准石油论坛 - 推进信息共享，提升科技水平
#6
- 武林名宿
-
- 群组： 认证会员
- 主题数： 1,642
- 注册日期： 11-15-2005
cced
发表于 01-05-2006 - 16:56
精准.石油.论坛 forum.petro-china.com
引用框（tree ＠ 2006-01-04, 03:43 PM）
really? do you have arguements for that? I've heard about Shell's two cheatings so far. mius minus minus impression for Shell.
But is it true that "Shell has the poorest R/P ratio among the majors"? where to get information about these about the oil companies? Thx.
But is it true that "Shell has the poorest R/P ratio among the majors"? where to get information about these about the oil companies? Thx.
:P
附加文件
-
cced.JPG (54.84K)
下载次数: 183
----
来源: 精准石油论坛 - 推进信息共享，提升科技水平
#8 Guest_onlooker_*
Guest_onlooker_*
发表于 01-06-2006 - 23:01
精准.石油.论坛 forum.petro-china.com
$200,000?! My friend, in oil industry, this is not considered as a peanut rather than a penalty! Shell is making around 100 million dollars per day and you think they would care about this?
By the way, this amount of penalty is quite common and nothing to the majors. Sometimes, they just do it on purpose to test the limit of rules.
精准.石油.论坛 forum.petro-china.comBy the way, this amount of penalty is quite common and nothing to the majors. Sometimes, they just do it on purpose to test the limit of rules.
----
来源: 精准石油论坛 - 推进信息共享，提升科技水平
#10
- 一介布衣
-
- 群组： 认证会员
- 主题数： 98
- 注册日期： 10-15-2005
tree
发表于 01-06-2006 - 23:55
精准.石油.论坛 forum.petro-china.com
引用框（onlooker ＠ 2006-01-06, 11:01 PM）
$200,000?! My friend, in oil industry, this is not considered as a peanut rather than a penalty! Shell is making around 100 million dollars per day and you think they would care about this?
By the way, this amount of penalty is quite common and nothing to the majors. Sometimes, they just do it on purpose to test the limit of rules.
By the way, this amount of penalty is quite common and nothing to the majors. Sometimes, they just do it on purpose to test the limit of rules.
oh? oh... interesting.
ahmm, I'd like to take some courses about economics yah....//thinking
----
来源: 精准石油论坛 - 推进信息共享，提升科技水平
#11
- 武林名宿
-
- 群组： 认证会员
- 主题数： 1,642
- 注册日期： 11-15-2005
cced
发表于 01-07-2006 - 00:10
精准.石油.论坛 forum.petro-china.com
引用
$200,000?! My friend, in oil industry, this is not considered as a peanut rather than a penalty! Shell is making around 100 million dollars per day and you think they would care about this?
I know it is not BIG MONEY for an oil company. However, it is about the reputation.
One person can be an millionare. Does that means he can steal a 10 bucks clothes from walmart? If he did so, would you trust him?
引用
By the way, this amount of penalty is quite common and nothing to the majors. Sometimes, they just do it on purpose to test the limit of rules.
This is about SEC. It is serious. Could you give an example that any other oil companies, which did something like this recently? (since you mentioned it is common)
Why a company want to test the limit of rules about fake trading?
----
来源: 精准石油论坛 - 推进信息共享，提升科技水平
#12 Guest_onlooker_*
Guest_onlooker_*
发表于 01-08-2006 - 11:42
精准.石油.论坛 forum.petro-china.com
Traditional wisdom in law/regulation is only doing things that they allows. However, there is another way which says that everything that laws/regulations do not stipulate is legally allowed. Everybody knows that laws or regulations have many loopholes. It is perfectly legal that companies make use of these loopholes. Of course, you can argue these loopholes may just be a result of different explainations of the laws.
The regulators can always make their own explainations or just add new amendments to their old regulations. That is why they just give such a tiny penalty to Shell wrt the above-mentioned "fictitious" case. Oil future is notoriously known for the trader's agressive use of the rules.
This is of course risky to the companies. Enron is one example. That is why majors like Exxon, BP and Shell have such big payrolls of many highly-talented lawyers.
But this has nothing to do with cheating, nor with reputation. This is also not in the jurisdiction of SEC.
精准.石油.论坛 forum.petro-china.comThe regulators can always make their own explainations or just add new amendments to their old regulations. That is why they just give such a tiny penalty to Shell wrt the above-mentioned "fictitious" case. Oil future is notoriously known for the trader's agressive use of the rules.
This is of course risky to the companies. Enron is one example. That is why majors like Exxon, BP and Shell have such big payrolls of many highly-talented lawyers.
But this has nothing to do with cheating, nor with reputation. This is also not in the jurisdiction of SEC.
----
来源: 精准石油论坛 - 推进信息共享，提升科技水平
第一页