Wall Street

Wall Street analysts seemed torn between their enthusiasm for the new iPhone and their disappointment that Apple's announcement was simply in line with expectations.

Does the Internet Make Us Smarter or Dumber? Yes. —

Is the internet making us smarter or dumber? The Wall Street Journal put together a couple of provocative essays this weekend looking at that question: one from Nick Carr, whose most recent book The Shallows argues that the internet is making us less attentive and in general less intelligent (Wired has an excerpt here), and the other from Clay Shirky, whose latest book Cognitive Surplus argues that the internet is on balance a good thing for both individuals and society. So who wins this debate? Arguably only the reader, who might find something worthwhile in both viewpoints. Certainly neither one wins by a landslide — primarily because both of them are right.

To be fair, Carr’s essay is the most pointed, in that he refers to scientific studies that show the brains of multitasking internet users change as a result of their behavior, and says that these changes are making them less intelligent (at least according to some definitions of that word). Among other things, they are described as being weaker in “higher-order cognitive processes” such as “mindfulness, reflection, critical thinking and imagination” (just how someone measures a quality like mindfulness or reflection isn’t clear). The scattered and shallow thinking of internet users is contrasted with the virtues of book reading, because Carr’s says the written page “promotes contemplativeness.”

Shirky’s piece has less obvious research in it, and more of an impressionistic take on what digital media is doing to us as a society. His main point is that a tool like the internet — just like its closest relative in terms of disruption, the Gutenberg printing press — brings with it both the good and the bad, and the two can’t necessarily be untangled from each other. The increased freedom to create that the internet brings with it, he says “means increased freedom to create throwaway material, as well as freedom to indulge in the experimentation that eventually makes the good new stuff possible.” In other words, Shirky argues that we will become smarter as a society, if not individually.

But Carr’s conclusion isn’t just that the internet is making us stupid — in an interview with The Atlantic, he says that while there may be benefits to the new digital age of media consumption, it will make us “less interesting,” presumably because we won’t be having as many contemplative moments. This reminded me of my friend Paul Kedrosky’s recent essay at The Edge about the benefits of the internet on his thinking process. In it, he argued that while he was concerned about the impact of the internet on his ability to “think big, deep thoughts,” he had come to the conclusion that it was on balance a positive thing, because of the way it allowed for more “collisions and connections” between ideas — some of which inevitably led to new ideas.

The democratization of connections, collisions and therefore thinking is historically unprecedented. We are the first generation to have the information equivalent of the Large Hadron Collider for ideas. And if that doesn’t change the way you think, nothing will.

Anyone who has spent much time on the internet — especially using tools such as Twitter or any other social-media outlet — can probably sympathize with Carr’s comments about how has felt himself becoming more distracted by ephemeral things, more stressed, less deep. And the idea that multitasking is inherently impossible is also an attractive one. But are these things making us dumber, or are they simply challenging us to become smarter in new ways? I would argue they are doing both: to the extent that we want to use them to become more intelligent, they are doing that; but the very same tools can just as easily be used to become dumber and less informed, just as television can, or the telephone, or any other technology, including books.

So is the internet making us smarter or dumber? I would say the correct answer is yes. What do you think? Let me know in the comments.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr user rstrawser

WOW: Check Out Google's Amazing New Approach To Products And Media Relations! —

I've been writing about Google for almost a decade now--first as a freelancer for newspapers and magazines, then for my own blog, and for the last three years for SAI.

Until very recently--an hour ago--the vast majority of this Google-writing had been informed by my own analysis, research, and opinions, rather than by a deep network of relationships within the company. 

And that was liberating, actually.

Unlike a mainstream media journalist, whose job security often depends on maintaining a good relationship with a company (lest the competition get the scoops), I was free to write exactly what I thought.  I also wasn't neutered by worrying about what my friends and sources thought about what I was saying (As the most media-savvy folks will be quick to tell you, knowing and liking someone makes a writer think twice about slugging them in print.)  I also had written about the industry for years as a Wall Street analyst, so I felt I had a solid foundation for what I was thinking.

My freedom to do my own thing, I should add, was aided and abetted by Google, which, until recently, refused to talk to anyone who worked for anything that could be described as a "blog."  So the New York Times, et al, got fed the Google "news," and I was free to rant and rave without worrying about what Google thought of me.

(This trade-off, by the way, is one of the most galling things about the mainstream media's holier-than-thou attitude toward the blogophere. The "access-and-information-for-control-over-coverage" trade is still alive and well in the MSM, and it can have a major impact on what you read.)

I always thought this approach of Google's was shortsighted: For several years now, the blogosphere and new media have been as influential as mainstream media, so if a company was going to expend any effort on media relations, it seemed worth at least spending some of it on new media.  But it also didn't seem worth begging and pleading to get Google to talk to me, especially because, in the interests of preserving my access, I might then have to think harder about the ramifications of what I was saying.

So, aside from a few perfunctory interactions with some Google PR folks over the years, my coverage has been untainted by relationships with the company. 

But now that has changed!

An hour or so ago, shortly after I published my latest rant about a perceived shortcoming of Gmail, I received not one, not two, but THREE personal notes from senior executives at the company.

I won't embarrass these Googlers by publishing the emails (See? It's working already!)  But the message of the notes was this:

We understand the frustration. We're committed to fixing it. We are listening. 

(Specifically, the Googlers said they were committed to eventually letting me opt out of the feature that annoys me about Gmail--the "Conversations" format--and offering a "normal email" option for folks like me.  That's great news, and it will keep me using Gmail.  But specific product changes aren't what's important here.)

The more important message of the notes--left unsaid--was that Google was changing.  It was changing the way it approached customers and the media and, by association, everything.  And that, in my opinion, is the really good news here.

Google has grown so big so fast that--at least until recently--its communications strategy has not kept up with people's changing perceptions of the company. Google isn't a scrappy underdog anymore. It's also not the untouchable infallible growth company that is disrupting a self-satisfied industry and making investors and employees billions. 

Google's the big dog now. The company everyone's shooting at.  And its awesome power (and occasional arrogance) has not gone unnoticed--on Wall Street, on Main Street, and in Washington DC. 

So a warmer, fuzzier, and more human approach to these things makes sense.  As does a more human-centric approach to product innovation.

(Meanwhile, I'll try not to let my newfound access ruin me...)

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• No, Seriously, Google, This Gmail Thing Is Really Pissing Me Off
• Gmail: A Symbol Of Everything That Is Wrong With Google--And The Reason Apple Is A Far More Beloved Consumer Company
• What I Hate About Gmail...And How It Reveals Google's Achilles Heel(s)

iPad Goes International —

On Friday, Apple debuted their iPad tablet in nine countries. Apple already pushed back international sales a month with the explanation that the demand in the U.S. was too great to go international at that time.

May 28th saw the iPad on sale in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Sponsor

About a month ago, Apple had sold half a million devices and said inventory would not tolerate opening to foreign markets as soon as they had planned. Inventory is still an issue, according to the Wall Street Journal.

"Analysts estimate that Apple will sell about 1.7 million iPads in the April-to-June quarter and five million for the year world-wide."

Analysts also anticipate that about a third of Apple's sales will be U.S.-based and the rest shared with the remaining global market.

With over a million iPads sold, it has been described as "the fastest consumer product growth to the $1 billion revenue mark in history."

Discuss

By Don Clark and Justin Scheck, Reporters, The Wall Street Journal

In the high-stakes race to catch Apple Inc.’s (AAPL) hit iPad, the Android operating system that Google Inc. (GOOG) popularized in cellphones is emerging as an early front-runner.

Tablet-style computers—a moribund hardware category until the iPad started generating buzz earlier this year—are expected to be a big topic at next week’s Computex trade show, a major forum for product announcements by manufacturers of personal computers.

Acer Inc. and Dell Inc. (DELL) unveiled plans for tablet-style machines in advance of the Taipei event, and other companies, such as Asustek Computer Inc., are expected to provide details on similar devices. Makers of semiconductors and other components are also scrambling for a position in the market.

But when it comes to tablets, operating systems and applications may become even more important differentiators—just as software became a huge advantage for Apple with the iPhone.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Google's Latest Launch: Its Own Trading Floor — The search giant is hiring Wall Street vets to manage a $26.5 billion pile of cash

Developers are abuzz over a Wall Street analyst's claim that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer may make an appearance at the upcoming Apple World Wide Developers Conference in early June. Could this be the long-rumored debut of Silverlight for the iPhone?

Forbes Acquires Freelance News Startup True/Slant —

Just a couple of days after PaidContent ran a story about freelance news site True/Slant reportedly being in M&A talks, Forbes Media announced today that it has agreed “in principle” to buy the company.

True/Slant founder and CEO Lewis Dvorkin will be joining Forbes to lead all editorial areas at Forbes as Chief Product Officer effective June 1.

It isn’t much of a surprise for Forbes specifically to make that move. Dvorkin has after all been consulting with Forbes in April. Also, he was Executive Editor of the Forbes magazine from December 1996 to April 2000.

He was previously Page One Editor of The Wall Street Journal, a Senior Editor at Newsweek, and an editor at The New York Times. He’s also former Senior Vice President, Programming at AOL.

Furthermore, Forbes invested in True/Slant back in August 2008 together with Fuse Capital (the company raised a total of $3 million).

The terms of the acquisition have not been disclosed.

Word is circulating that before the weekend Slingshot Labs fired all its employees and drew the shades on the windows. The incubator for technologies that could be implemented into MySpace is now kaput.

Earlier this year rumor was out that perhaps Slingshot’s days were numbered. TechCrunch ran a story opposing the information, claiming that as one of Slingshot Lab’s projects (SocialPlan) was acquired by MySpace, the project had legs. Any word on employees being let go were mere merely employees being move from Slingshot to MySpace proper.

While that last bit may have been true, the larger thrust of the original ValleyWag story was true; Slingshot was in serious trouble. Now it seems that that trouble was terminal, the entire operation now resting six feet below.

The question becomes why the project was allowed to live on if it has been in the sights of shutdown for so long. There had been a lingering project and shield of protection that had kept Slingshot on a respirator, but  both failed.  When ex-MySpace CEO DeWolfe was pushed out, Slingshot entered decline.

Without a main cheerleader, it lost its sheen of executive privilege and untouchability. However a serious project to build a LinkedIn competitor for the Wall Street Journal was in the works, and for some time was enough to float the lab. That project parashies with Slingshot.

It’s all over for Slingshot, and with stagnant traffic and little innovation at MySpace it is hard to wonder if the future of the latter will follow the past of the former.

Image Credit.

Movies could be available as a VOD rental before DVD, Blu-ray -- for $20 to $30 each — The MPAA has often stated its desire to offer movies through video on-demand ahead of their release on DVD or Blu-ray -- provided the analog hole was closed -- and now that it has been, the Wall Street Journal reports Disney, Fox, Paramount, Sony, Universal and Warner Bros. are considering a pitch from Time Warner Cable to do just that. The price for cutting the usual four month wait for home viewing to just 30 days? As much as $20 to $30 for a rental. Sony's already tried experimenting with a higher price point on early delivery of Hancock and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs to BRAVIA HDTV owners, but at least they threw in a free Blu-ray copy with the former. So far the studios have only agreed that their current release strategy needs some sort of change, but unless they add some sweeteners we don't see this one shifting us from our current rental/purchase habits.

Movies could be available as a VOD rental before DVD, Blu-ray -- for $20 to $30 each originally appeared on Engadget HD on Mon, 24 May 2010 14:57:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink Electronista  |  Wall Street Journal  | Email this | Comments

On Friday I had an interesting conversation with Skygrid CEO, Kevin Pomplun. Who is he? He has one of the most popular apps on the iPad and it brings me the news. It’s the news app I reach for now before the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal.

Why are streams disrupting other news aggregation systems? Watch the video and find out.

AT&T back to screwing its customers fulltime —

So, we all know that Apple will be releasing the next version of the iPhone sometime this summer which usually means that a whole bunch of people are going to want to upgrade when that happens. The unfortunate part of that deal is that they end up having to pay some sort of early termination fee for their existing iPhone. Now as much as that sucks and really speaks badly of AT&T it seemed to be a price people were willing to pay.

Well that may change – drastically.

Word is, via the Wall Street Journal, that AT&T is going to jack up the price you will have to pay for that early termination (ETF) to an almost ridiculous price.

AT&T Inc. (T) plans to raise the fee it charges customers trying to get out of their smartphone wireless contracts early, a move that comes amid expectations that the carrier will lose exclusivity on the iPhone over the next year.

The Dallas telecommunications provider will raise its early termination fees to $325 from $175 on contracts signed for smartphones, as well as cellular-connected netbooks. But for contracts on feature or messaging phones, AT&T will drop the fee by $25 to $150. The changes, which don’t apply to current customers, take effect for new and renewing customers on June 1.

Victor Godinez at the Dallas Morning News Technology Blog has gotten confirmation from AT&T on this.

UPDATE: I just spoke with AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel, and he confirmed the numbers in the Journal report.

“The idea is, and we think that it’s fair approach, that if you spend less on a device, your early termination fee should be less,” he said. “If you spend more, your early termination fee should be more.”

He said the decision to implement the higher fee was unrelated to the iPhone or any other single phone.

I wonder if anyone truly believe that crap.

AT&T to Nearly Double ‘Early Termination Fee’ for Smartphone Contracts —

You stay classy, AT&T.

WSJ: Facebook, MySpace & Others Share Identifying User Data With Advertisers —

A report in the Wall Street Journal this evening reveals that Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and a number of other popular social sites are passing along data that advertisers could potentially use to identify users who click their ads. The article is focused on Facebook in particular, which appears to have been passing along the most data of the aforementioned sites and has also been embroiled in a major privacy controversy.

The Journal article doesn’t get into too much technical detail, but it sounds like Facebook and the others are failing to scrub ‘referring’ URLs that are always passed along whenever a user clicks a link. This is actually normal behavior — typically when you click a link on a website, the site you’re being directed to will get to see where you came from. The issue is that these social sites include some identifying information as part of their URLs; when you visit a friend’s Facebook profile, the resulting URL might include both your friend’s username and your Facebook ID, which could be used to associate you with the ads you’re clicking on.

That said, the Journal reports that the ad companies it contacted had not used the data:

Several large advertising companies identified by the Journal as receiving the data, including Google Inc.’s DoubleClick and Yahoo Inc.’s Right Media, said they were unaware of the data being sent to them from the social-networking sites, and said they haven’t made use of it.

However, the article doesn’t say that all ad networks that placed ads on Facebook were ignoring the data. We’ve reached out to Facebook to ask if it’s possible that smaller networks could have leveraged it.

The WSJ article notes that the discovery was pointed out back in August by researchers from AT&T Labs and Worcester Polytechnic Institute, but that the issue has persisted until this morning (Facebook and MySpace have now “rewritten some of the offending computer code”).

Image via alancleaver

The Wall Street Journal is reporting on what could be a major scandal brewing for Facebook, MySpace and other social networks: despite assurances to the contrary, the sites have apparently been sending personal and identifiable information about users to their advertisers without consent.

Large advertising companies including Google’s DoubleClick and Yahoo’s Right Media were identified as having received information including usernames or ID numbers that could be traced back to individual profiles as users clicked on ads. The data could potentially be used to look up personal information about the user, including real name, age, occupation, location, and anything else made public on the profile. Both of the aforementioned companies denied being aware of the “extra” data they were receiving and claim they have not made use of it.

The WSJ goes on to report that since raising questions about the practice with Facebook and MySpace, both companies have since rewritten at least some of the code that allowed transmission of identifiable data. Beyond those two companies, LiveJournal, Hi5, Xanga and Digg made the list of sites identified as sending identifiable information back to advertisers when a user clicked on individual ads.

The Journal found that Facebook went farther than most in sharing identifiable data, by sending the username of the person clicking the ad as well as the username of the profile they were viewing at the time. This news could hardly come at a worse time for Facebook, a company that currently faces a privacy backlash potent enough to make the cover of Time Magazine this month.

Outside of Facebook, the other companies named in the article maintain the data they send to advertisers contains the user ID of the profile a user is visiting when they click on an ad, and not the user ID of the visitor themselves. Both Google and Yahoo made strong statements refuting the idea that they would ever make use of any such personally identifiable data. Yahoo VP of global policy Anne Toth said of the allegations, “We prohibit clients from sending personally identifiable information to us. We have told them. ‘We don’t want it. You shouldn’t be sending it to us. If it happens to be there, we are not looking for it.’”

What do you think: is this another privacy-related stain on Facebook as well as other social networks, or much ado about nothing?

---

For more social media coverage, follow Mashable Social Media on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook

---

---

Reviews: Digg, Facebook, Hi5, MySpace, Twitter, Xanga

Tags: advertising, digg, facebook, facebook privacy, Google, hi5, LiveJournal, MARKETING, myspace, privacy, xanga, Yahoo

Facebook and MySpace are Giving Away Your Information to Advertisers —

Facebook and MySpace are Giving Away Your Information to Advertisers is a post from Chris Pirillo

Tsk, tsk. Did we honestly not see this coming? The Wall Street Journal has uncovered proof that both sites – along with several other popular social networking venues – have been giving away a hell of a lot of information about you to both Yahoo and Google… despite promising that they do not. Both Google’s DoubleClick and Yahoo’s Right Media were identified as being recipients of these little goldmines of information in the form of usernames. That information can lead advertisers to find out your location, your real name, your age and even your occupation. Both companies, of course, deny knowing about (or using) this “extra” information.

All around the Internet, it’s normal for advertisers to receive the address of a page where a user clicked on an ad. However, they normally learn nothing more about the user than an unintelligible string of letters and numbers that are non-traceable. With social networking sites, those addresses themselves usually include the usernames which can direct advertisers right to a profile page chock full of personal information. Along with Facebook and MySpace, there were several other sites found to be participating in this lovely practice: LiveJournal, Hi5, Xanga and Digg are also sending the username or ID number of the page being visited. Even Twitter was found to pass web addresses with usernames of a profile being visited on their site. For most of these sites, the data identified the profile being viewed, but didn’t always show the person who clicked the ad or link. Facebook went further than the others, as usual: in most cases, they signaled which username was doing the clicking along with the name of the person or page being viewed.

The big question of the day is whether or not these sites knew that this type of information was being sent. They, undoubtedly, are going to deny that they had any clue at all. If that is true, though, then I say they need better developers. Any code monkey worth having would have known how to interpret the code they had written, and what it was doing at any given moment.

• How Private is Facebook?
• Search Your Public Facebook Updates
• How to Protect Your Privacy Online
• Facebook and Privacy: Will the Twain Never Meet?
• Facebook Serves Up Unwanted Apps
• Leave Your Privacy at the Door
• Social Media Questions and Answers
• Fact or Context: The Ocean That is the Internet
• Facebook Bug Delivers Mail to the Wrong People
• MySpace Tom is Not Your Friend

What Business is Wall Street In ? —

My last two posts were designed to stimulate discussion.  But lets talk the real problem that regulators, public companies, investor/shareholders and traders face.  The problem is that Wall Street doesn’t know what business it is in. Regulators don’t know what the business of Wall Street is. Investor/shareholders don’t know what business Wall Street is in.

The only people who know what business Wall Street is in are the traders. They know what business Wall Street is in better than everyone else.  To traders, whether day traders or high frequency or somewhere in between, Wall Street has nothing to do with creating capital for businesses, its original goal. Wall Street is a platform. It’s a platform to be exploited by every technological and intellectual means possible.

The best analogy for traders  ? They are hackers. Just as hackers search for and exploit operating system and application shortcomings, traders do the same thing.  A hacker wants to jump in front of your shopping cart and grab your credit card and then sell it.  A high frequency trader wants to jump in front of your trade and then sell that stock to you. A hacker will tell you that they are serving a purpose by identifying the weak links in your system. A trader will tell you they deserve the pennies they are making on the trade because they provide liquidity to the market.

I recognize that one is illegal, the other is not. That isn’t the important issue.

The important issue is recognizing that Wall Street is no longer what it was designed to be.  Wall Street was designed to be a market to which companies provide securities (stocks/bonds), from which they received capital that would help them start/grow/sell businesses. Investors made their money by recognizing value where others did not, or by simply committing to a company and growing with it as a shareholder, receiving dividends or appreciation in their holdings.  What percentage of the market is driven by investors these days ?

I started actively trading stocks in 1992. I traded a lot. Over the years I’ve written quite a bit about the market. I have always thought I had a good handle on the market. Until recently.

Over just the past 3 years, the market has changed. It is getting increasingly difficult to just invest in companies you believe in. Discussion in the market place is not about the performance of specific companies and their returns. Discussion is about macro issues that impact all stocks. And those macro issues impact automated trading decisions, which impact any and every stock that is part of any and every index or ETF.  Combine that with the leverage of derivatives tracking companies,  indexes and other packages or the leveraged ETFs, and individual stocks become pawns in a much bigger game than I feel increasingly less  comfortable playing. It is a game fraught with ever increasing risk.

The Pimco (who I think are the smartest guys on the Street) guys talk about a new normal as it applies to today’s state of  the world economy. I think just as important is the new normal as it applies to Wall Street.  Wall Street is now a huge mathematical game of chess where individual companies are just pawns.  This is money in the bank for the big players like Goldman, Morgan, etc. Why ? Because the game of chess is far too complicated for 99pct of the institutions out there investing money. So to keep up, they turn to Goldman, Morgan and the like to invent products for them. “You don’t know how to play the housing boom, let us show you”. “You think the housing boom is about to crash, let us show you how to play that”. “You think that PIIGS are in trouble because they can’t print money to pay debt holders, let us create a product to allow you to play that game”  The big houses have the best hackers in the business and they put together the games and sell them to the many, many institutions managing Billions and Billions of dollars.  They are the ultimate Hackers selling their attacks to the highest bidder, regardless of which side they are on. That is a new normal.

Again, I’m not passing judgement one or the other.  I’m just recognizing what is going on in the financial world today.

It’s rare for companies to go public these days. Just as rare for secondary offerings.  The only thing that keeps me in the market is that most of the stocks (not all) pay dividends or some other sort of cash payout. For the first time in my life, I bought outside the United States.  I bought Australia in a big way because it is becoming increasingly hard to find new domestic investments that are not influenced by the “hackers” and the games being played on a macro level. It’s hard to believe, but evaluating countries as an investment is now easier than evaluating companies . Even with all the unrest in Europe. Or maybe because of it.

So back to the original question. What business is Wall Street in ?

Its primary business is no longer creating capital for business. Creating capital for business has to be less than 1pct of the volume on Wall Street in any given period. (I would be curious if anyone out there knows what percentage of transactions actually return money to a company for any reason). It wouldn’t shock me that even in this environment that more money flows from companies to the market in the form of buybacks (which i think are always a mistake), then flows into companies in the form of equity.

My 2 cents is that it is important for this country to push Wall Street back to the business of creating capital for business.  Whether its through a use of taxes on trades, or changing the capital gains tax structure so that there is no capital gains tax on any shares of stock (private or public company) held for 5 years or more, and no tax on dividends paid to shareholders who have held stock in the company for more than 5 years.  However we need to do it, we need to get the smart money on Wall Street back to thinking about ways to use their capital to help start and grow companies. That is what will create jobs. That is where we will find the next big thing that will accelerate the world economy.  It won’t come from traders trying to hack the financial system for a few pennies per trade.

And solutions won’t come from bureaucrats trying to prevent the traders from hacking the system. The only certainty when bureaucrats step in is that the law of unintended consequences will smack us all in the head and the trader/hackers will find new ways to exploit the system that makes them big money and even more money for the big institutions that develop products for the other institutions that are desperate to play the game.

Regulators have got to start to recognize that traders are not investors and vice versa and treat them differently. Different regulations. Different tax structure.  Different oversight. Individual investors and the funds that just invest in stocks and bonds are not going to crash the market.  Big traders who are always leveraging up and maximizing the number of trades/hacks they make will always put the system at risk.  We need to recognize that they do not serve much of a purpose other than to add substantial risk to the global economy.  That their stated value add of liquidity does not compensate the US and World Economy nearly enough for the risk of collapse they introduce into the system.

Wall Street as a whole needs to be in the business of creating capital for companies and selling shares to investors who believe they are shareholders.  The Government needs to create incentives for this business and extract compensation from the traders/hackers for the systemic failure level of risk they introduce.

There will be another crash, because there are too many players looking for the trillion dollar score. They can’t all win, yet how many do you think wouldn’t risk everything, even what is not theirs, for that remote chance to score big ? Put another way, there is zero moral hazard attached to any trade. So why wouldn’t traders take the biggest risk possible ?

ShareThis