GOLDMAN SACHS BANS EMPLOYEES FROM BETTING ON PREDICTION MARKETS

[alani123]

It was something that was coming. More blankets have increasing amounts of insider information and stocks so it's something that can benefit them even with their personal money when prediction markets start betting on IPOs and they can make impossible bets come true.

But maybe they should also ban these lrlke from insider trading then?

[Sanitough]

Many companies are now seeing the threat of prediction market, which is why they are taking their own action; they have to screen their current rankand files and incoming employees because a ban is useless if these employees can manipulate their way and bet on the prediction market.
What happened to Google is huge to ignore, and companies will have to keep guard of the leak or their information being exposed on prediction market.

It does not look like a full threat because it is just information being leaked, and then bettors can put money based on their prediction.

Of course, those who have the information will have an advantage. Goldman is just giving directions and making it clear that it is unethical for their employees to bet because they might have information coming from within the company.

It can also create a scandal for the company, as people might think they are feeding inside information for their own benefit.

I would say it is a full threat because, as you said, it could create a scandal, and that can destroy the company.

Business reputation is very important. They reached that level because of trust, and once it is proven that their staff used inside information and benefited from it, they will be investigated. Even if it is not yet proven, the investigation alone can already create doubts among investors, and that is what can really ruin a company.

For a big company like this, many eyes are on them, so it is just right that they make this kind of action to remind everyone inside that it is against the law.

[Orpichukwu]

To be honest banning them entirely from gambling could have been the best options as I know because even though are only limited to certain range of gambling it is possible for them to still leak the information to others or relative to gamble for them. So the best should be that as long as you associated their company they should entirely ban all staff not to gamble anymore and that is what other companies out there should be emulating in order to make good records of their staff not to jeopardise and compromise with their data.

You are thinking it too far, and what you are also suggesting is like taking the right of the employees away from them, and even if they are restricted from gambling entirely, it does not also prevent what you are afraid of from happening since they can still sell out information if they cannot be controlled down to those who they want to share it with. What the company is doing is trying to control its workers from causing issues for the company at large.

[Davidvictorson]

This approach taken by Goldman should also be emulated by other big organisations which know that information from their organisations can be used by their employees, like the recent case of a Google employee making $1.2m from a prediction market for having access to information which is not yet public; at least it will limit the involvement of employees from taking advantage of the information they have in such situations.

Goldman Sachs has updated its personal trading policy to ban employees from wagering on prediction market contracts, according to Bloomberg. Employees at Goldman Sachs are now prohibited from placing prediction market bets on event contracts involving specific companies, electoral outcomes, financial market performance, macroeconomic data, and geopolitics, after the bank revised its personal trading rules, Bloomberg reports. Sports and entertainment bets remain permitted under the policy.

The good thing here is that the company only limits its workers from the type of events they can stake on but does not entirely stop them from betting, which is the same thing as respecting the employees' rights at the same time as protecting the company from anything that could result in conflict.

This is quiet interesting and a good move too.
They do not want to be drawn into any future law suit or anything that will set their company up for drags.
But how will they be able to monitor this and tell if an employee is going against this policy?

[Chinesebaby]

This approach taken by Goldman should also be emulated by other big organisations which know that information from their organisations can be used by their employees, like the recent case of a Google employee making $1.2m from a prediction market for having access to information which is not yet public; at least it will limit the involvement of employees from taking advantage of the information they have in such situations.

This is a good idea, because not only will it reduce the rate of irresponsible gamblers in that Goldman investment banking company, but it will now make whatever secrets the staff of the bank receives to remain more private without it been exploited by its greedy staff that may want to take advantage of it. Because for the fact that Goldman didn't just completely ban its employees from gambling, but only restricted certain categories as it relates to banking investments services and politics, but rather allowed gambling on like Sports games, like football, basketball and baseball. It was indeed a nice initiative. And other companies should emulate this rather than a total ban.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

It seems logical to me, in the same way that casino staff are forbidden from gambling in the casino. And in the case of the casino, it goes even further: even if a member of staff is merely a poker or blackjack dealer, they are forbidden from betting on any other type of game. In the case of Goldman Sachs, the ban is partial.

The good thing here is that the company only limits its workers from the type of events they can stake on but does not entirely stop them from betting, which is the same thing as respecting the employees' rights at the same time as protecting the company from anything that could result in conflict.

[danherbias07]

If players and sportsmen are ban from gambling or betting on sports then definitely, employees and staffs of big organizations should literally follow the same rules and guidelines in order to uphold the integrity of the prediction market. Especially those who have access to confidential information as well as the ability to influence decisions, because they can easily be tempted to cheat the system for their own personal gain.

Good point. Perhaps, they need to add this to their contract, just like the sportsmen have. No betting on sports bookies for them, and no betting on prediction markets for investment office employees.

I see some who are against it after reading the thread, but imagine Goldman Sachs having some information that is not out on the internet yet, and someone in their employees tries to take advantage of that. It can cause chaos in the financial world, and if they do it rarely, no one might notice. So, it's best if they just ban them all, but maybe there should be some restrictions on the ban. i.e., Should it be in office hours only?

In my past job, I handled getting information about investment numbers, and sometimes you cannot get them on the investment websites or even on Bloomberg, which means it is not been posted yet. The only way to get it is to call them directly, and in my experience, Goldman Sachs is one of the firms that is very strict on that.
I think they are doing something right, but of course, there will be a negative reaction, so there's a need to put some rules on it.

[Oasisman]

What about predicting bitcoin price and other predictions like gold, ethereum, solana, crude oil and similar ones? I do not see any good reason their workers should not bet on some assets that their workers can not manipulate. I prefer to bet on sports on gambling sites, but I visited prediction market because I want to bet on bitcoin price.

I think so, because that falls under financial market performance. Though this can be reviewed and can be considered because these assets are hard to manipulate on their end. I think that's just one of the cons of working under the company that directly holds information about the future. But they are not limited to not placing a betting prediction at all or holding off from owning an asset.
 
I actually looked it up on the internet whether they specifically include or exclude cryptocurrency that falls under the financial market performance, but I did not find anything that specifically points out any exclusions.

This is quiet interesting and a good move too.
They do not want to be drawn into any future law suit or anything that will set their company up for drags.
But how will they be able to monitor this and tell if an employee is going against this policy?

I don't think they can monitor every employee. I think, if suspicion arises, everyone can be investigated, and that's the only time they are able to determine who's breaking the policy. Just like every other inside-job incident.

[fullfitlarry]

[..snip..]

In my past job, I handled getting information about investment numbers, and sometimes you cannot get them on the investment websites or even on Bloomberg, which means it is not been posted yet. The only way to get it is to call them directly, and in my experience, Goldman Sachs is one of the firms that is very strict on that.
I think they are doing something right, but of course, there will be a negative reaction, so there's a need to put some rules on it.

Yes, before I was also working in a company that really are very strict with regards to their data as we have accessed to it. Even signing NDA so that there will be no data leaked or something. So I guess, for those who understand the consequence, it's good that they are doing it.

To shield not just their employees but their names as well. Just imagine if some of their employees are caught and then it drags their name with insider information. It will really hurt their image.

[Natalim]

Yes, before I was also working in a company that really are very strict with regards to their data as we have accessed to it. Even signing NDA so that there will be no data leaked or something. So I guess, for those who understand the consequence, it's good that they are doing it.

To shield not just their employees but their names as well. Just imagine if some of their employees are caught and then it drags their name with insider information. It will really hurt their image.

That is normal for a bank because they handle a huge number of clients, and confidentiality is very important since they are keeping people’s money and personal information.

I have also worked with a bank before, and banking is really a business built on trust. Once that trust is damaged, it can seriously affect the bank’s reputation and even cause clients to leave.

Sensitive information such as IDs, account details, and deposits is not accessible to everyone. Usually, only a few authorized employees can view it. So if there is a leak, the investigation would likely focus first on the people who had access to that information.

[Zadicar]

This approach taken by Goldman should also be emulated by other big organisations which know that information from their organisations can be used by their employees, like the recent case of a Google employee making $1.2m from a prediction market for having access to information which is not yet public; at least it will limit the involvement of employees from taking advantage of the information they have in such situations.

This is a good idea, because not only will it reduce the rate of irresponsible gamblers in that Goldman investment banking company, but it will now make whatever secrets the staff of the bank receives to remain more private without it been exploited by its greedy staff that may want to take advantage of it. Because for the fact that Goldman didn't just completely ban its employees from gambling, but only restricted certain categories as it relates to banking investments services and politics, but rather allowed gambling on like Sports games, like football, basketball and baseball. It was indeed a nice initiative. And other companies should emulate this rather than a total ban.

Actually its applicable but its not something that could really be isolate, as long these informations would be known by someone, no matter how they would prohibit or not allowing it but still there's the chance that it will really be scattered these informations into other people and thats something that couldnt really be stopped if a certain person wants to make up some better without being tracked or caught.

Yes, they can make out these kind of measures but just like been said that there's no way that we can be able to eradicate it and there's really those who would be taking up these advantage for them to make money. Pretty sure that there still those people who had been doing these to those employees with these big known companies, some corporations or what on which at the moment that they've seen these opportunities then they would really be diving in with it.

[viljy]

What is the point of such prohibitions? Instead of an employee, his friend can place a bet. And some prediction markets are completely anonymous. Monitoring the implementation of such prohibitions involves total surveillance of employees. If there is no surveillance, then the ban is nothing more than a populist statement.

[bitbollo]

Internal SOP/Disclosures are taken private.
So it is probably that many other companies or single employers already have such kind of limits.
Of course there is a strict surveillance in all companies at any level. The more higher role/salary, the higher these controls.
Using a "friends" account could just lead to more problems if they don't know the limits of what they are doing.

[coinrifft]

What is the point of such prohibitions? Instead of an employee, his friend can place a bet. And some prediction markets are completely anonymous. Monitoring the implementation of such prohibitions involves total surveillance of employees. If there is no surveillance, then the ban is nothing more than a populist statement.

But still, if someone is caught and then he was investigated to the point that it goes to someone from inside the company, then obviously, it will have a big effect on them. Just like in NBA games, wherein there is inside information, but those who knows contacted someone to bet and they are paid in exchange for this information.

And so there is a link that FBI has investigations that shows that there is a connection between someone from the inside. So in a way, Goldman might just want to shield themselves and if there is the culprit, it will be just their employee.

[Nrcewker]

I think all the popular companies follow this rule. My friend works at a Big 4 consulting firm. He has to follow a strict policy that prevents him from buying shares of his firm or stocks of its clients. I think these rules are implemented for the same reason.

We can’t blame the companies for this, they don’t want certain people to have an unfair advantage over everyone else. Besides, employees read the terms and conditions and agree to them before accepting the job.

So yes, as ordinary people, these employees might have an advantage if they were allowed to place bets or buy stocks when prices are low because of information that isn’t available to the public.