#PriceManipulation

[phoenixx-news]

Australia's Major Supermarket Chains Accused of Misleading Discount Claims

Australia's two largest supermarket chains, Coles and Woolworths, are being sued by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for allegedly deceiving consumers with false price reduction claims. The ACCC asserts that both companies violated consumer law by temporarily increasing prices before dropping them to levels that were often equal to or even higher than the original price, while claiming the discounts were permanent.

Coles has vowed to defend itself in court, while Woolworths is reviewing the allegations. Combined, the two chains control roughly two-thirds of the Australian grocery market. Over the past year, both retailers have faced heightened scrutiny amid accusations of price gouging and anti-competitive behavior.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese weighed in on the matter, calling the alleged actions "completely unacceptable" if proven true. He emphasized that such behavior undermines trust and is not in line with Australian values. "Customers deserve to be treated fairly, not as fools," Albanese said at a press conference where he also introduced draft legislation for a supermarket "code of conduct."

ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb explained that Coles and Woolworths have long used marketing campaigns like 'Prices Dropped' and 'Down Down' to suggest permanent reductions in prices. However, the watchdog's investigation revealed that many of these discounts were misleading, affecting hundreds of products over a span of several months. Woolworths allegedly misled customers about 266 products over 20 months, while Coles did so for 245 products over 15 months.

The products involved in the allegations span a wide range, including pet food, Band-Aid bandages, mouthwash, and iconic Australian favorites like Arnott's Tim Tam biscuits, Bega Cheese, and Kellogg's cereal. According to the ACCC, the two supermarkets sold millions of these items, generating substantial revenue through the deceptive pricing practices.

Ms. Cass-Gottlieb emphasized the importance of accurate pricing during times of economic pressure, noting that many Australians depend on discounts to manage their grocery bills. "It’s vital that consumers can trust that discounts are real, especially with the rising cost of living," she said.

The ACCC is asking the Federal Court of Australia to impose substantial fines on Coles and Woolworths, as well as an order that they expand their charitable meal delivery programs.

In a statement, Coles acknowledged that rising costs have impacted product prices, but stressed that the company aims to balance those increases with providing value to customers. Coles also underscored its commitment to consumer law and building trust with all stakeholders. Woolworths echoed similar sentiments, stating that it is willing to engage with the ACCC and that it remains focused on delivering meaningful value to shoppers.

In response to the growing concerns, the Australian government has launched a review of the country's Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. The review recommended strengthening the code and giving the ACCC greater powers to enforce compliance. The proposed new code aims to protect suppliers and consumers alike, with harsh penalties for companies that breach its standards.

As the legal battle unfolds, the case highlights the increasing pressure on Australia’s supermarket sector to operate transparently and fairly in an era of rising living costs.

[usnewsper-politics]

Grocery Stores Under Fire: Are They Cheating Us? #anticompetitivepractices #commercefairness #ConsumerPriceIndex #consumerprotection #corporateaccountability #COVID19pandemic #Economicdownturn #economichardship #fairmarketpractices #FederalTradeCommission #fooddeserts #freshproduceaccessibility #governmentintervention #grocerystores #laborcosts #marketconcentration #NationalGrocersAssociation #pricefixing #pricegouging #pricemanipulation #ruralareadevelopment #supplychaindisruptions

[mohamedzyada2023]

Bitcoin price manipulation

Yet, that is exactly what the equity office probably plans to do. In May, it opened a criminal investigation to examine whether there has been cost control in the digital money markets. While it wasn't clear what period specialists were checking out, almost certainly, they were zeroing in on the sharp ascent and fall that happened in late 2017 and mid-2018.

The effects of an unlawful cryptocurrency exchange could be huge. For instance, Bitconnect, the seventh-greatest computerized coin, imploded surprisingly fast in January, costing financial backers countless dollars and dissolving trust in authentic digital currencies.

We've been looking into computerized monetary standards for quite some time. Our latest paper, distributed recently in the bitcoin price-related financial aspects, tracked down proof of fake ways of behaving in 2013 and 2014 when costs took off and then tumbled for a while.

Why cryptocurrency fraud matters

First, it merits thinking about why anybody ought to think often about computerized monetary forms. For instance, their complete market capitalization of about US$350 billion is only a negligible portion of the size of the worldwide financial exchange, which is around $100 trillion.

Digital currencies have taken off respectably in an exceptionally brief timeframe, moving from just $14 billion in January 2014. Furthermore, since Bitcoin's price turned into the first computerized money in quite a while, it has sent off in excess of $800 in transactions today.

While cryptocurrency can, in principle, be utilized to buy labor and products—they are called monetary standards," all things considered—they should initially draw in enormous quantities of traders and shoppers, which hasn't occurred at this point. That is why cryptocurrencies are fundamentally bought as monetary resources like stocks and securities that purchasers trust will increase in value over the long haul.

Furthermore, since financial backers without a ton of involvement in dangerous resources are progressively buying cryptocurrency, that puts them at risk when there's a quick ascent and fall in costs.

Bitcoin’s first roller coaster ride

That is what happened to the price of bitcoin in 2013 when it hopped from around $150 in October to more than $1,000 in December before dropping nearly 50% weeks after the fact. By mid-2014, a few groups who traded on the Bitcoin price, the main bitcoin currency trade at that point, had recognized what they considered "dubious action" on the trade and expounded widely on it.

We had the option to direct the investigation since, when Mt. Gox imploded in mid-2014, its exchange history information got spilled. This gave specialists like us access to roughly 18 million exchanges from April 2011 to November 2013. The key is that this information connected exchanges to client accounts but not to their genuine characters. With this data, we could connect dubious exchanges to accounts.

Related: Bitcoin price | Learn about 4 important market factors driving it

Bitcoin futures price manipulation

Our examination of the information affirmed quite a bit of what was accounted for in the "mysterious" records. In the paper's supplement, we carefully describe the situation to show why two exchange systems should be considered dubious.

The first, known as the "Markus bot," involved detailing exchanges that didn't exist. The second, or "Willy bot," involved exchanges in which Mt. Gox purchased bitcoins from its clients but didn't let many of them pull the returns from their records.

In a preliminary report in Japan in 2017, previous Mt. Gox Chief Imprint Karpeles affirmed that the trade worked the "Willy" records and that the exchanges were given naturally.

The exchanging action of these bots prompted an altogether expanded exchange at Mt. Gox and different trades. Subsequently, costs rose when the bots were dynamic.

We accept that this is one kind of dubious exchange that the Equity Division will probably examine following the monstrous ascent and fall in the cost of bitcoin around the end of 2017.

Investors go for another ride.

Last year was a standard one for digital currencies, especially bitcoin, which took off from $1,000 toward the end of 2016 to a pinnacle of more than $19,000 in December.

The genuine spike, notwithstanding, came in November, when the cost significantly increased in under a month. The rapture was over as fast as it began, as bitcoin plunged to $7,000 by February.

The test for specialists and others in identifying cost control today is that there isn't adequate straightforwardness in exchanging examples of people as there is in extra-coordinated assets like stocks and bonds traded on stock exchanges like the Bitcoin price. In our exploration, we were lucky to have inward exchanges of information that the public followed. We don't have a similar extravagance today.

The key example is that cryptocurrency markets need expanded collaboration between monetary controllers and exchange stages. For instance, traders could be expected to share data about the trading behavior of people with extremely large positions. This would assist with guaranteeing that the exchanges occurring are genuine and reflect genuine deals. The outcome of not taking steps toward this path is probably a lack of confidence in cryptocurrency. Bitcoin،Cryptocurrency:Bitcoin،Pricemanipulation،Cryptocurrency fraud، Digital currencies،Trust in cryptocurrencies،Bitcoin،price control، Mt. Gox،futures،Cryptocurrency،market transparency، Financial regulation، Investment risk، Stock exchanges،

[ct3ch]

Price manipulation caused Bitcoin's huge 2017 surge, researchers say

Price manipulation caused Bitcoin’s huge 2017 surge, researchers say

Bitcoin soared to enormous heights late last year to over $19,000 for a single digital coin. Researchers now say price manipulation was the cause of at least half the rise the price of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies at the tail end of 2017.

The study, by University of Texas finance professor John M. Griffin and graduate student Amin Shams, explored how digital currency Tether could…

[moneyhealthfinance-blog]

CryptoWatch: Bitcoin tumbles after report says Justice Department launching price-manipulation probe

Digital currencies were pummeled Thursday, with bitcoin slipping below a psychologically significant level below $ 8,000.

Bitcoin BTCUSD, -0.75%  fell after <a target="_blank" href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/bitcoin-manipulation-is-said-to-... MarketWatch.com – Top Stories

[cryptolog-trading-empire]

This post is about how to avoid falling into the trap of price manipulation.

First of all, here’s a quick summary of what price manipulation is; It’s an act of artificially increasing or decreasing price, to cause retail traders to lose money.

There is not too much public information on this. Because if there was, 88% of traders wouldn’t be losing money.

Here are 2 simple ways to avoid price manipulation;

1. Place your stop loss below key levels

Don’t have very tight stop losses, because chances are you will not be profitable.

2. Risk around 3-5% on each trade

Protect your capital at all costs. You should never put yourself in a position where there is a chance that you could lose everything.

@CRYPTOLOG #education #pricemanipulation #riskmanagement #signals #cryptologempire #winningsignals

[jffc-in-blog]

Justice Department launches probe into Bitcoin price manipulation, report claims

https://jffc.in/2018/05/25/justice-department-launches-probe-into-bitcoin-price-manipulation-report-claims/ #Bitcoin, #Ethereum, #JusticeDepartment, #PriceManipulation, #Probe, #SharingEconomy, #Tech

[bitcoinmastersclub-blog]

. . 🇺🇸 US Justice Department Investigates Price Manipulation in Bitcoin Market - Have you ever felt that someone is controlling the crypto markets, increasing prices to lure you in and crash it all as soon as you buy? Well, US authorities have … read more . 🌍 https://news.bitcoin.com/us-justice-department-investigates-price-manipulation-in-bitcoin-market . . 🇩🇪 US-Justizministerium untersucht Preismanipulation im Bitcoin-Markt . . 🇮🇹 Il Dipartimento di Giustizia degli Stati Uniti indaga sulla manipolazione dei prezzi nel mercato delle Bitcoin . . 🌍 www.bitcoin-masters.club . 💬 bit.ly/bitcoinmasterschat . #️⃣ #bitcoinmastersclub . . #investment #invest #financialfreedom #bitcoin #etc #btc #investor #cryptocurrency #dash #ripple #blockchain #mining #ethereum #crypto #investors #entrepreneur #krypto #finanziellefreiheit #kryptowährung #investition #investimento #cripto #investimenti #libertafinanziaria #criptovaluta #criptovalute #usjusticedepartment #pricemanipulation #bitcoinmarket

[naguenian-economist]

PAGTAAS NG PRESYO NG BAWANG, BIGAS, AT IBA PANG PRODUKTO

Isang masusing pananaw tungkol sa biglang pagsipa ng presyo ng bawang at iba pa ay makikita natin ang klase ng pamumuno ng ating pamahalaan. Ang solusyon ay mag-lagay ng isang food security tsar at umpisahan ang paglilibot sa mga pangunahing palengke ng bayan. Katawa-tawa dahil ito ang laging ginagawa ng mga pulitiko upang makatulong sa kanila sa susunod na pagtakbo sa eleksiyon. Unang punto ay dapat nating malaman na ang atake ng pamahalaan na pinamumunuan ng isang ekonomista ay bigyan ng kalutasan ang “law of demand and supply”, ayon sa ganitong pananaw…tumataas ang presyo sapagka’t mataas ang demand at walang supply. Tama sana subali’t ito ay isang huwad na kondisyon ng merkado. Bakit sa isang kalakal na tulad ng bawang ay na-kontrol ng ilang negosyante at naging monopolya ng iilang tao. Ang kolusyong ito ang dahilan at hindi kayang solusyunan ng paglilibot sa mga palengke ng iilan upang ipakita na may-ginagawa ang pamahalaan. Ito ay indikasyon ng korapsyon at kollusyon ng mga mamumuhunan at regulators ng pamahalaan. Ang ikalawang punto ay ang isyu ng food security kuno, hindi solusyon ang pag hirang sa isang dating politico upang solusyunan ang bagay na ito. Ang lahat ng mga eksperto sa agrikultura ay nakakaaalam na ang bigas ay isang halaman na napakatakaw sa tubig. At ang Pilipinas ay may irregular na supply ng tubig, tuyot at sobrang baha. Di tulad ng Vietnam na may Mekong delta at gayon din ang Thailand na nabiyayaan ng may tubig na nagagamit sa buong taon. Hindi tayo dapat makipaglabanan sa mga bansang ito sapagkat ang production cost natin ay lubhang mataas kung bigas ang pag-uusapan. Isa pa, dahil sa gamit ng tubig sa irigasyon, di natin magamit ito para sa inumin at pag-gawa ng enerhiya. Ito ang dahilan kung bakit mataas ang gastos natin sa kuryente at tubig. Dapat matuto ang ating mga lider ng “competitive advantage”. Lahat ng ating mga pinuno ay pinilit ng mag-karoon ng sapat na ani ng bigas para sa ating pangangailangan. Sa paglago ng ating populasyon ito ay isang panaginip na walang katuparan. Ang isyung ito ay maganda lamang sa eleksyon ng mga kandidatong gusto ng posisyon sa gobyerno. Kung gusto natin ng food security dapat ay palitan natin ang eating patterns ng populasyon. Kumain ng mas konting bigas at gamitin ang mga halaman tulad ng kamote at ibang root crops tulad ng cassava na madaling itanim sa ating lupain. Gamitin din natin ang mga lupang sakahan upang tamnan ng mga higher value crops at tulungan ang mga magsasaka upang umahon sa kahirapan. Maaring sabihin na mahirap gawin ito. Sa dami ng chef natin dito sa Pinas di ito imposible. Tingnan na lang natin ang Max restaurant na nagsasama ng kamote sa kanilang fried chicken imbes na patatas. Isang maikling pananaw na sana ay magbukas ng ating isip. Kailangang gamitin ito upang gumawa ng mga polisiya na makapag-aangat sa ekonomiya at hindi sa ambisyong pampulitika. Tandaan pumili ng mga tamang mamumuno at huwag ang mahilig mag-prisinta sa pamumuno na ayaw ng bumaba sa pwesto. Sa gobyerno, sa mga kumpanya at mga pribadong assosasyon. Tigilan na ang pag-pili sa mga taong mahilig lang mag-pasikat o mga sikat na walang alam sa pamumuno.

                                                                                                             -Rolando Alagde                                           (Engineer, Consultant, Entrepreneur, Businessman, Author)

 Reaction:

May punto ang awtor ng nasa taas na artikulo. Sabihin na nga natin na posibleng dahil sa price manipulation, sabwatan o maling pagdedesisyon ng mga namumuno ang naging dahilan ng pagtaas ng presyo ng mga bilihin lalong lalo na sa bigas- nagagawan ba ito ng  tamang solusyon?

 Mahuli man ng gobyerno ang mga taong nasa likod ng sabwatan o ng pagmamanipula sa presyo, maulit man ito at mahuli ulit ng gobyerno ay hindi pa rin matatapos ang kahirapan ng mga Pilipino sa bigas. Ito ay dahil sa hindi ito ang totoong problema at solusyon.

 Natural na ang bigas ay magmamahal pagdating ng panahon. Marahil ang pagtaas ng presyo ng bigas ay dulot na rin ng kakulangan ng taniman kaya kumukulang ang suplay, at dahil kailangan mabalanse ang lahat, sinusunod ang “law of demand and supply”. Kung kulang ang suplay at mataas ang demand sa isang bilihin, kailangan itaas ang presyo nito upang hindi ito kaagad maubos at maging balanse ang suplay at demand.

 Kaya ang tamang solusyon ay ang pagdedesisyon ng tama, hindi lang ng goberno, maging ang mga mamamayang Pilipino. Dapat lahat ay magkaisa. Dapat baguhin ang mga nakasanayan at matutong adjust sa mga pagbabago. 

 Magiging tama ang solusyon na bawasan ang bigas at magtanim na lamang ng mas maraming root crops kung ito ang mas makabubuti. Kaya nga kailangan ng mga lider na nararapat o iyong mga mas nakaaalam sa posisyong kinalalagyan nila upang tunay na umunlad ang bansang Pilipinas.

[naguenian-economist]

Sinasabi dito na ang pagtaas ng presyo ng bigas at bawang ay dahil sa "Price Manipulation".

Dahil nabili ng mga traders ng bigas ang importation rights na dapat ay sa kooperatiba lamang, nagkaroon sila ng pagkakataong pumatong ng sobra-sobrang interes na dahilan ng pagtaas ng presyo nito. Sinasabing posibleng ginagawa din ito sa bawang. Ngunit, hindi ito ang pangunahing dahilan ng pagtataas ng presyo ng bawang.

Dahil nga mali ang pagkakaalam ng Bureau of Plant Industry at ng National Garlic Action Team tungkol sa suplay ng bawang sa Pilipinas, napakarami ang inangkat na bawang (mahigit 8000 metrikong tonelada)  nito lamang Pebrero at Marso 2014 sa kabila ng karamihan ng suplay nito dahilan ng harvest season. 

Hindi nakapagtanim ang mga local garlic producers. Sila ay nalugi dahil mas marami ang bumibili sa mga bawang na imported sa pagkakaroon nito ng mas mababang presyo. Ito ang dahilan kung kaya't mahigit 3000 metrikong tonelada lamang ang inangkat pagdating ng Abril. Dahil sa pagbawas ng import ng bawang, bumaba ang suplay nito at ito ang tumulak upang sumipa ang presyo ng bawang.