6 ms·

This insider trading isn't hedge-funds working hard to get an edge. It's political insiders trading ahead of public statements. They are getting gains not by di

by rocqua 4mo ago

This insider trading isn't hedge-funds working hard to get an edge. It's political insiders trading ahead of public statements. They are getting gains not by dint of being incredibly smart, nor from working very hard. Instead its from abusing their position in power. And by doing so in this manner, they are taking money away from the actual productive people trading in the futures market. Besides, as Matt Levine often says. In the US, insider trading is a matter of miss-appropriating information when you have a duty of confidentiality. Its not about trading when you know more than someone else. Its about trading when you know something your not supposed to share.

gruez 4mo ago
>It's political insiders trading ahead of public statements. They are getting gains not by dint of being incredibly smart, nor from working very hard. Instead its from abusing their position in power. The article specifically argues that it's extra bad beyond just corruption. That's the part I'm pushing back on. >The stench of corruption is overwhelming. Yet aside from the raw corruption, these incidents also raise a larger question. The insiders ripped off the parties who sold futures to them at what turned out to be very unfavorable prices to the sellers. What broader damage does this kind of unchecked insider trading do?
- not_the_fda 4mo ago
  > The article specifically argues that it's extra bad beyond just corruption. That's the part I'm pushing back on. They are elected officials that are supposed to be working in our best interests, or at least the interest of their supporters. Are they making decisions in our best interests or what makes their pocket book fatter? Poisons the whole system.
  - gruez 4mo ago
    Again, that's bad, but still under "corruption", which is not what I, or the article is addressing.
    - smallmancontrov 4mo ago
      A market maker who doesn't know if their counterparty is a Trump insider looking to fleece them must ask for a bigger safety margin to cover the risk they are taking -- and not just from the insiders. Honest participants in the market get taxed in order to provide the insider payout. This is extremely basic incenive / money-flow tracing and "setting aside corruption" is a premise that has the hairs on the back of my neck standing straight up. It smells like someone looking to force the framing. Everyone before me in this conversation was right to be suspicious of your motives in asking it, and I am suspicious as well.
      - gruez 4mo ago
        >A market maker who doesn't know if their counterparty is a Trump insider looking to fleece them must ask for a bigger safety margin to cover the risk they are taking -- and not just from the insiders. Honest participants in the market get taxed in order to provide the insider payout. That's still corruption. Your argument about other participants being "taxed" applies for other sophisticated counterparties as well, eg. hedge funds with armies of analysts and can fly helicopters around to gather intel. Unless you want to say that's bad too, the only difference between the two is that the hedge fund isn't engaging in corruption.
        smallmancontrov 4mo ago
        Ah, so you were just trying to force the "set aside corruption" framing. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
        gruez 4mo ago
        >Ah, so you were just trying to force the "set aside corruption" framing. Again, if you read the TFA, the entire thesis is that the insider trading is extra bad beyond corruption. The corruption itself only gets a passing mention.
        4mo ago
  - Lendal 4mo ago
    The American people knew who they were electing. They knew it, and they elected him anyway. Whatever damage results from that collective decision is our cross to bear.
    - gizajob 4mo ago
      The problem is that everyone else on earth has to suffer the consequences of those choices.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
      Many of them will insist that they didn't know. Another group of "many" will insist that this is all somewhere between "not that bad" and "great".
- XorNot 4mo ago
  The pacing of strategic military decisions being modulated to allow leading the futures market would be the very definition of "blood money".
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- rocqua 4mo ago
  It’s not just vaguely bad because of corruption. But its corruption that very directly increased the price of oil payed by everyone else.
59percentmore 4mo ago
I'm not sure what world we live in where being able to rent a helicopter implies hard work and not large amounts of preexisting wealth (generally taken by many to indicate at least some abuse of power, somewhere along the way).
- tekla 4mo ago
  It's a world where renting a helicopter is hilariously cheap available to some average person. Looking at my local tourist helicopter place, a private custom flight is $1k per ~15m. That seems like nothing if it allows you be make millions with the information.
  - LadyCailin 4mo ago
    You can’t make millions from shorts unless you’ve already got millions to risk.
    - mothballed 4mo ago
      Shorts don't cost much to open, just the borrow rate on the shares. As long as it goes straight down you can leverage quite a bit without getting called. Of course, this is the fastest way to lose your shirt and everything you have ever worked for, if there is any uncertainty.
      - FireBeyond 4mo ago
        Yes, I'm sure Robinhood or Schwab will allow me to open a $2M short position when my portfolio is $[sufficiently small that I'm debating the costs of a couple of thousand for a helicopter charter].
        mothballed 4mo ago
        It's easy enough to synthesize 100x leverage by synthesis through options. If you have $25k for a margin account you could do it no problem. Of course, your funds would be rapidly vaporized if you were even a little bit wrong on timing or you needed more margin for volatility to keep it from getting called before it dips.

by rocqua 4mo ago

gruez 4mo ago

>It's political insiders trading ahead of public statements. They are getting gains not by dint of being incredibly smart, nor from working very hard. Instead its from abusing their position in power. The article specifically argues that it's extra bad beyond just corruption. That's the part I'm pushing back on. >The stench of corruption is overwhelming. Yet aside from the raw corruption, these incidents also raise a larger question. The insiders ripped off the parties who sold futures to them at what turned out to be very unfavorable prices to the sellers. What broader damage does this kind of unchecked insider trading do?

not_the_fda 4mo ago
> The article specifically argues that it's extra bad beyond just corruption. That's the part I'm pushing back on. They are elected officials that are supposed to be working in our best interests, or at least the interest of their supporters. Are they making decisions in our best interests or what makes their pocket book fatter? Poisons the whole system.
- gruez 4mo ago
  Again, that's bad, but still under "corruption", which is not what I, or the article is addressing.
  - smallmancontrov 4mo ago
    A market maker who doesn't know if their counterparty is a Trump insider looking to fleece them must ask for a bigger safety margin to cover the risk they are taking -- and not just from the insiders. Honest participants in the market get taxed in order to provide the insider payout. This is extremely basic incenive / money-flow tracing and "setting aside corruption" is a premise that has the hairs on the back of my neck standing straight up. It smells like someone looking to force the framing. Everyone before me in this conversation was right to be suspicious of your motives in asking it, and I am suspicious as well.
    - gruez 4mo ago
      >A market maker who doesn't know if their counterparty is a Trump insider looking to fleece them must ask for a bigger safety margin to cover the risk they are taking -- and not just from the insiders. Honest participants in the market get taxed in order to provide the insider payout. That's still corruption. Your argument about other participants being "taxed" applies for other sophisticated counterparties as well, eg. hedge funds with armies of analysts and can fly helicopters around to gather intel. Unless you want to say that's bad too, the only difference between the two is that the hedge fund isn't engaging in corruption.
      - smallmancontrov 4mo ago
        Ah, so you were just trying to force the "set aside corruption" framing. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
        gruez 4mo ago
        >Ah, so you were just trying to force the "set aside corruption" framing. Again, if you read the TFA, the entire thesis is that the insider trading is extra bad beyond corruption. The corruption itself only gets a passing mention.
        4mo ago
- Lendal 4mo ago
  The American people knew who they were electing. They knew it, and they elected him anyway. Whatever damage results from that collective decision is our cross to bear.
  - gizajob 4mo ago
    The problem is that everyone else on earth has to suffer the consequences of those choices.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4mo ago
    Many of them will insist that they didn't know. Another group of "many" will insist that this is all somewhere between "not that bad" and "great".
XorNot 4mo ago
The pacing of strategic military decisions being modulated to allow leading the futures market would be the very definition of "blood money".
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
rocqua 4mo ago
It’s not just vaguely bad because of corruption. But its corruption that very directly increased the price of oil payed by everyone else.

59percentmore 4mo ago

I'm not sure what world we live in where being able to rent a helicopter implies hard work and not large amounts of preexisting wealth (generally taken by many to indicate at least some abuse of power, somewhere along the way).

tekla 4mo ago
It's a world where renting a helicopter is hilariously cheap available to some average person. Looking at my local tourist helicopter place, a private custom flight is $1k per ~15m. That seems like nothing if it allows you be make millions with the information.
- LadyCailin 4mo ago
  You can’t make millions from shorts unless you’ve already got millions to risk.
  - mothballed 4mo ago
    Shorts don't cost much to open, just the borrow rate on the shares. As long as it goes straight down you can leverage quite a bit without getting called. Of course, this is the fastest way to lose your shirt and everything you have ever worked for, if there is any uncertainty.
    - FireBeyond 4mo ago
      Yes, I'm sure Robinhood or Schwab will allow me to open a $2M short position when my portfolio is $[sufficiently small that I'm debating the costs of a couple of thousand for a helicopter charter].
      - mothballed 4mo ago
        It's easy enough to synthesize 100x leverage by synthesis through options. If you have $25k for a margin account you could do it no problem. Of course, your funds would be rapidly vaporized if you were even a little bit wrong on timing or you needed more margin for volatility to keep it from getting called before it dips.