Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

$70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

data-and-politics.ghost.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 480 posts

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#91

Post by LeafItAlone »

miohtama wrote: post #68
LeafItAlone wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By Nancy Pelosi, you actually mean her husband. And if you look at the trades, you’ll learn the biggest secret on Wall Street: make long term bets on tech and you’ll get richer. Don’t tell anyone I told you.

Family members are often indicated in insider information tradesm they are still trading on insider information when if they are not part of the decision making process themselves. Both leaker and utiliser are responsible. In the case of Pelosi, she became so famous about this that there are various Nancy Pelosi stock trackers now.

And if you want to be a Pelosi, you can invest in NANC, like you say, which is basically just VOO with higher expensive ratio: https://portfolioslab.com/tools/stock-comparison/NANC/VOO

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#92

Post by eru »

dataflow wrote: post #62
eru wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insider trading in the US is more about misappropriating information that belong to a party you have fiduciary duties to, not so much about harm to the public. For example, imagine you are working for Warren Buffet and you learn that he has quietly bought some stocks and next weeks he's going to announce that. Assume that this announcement will reliably make the stock trade up. If you trade on that information, that'…

> Notice that from the point of view of the anonymous counter party trading with you on the stock exchange, both situations look exactly the same. [...] So making insider trading legal in the US wouldn't make the general public any worse off. Eh? If nothing else, doesn't it magnify the public's risk beyond whatever impact Buffet could have on his own? How can you possibly claim there is no difference? You might as we…

> Eh? If nothing else, doesn't it magnify the public's risk beyond whatever impact Buffet could have on his own? How can you possibly claim there is no difference?

Let me be more explicit: Warren Buffett usually doesn't physically execute his own trades. So the only difference between the two scenarios I outlined is that in the second one Warren Buffett tells you (as his employee) to trade. In the first one, you trade without him telling you to do so.

But it's the same person doing the trades in either scenario.

> Or imagine the president picks a random person by lottery every day to run the country while he goes to play golf. The president can take the same actions himself, so from the standpoint of the general public, nobody would be worse off.

Sortition might actually be a good idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#93

Post by cft »

hdevalence wrote: post #3

> We don’t know who placed the trades. We don’t know what they knew. Actually, “we”, collectively, do know, because the SEC maintains an “XKEYSCORE for equities” called CAT. If there was interest, the government could know exactly who placed these trades. But the call (options) are coming from inside the house.

from the house of representatives or the white house? and how do you know?

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#94

Post by LeafItAlone »

DeathArrow wrote: post #86
LeafItAlone wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How many physicians have been able to get rich from learning a CEO will be out of commission? Do you actually have an answer to that? Or are you just throwing out an unanswerable question as some form of “gotcha”? Now I’m actually curious. There aren’t _that_ many publicly traded companies; only about 4,000 according to Google. A little over 9,000 IPOs since 1980 [0]. The number of companies where the CEO being “out…

But not only the physicians know a CEO will be out of commission. And there are many more cases where a CEO will leave a company without being ill. And there are much more situations that will influence stock prices than a company changing its CEO. Those situations can be both internal and external to a company. So I think we potentially have thousands or tens of thousands of people who learn information that make th…

>But not only the physicians know a CEO will be out of commission.

Ok, but I was responding to a specific claim from the parent comment specifically mentioning physicians.

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#95

Post by labster »

eru wrote: post #33
richardw wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep the receipts for about 4 years and you speak up one minute after the government changes. You get it done long before the following election.

With a bit of luck, you only have to wait for 2 years, when Congress changes hands.

And with a lot more luck, the election results will be recognized as legitimate.

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#96

Post by DeathArrow »

solardev wrote: post #14
nramanand wrote: post #13

A relevant aside: surely insider trading is happening all the time? There are so many daily market-shifting events involving so many privy parties that it seems inevitable to happen every few minutes (not defending the actions in the article). How many physicians have been able to get rich from learning a CEO will be out of commission? In that case, I'm not even sure whether it would be considered insider trading. Ho…

In the past, we liked to pretend this was illegal. Now we don't even bother with that.

Well if CEO X and his deputy Y pass me on the street and they are overly excited or overly depressed, and I overhear what they talk and I buy some options, does it mean I break the law?

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#97

Post by LeafItAlone »

DeathArrow wrote: post #86
LeafItAlone wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How many physicians have been able to get rich from learning a CEO will be out of commission? Do you actually have an answer to that? Or are you just throwing out an unanswerable question as some form of “gotcha”? Now I’m actually curious. There aren’t _that_ many publicly traded companies; only about 4,000 according to Google. A little over 9,000 IPOs since 1980 [0]. The number of companies where the CEO being “out…

But not only the physicians know a CEO will be out of commission. And there are many more cases where a CEO will leave a company without being ill. And there are much more situations that will influence stock prices than a company changing its CEO. Those situations can be both internal and external to a company. So I think we potentially have thousands or tens of thousands of people who learn information that make th…

Also, most of the situations you are describing are not insider trading. If Warren Buffett calls his secretary and tells them he needs to go to the hospital because he’s having a heart attack, and they short BH on the way, that _could_ be considered insider trading. If I’m a nurse at that hospital and I’m on break outside and watch Buffett being wheeled in on a gurney and I trade on that, that would generally not be.

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#98

Post by radicalbyte »

rapnie wrote: post #83
consumer451 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently read someone's comment here stating that "trust is efficient." What we are witnessing is the devolution of the USA from a high-trust to low-trust business environment. "Low-trust business environment" is the euphemism we have used to describe other countries, where corruption is rampant. This is so sad to watch.

Not just sad to watch . Would a country with a low-trust business environment be allowed to have such a huge mountain of government debt, and continue to have its currency be the world's reserve currency? A lot of sadness hinges on those considerations.

I'm pretty sure that the damage is done. It will take a few years, maybe even a decade, but the USD will no longer be the defacto reserve currency.

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#99

Post by delusional »

mullingitover wrote: post #26
hdevalence wrote: post #3

> We don’t know who placed the trades. We don’t know what they knew. Actually, “we”, collectively, do know, because the SEC maintains an “XKEYSCORE for equities” called CAT. If there was interest, the government could know exactly who placed these trades. But the call (options) are coming from inside the house.

No economic system is functional without a bunch of compromises, and capitalism needs strong regulations as a check to keep it from turning absolutely rotten. We're witnessing the removal of all of the guardrails, traffic signals, road maintenance crews. The highway patrols have been replaced by organized teams of highwaymen. It'll get a lot worse before it gets better.

> It'll get a lot worse before it gets better.

Importantly, there's no guarantee it's actually going to get better. We like to pretend that human existence has some trajectory towards "justice" or "prosperity". I don't think that impulse does us justice.

Stalin/Lenin could have won. Hitler could have won, Napoleon could have conquered and held. It could just get worse.

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#100

Post by DeathArrow »

svg7 wrote: post #19

While I have no doubt that insider trading happens quite regularly, I would not jump to that conclusion here. IIRC the previous day, big Wall street names were advocating for a pause in tariffs . So a lot of people placed bets accordingly. Also staking 2.5M is "small change" for true insiders.

>Also staking 2.5M is "small change" for true insiders.

Well, if it was insider trading, Trump and his billionaire friends wouldn't invest just 2.5 million. That's a meager sum for the very wealthy.

Maybe they've even done insider trading but in ways that weren't so obvious.

Post reply on HN