[flagged]
What's wrong with a blowjob?
$70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money
271–280 of 480 posts
Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money
#272> 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.
That same day after market close Trump directly told us it was insider trading AND who dun it. He literally bragged that his friend made 2.5 billion and the other 900 million that day. https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1jvyryz/tru...
There is a difference between making 2.5 billion because you owned stocks and the market went up and making 2.5 billion because you bought just before the market went up and then you sold.
Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those particular aspects are only good for Americans though. That those two things are ending is good for basically everybody else, from Brazilians, Chinese and Canadians to Frenchmen.
Not sure that's true. America's military keeps peace for trade to happen in a lot of the world... Not always successfully but it's there. That works because they have the reserve currency and can therefore print money for free. Which benefits the US greatly in all sorts of ways. But everyone else also sees some good. If that goes away its going to have impacts on everyone else as well as America. Maybe not as much of…
I really don't think we do.
France and Britain alone used to be able to defend trade routes. I don't think it's a huge expense. It really is good for essentially everyone aside from the US itself, once the disruption is over. Obviously we'll have some kind of crash though, but I think that was inevitable with or without this.
Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alas, the military answers to the president. Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Not that the constitution matters ...
Military answers to whomever it thinks it's best to get paid. If relationship between government and the people fails so hard that collection of taxes to fund the military is threatened then the military sides either with the people and deposes the government or with the government and suppresses the unrest.
"the military" isn't a single entity. If things really got bad I suspect there would breaks all over the place as various groups (across all ranks) decide to either follow or refuse orders coming down. It would be chaos, the fact that things could get so bad that we're even talking about it is already a very bad sign.
Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money
#275These sort of trades happy fairly regularly, before market breaking news in individual stock names. Just search for SEC insider trading cases. When they happen in options they are often pretty obvious unless the market is moving with real momentum the same way, and even then, option sellers will report you if they think it is suspicious. (By obvious, I mean, regulators should start asking questions - of course there…
> These sort of trades happy fairly regularly I think the post established that this volume or size of spike is unique before any market-shifting news event coming out of the government in recent decades. The "sort" of transaction is irrelevant except that it's risky and thus relatively low volume normally.
> I think the post established that this volume or size of spike is unique
It did not established that. If it was so unique, the market would have reacted to this trade (before the news).
Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money
#276> 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.
That same day after market close Trump directly told us it was insider trading AND who dun it. He literally bragged that his friend made 2.5 billion and the other 900 million that day. https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1jvyryz/tru...
You are inferring too much from that comment. I think those people just had large stock holdings in general and were he market went up a lot that day.
Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
That same day after market close Trump directly told us it was insider trading AND who dun it. He literally bragged that his friend made 2.5 billion and the other 900 million that day. https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1jvyryz/tru...
There is a difference between making 2.5 billion because you owned stocks and the market went up and making 2.5 billion because you bought just before the market went up and then you sold.
It's unlikely you can make 2.5 billion with a single unleveraged trade. The market went up by what, 6-7% that day? Nobody bets his whole net worth on this to make a profit like that. So I think leverage was definitely involved, which just shows that insider info was definitely there.
Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Except the military.
If the military says something not in line with Trump they'll quickly be removed. Just look at what happend in Greenland.
Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean like Ukraine?
They’re literally fighting for their lives. Nobody wants elections in wartime, not least because polling stations become targets. You need to lay off the MAGA talking points.
>Nobody wants elections in wartime
THE GOVERNMENT doesn't want elections in wartime. Most people want.
>not least because polling stations become targets.
I think this is pure gaslighting. If we are talking about Ukraine, Putin is one of the main supporters of holding elections there. And almost certainly not because he wants to bomb some polling stations, but because he is confident that people will vote for a candidate who will de-facto offer to surrender, and not for Zelensky with his busifications.
Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But what about the ones that very obviously are? Why did they sell a lot of Visa stocks? That's a good question and let's use that example. According to the article and as you mentioned, they sold Visa stock less than 3 months ago and THEN the DOJ filed a lawsuit against the company. So how did Pelosi know that that would cause the stock to drop and the DOJ was going to file it? The lawsuit wasn't public months ago…
>So how did Pelosi know that that would cause the stock to drop and the DOJ was going to file it? The lawsuit wasn't public months ago and it is related to none other than the government which she has access to. >Then she traded with that information with no downside risk which she benefited from. >If that is not an insider trading loophole, I don't know what is. Yes, if you start with the conclusion (that she traded…
> If you instead ask why they might have traded Visa at the time they did, you will see that there were many valid reasons that they (and many, many others) decided it was a good time to sell.
All said in hindsight today, but never for those who benefitted from the insider information. Investors will always buy the stock after it plummets, whilst those who didn't sell had to wait or buy lower to break even.
This does not excuse the fact that the Pelosis' benefitted from insider (political) information and traded on that, like this blatant example. An advantage that neither of us have.
Defending politicians trading on insider info (political or economic) isn't the hill one should die on. If you did exactly that and made tens of millions, you would be in prison and be replying to me years later telling others not to do it.