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

341–350 of 480 posts

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

#341

Post by mistrial9 »

dboreham wrote: post #305
impossiblefork wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think that's completely true. Wasn't the US Navy founded (by a Scotsman of course) because the US at the time lacked the funds to pay off the pirates? European countries did pay them off, hence didn't need as large navies.

isn't this ancient history now? the formations in the last 50 years are large

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

#342

Post by jxjnskkzxxhx »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #118
wiseowise wrote: post #78

Wake me up when orange gets impeached.

He's a 2x impeached convicted felon. He told everyone what he was going to do. A lot of people thought he was a lying politician who lies, and therefore these were all lies. Or, at best, jokes or exaggerations. And now, 4 months into a 4 year term, he's doing it all. Who knew? So when he jokes that he can do whatever he wants, including run for a third term, learn from the past: it isn't a joke, even if he's chucklin…

You know who also told everyone what he was going to do? And about whom everyone said "nah he's not really that crazy, he's just pretending for his supporters". Hitler. Also just stating facts.

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

#343

Post by mistrial9 »

tmcb wrote: post #245
eastbound wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll candidly assume that this is not a rhetorical question aimed at making me pass as a spoiled child, as is frequent with leftism: - AOC, known as “the squad” (!), has claimed the Congress has too many white males. President Macron said the same about the US tech sector, and he’s not even part of the extremists, so this issue permeates society. Basically everyone says white men should be fewer of them. This is a di…

If you are eating too many carbs and you go to the doctor and he says "you should be eating way less carbs", he is not necessarily telling you to quit all carbs from your diet cold turkey. It is safe to say that men are ~50% of any country's demographics. If you find any position of power and prestige where they are over-represented, it is safe to assume that there is an imbalance. People will come up with excuses fo…

this is called Identity Politics.. basing your judgement of other adults by their demographic classifications.. Replacing skills-based and merit-based promotion with "balancing" is racist and sexist in a polar opposite way from the historical trajectory. This parent statement is part of the unrepentant position of many in the USA. This position lost at multiple levels in a massive open election in the USA.

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

#344

Post by barbazoo »

qwertox wrote: post #179
mentalgear wrote: post #38

The follow-up post shows the whole magnitude of the insider trading: > My previous post highlighted a striking example: how a single $2.5 million options position turned into $70 million in under an hour. But focusing solely on that trade risks missing the larger picture. What we actually saw was widespread activity. Numerous sophisticated traders carefully placing positions across several strike prices ($504, $505,…

How can the average MAGA voter which waves a little flag at a rally feel ok with this? It's treason what they did, treason on their principles. All this in times when it was supposedly "Main Street" turn. https://x.com/SecScottBessent/status/1910000578198986822

You’re assuming they’ll even hear about it, lol.

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

#345

Post by LurkerAtTheGate »

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…

> How does one even go about accusing someone of insider trading? The illegality sounds pretty unenforceable.

Much of it is data analysis. My favorite examples of this are actual hacks - once foothold is established instead of encrypting & ransoming, the attacker just listens to the CEO/CFO. One hacked a law firm that handled some sizable mergers.

Personal tangent: Once had an opportunity to insider trade on a particular huge aerospace company. Playing a squad-based PvE game, matchmade into a team with 3 real-life friends at said company who chatted on in-game voice comms about their day, talking about court cases and senate hearings, and later panicked when they realized I could hear it all. They were nice guys, and I assured them that I wouldn't misuse what I overheard - I don't work in a relevant industry, and my investments do just fine without an illegal edge (plus I know Matt Levine's Laws of Insider Trading #1: Don't).

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

#347

Post by tmcb »

mistrial9 wrote: post #343
tmcb wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are eating too many carbs and you go to the doctor and he says "you should be eating way less carbs", he is not necessarily telling you to quit all carbs from your diet cold turkey. It is safe to say that men are ~50% of any country's demographics. If you find any position of power and prestige where they are over-represented, it is safe to assume that there is an imbalance. People will come up with excuses fo…

this is called Identity Politics.. basing your judgement of other adults by their demographic classifications.. Replacing skills-based and merit-based promotion with "balancing" is racist and sexist in a polar opposite way from the historical trajectory. This parent statement is part of the unrepentant position of many in the USA. This position lost at multiple levels in a massive open election in the USA.

It is actually the opposite. I assume there is no inherent reason why people from other demographics with the required skills and merit cannot be found. Otherwise, there must be a reason why they can’t, and people who think that the current imbalance is perfectly good must have a pretty reasonable explanation to that. Do you have any?

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

#348

Post by afpx »

netsharc wrote: post #329
afpx wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife likes to tell me that she'll know when feminism has succeeded when the US Supreme Court is all women. I tell her that I'll know when feminism has succeeded when the military is all women.

I do admit the existence of insanely moronic arguments that are sometimes made. "As a woman you have to vote for Hillary because she's a woman.". What a dumb argument, that's still identity politics. If the choice was between someone like female Sarah Palin that wants government control of women's bodies, because she thinks the Bible should trump the constitution vs. a man who would respect the separation of church a…

The power is right there, ready to be taken. Contrary to popular belief, you don’t have to wait for the “white man” to grant you more power. But, to do so, you will need to risk more than your online reputation.

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

#349

Post by amszmidt »

kulahan wrote: post #55
amszmidt wrote: post #42

Earlier 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 ...

The military repeatedly drills into trainees that they serve to defend and uphold the constitution , not the presidential orders. There are all kinds of lessons on when to disobey direct orders, when to speak up, how to speak up, what your protections are, etc. etc.

Haven’t we learnt anything? Just look at how some police work in the US.

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

#350

Post by tdb7893 »

mjd wrote: post #288
tdb7893 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would be doing the shielding? The current US government has been operating under the assumption of an incredibly expansive executive power, even over "independent" agencies. I'm not a legal expert at all but so far the most useful mental model has been to assume absolutely no one is shielded from executive power (including organizations and people entirely outside the federal government) unless the courts have de…

How would a final court ruling shield someone from executive power? The court relies on the executive to enforce its decisions. They can find a person in contempt, and order fines or jail time until that person complies, but I believe the orders are then enforced by U.S. Marshals, who are executive appointees. This is a serious question. What have I missed?

I think there's no hard power stopping them but in general they've been reluctant to openly defy courts (they have defied lower courts some while claiming they haven't). I think at least adhering to some pretense of American democracy has so far been important to this administration and if they abandon that pretense carelessly they run a real risk of losing necessary support (popular support, Congressional support, but also support of executive branch institutions).

Also, it's not that I think they won't defy courts but they'll be very careful in doing it (well, at least as careful as this administration can be) so it's still a reasonable base assumption that court orders protect you since while it's not the ironclad protection it was it still gives you some protection for now. Though that "for now" is obviously rather ominous.

Post reply on HN