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

431–440 of 480 posts

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

#431

Post by eru »

Epa095 wrote: post #252
eru wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on what you mean by 'strong regulations'. Regulations that are on the books should be enforced as written. In that sense I agree. But it doesn't mean that we actually necessarily need all the regulations that are on the books to stay on the books. Eg, it would be perfectly fine to make insider trading legal by law. (And in fact, the definition of insider trading in the US differs a lot from the one used in…

> So there are lots of things that have long been legal in the US that would have been illegal in France, without the economy collapsing. Who knows, maybe we are in the middle of the resulting collapse now ;-)

Well, that collapse is because of tariffs, not the intricacies of differences in insider trading law.

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

#432

Post by eru »

mattkevan wrote: post #140
eru wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Bold to assume there are going to be elections. All it needs is some kind of emergency, genuine, imaginary or self-inflicted, and ‘Oh no, we can’t possibly hold elections until our time of national crisis is over.’

> Bold to assume there are going to be elections.

I'm happy to bet. What odds to do you offer?

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

#433

Post by eru »

wahern wrote: post #113
vanviegen wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insider trading around Warren Buffett seems like a really odd example. More typical would be company employees knowing the quarterly results before they are published. And there, it's easy to see how the law is protecting the public by leveling the playing field.

Technically the law is protecting the share holders. Legal scholars, regulators, and even judges have continually tried to push the fraud-on-the-market theory of insider trading, but IIRC it's been firmly rejected by SCOTUS multiple times. There are statutes where the fraud-on-the-market principal pertains, but for your typical insider trading case predicated on Securities Exchange Act jurisprudence, it doesn't fly.…

Yes. And there's also no bans on equivalent 'insider trading' for foreign exchange nor commodities. And markets in these work just fine.

Some economists suggest that insider trading is good for public markets, because it disseminates information. (However fiduciary duties would still apply. But they would only allow the company to sue the vice president who told her golf buddy about the upcoming earnings, but could not sue the golf buddy.)

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

#434

Post by tmcb »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #415
tmcb wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is not an accurate portrayal of your point, but this sounds very much like the “the left needs its own Joe Rogan” argument to me. The problem with it is that we delegate the duties towards our fellow citizens to the talking heads on TV or in our algorithmic feeds and wash our hands on it—I say “we” because it has been happening in basically every country at this point. If democracy has failed, as some peo…

I think that you came to the conclusion that there needs to be a counter to Joe Rogan says a lot. I’m only suggesting that you deal with the feelings people are having. Which were ignored. They’re right about that. BTW, I don’t think Joe Rogan is as bad as people think he is. All you democrats should have gone on his show.

No, sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. I said that I disagree with that take. Maybe you are not familiar with it, which is something that was raised by some people (maybe jokingly, I don’t know, but it made the rounds in left-wing social media).

I agree that the left should address young men’s struggles, namely the working class, but maybe not in the same sense you are implying. They are as responsible for their own political choices as anyone else.

[P.S.: Am I not from the US. How could I be a Democrat?]

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

#435

Post by jibal »

sebasv_ wrote: post #8
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.

What would determine whether the SEC will investigate for insider trading? I would expect them to be shielded from executive pressure.

"I would expect them to be shielded from executive pressure."

Such an expectation was rational prior to 2025-01-20. Since then it's been completely counterfactual.

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

#436

Post by Epa095 »

eru wrote: post #431
Epa095 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So there are lots of things that have long been legal in the US that would have been illegal in France, without the economy collapsing. Who knows, maybe we are in the middle of the resulting collapse now ;-)

Well, that collapse is because of tariffs, not the intricacies of differences in insider trading law.

I was thinking more that these kind of lax laws allowed the rich to get richer, and influence politics in ways which enabled or accelerated the fall. But it it a complicated picture of course, and the further back in the chain of causality we go the harder it it to say anything for real.

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

#437

Post by heywoods »

Fade_Dance wrote: post #262

I was reading this event, and unless I'm missing something, all of these reports and theories don't mention the blindingly obvious fact that should be dominating - 1pm was the 10 year bone auction. Due to many factors (mostly around the crash that was in full swing, and a bond market that was illiquid and melting down), this was a key moment around which a huge amount of position management happened. I'm not at all s…

Thanks for sharing your expertise on this topic. As someone with limited knowledge in this area, I appreciate your contributions.

I'm curious if you could evaluate an AI response from Perplexity. I asked it to analyze your comment (https://www.perplexity.ai/search/summarize-https-govinfo-lib...) and would value your expert assessment of its accuracy and quality. Perhaps a grade score with brief comments on what stood out?

I feel current AI benchmarks don't capture the data to really gauge how reliable AI tools are for topics requiring some advanced/expert domain knowledge of. Your role is, "expert in the middle" to provide commentary on what it gets right or wrong. Everything sounds right and looks right when I don't know what is what ya know?

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

#439

Post by rvz »

LeafItAlone wrote: post #396
rvz wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You, nor others, have not actually proven that. In the Pelosis' circumstance, clearly their repeated actions of such trades and their connection to the timing of key legislation or lawsuits requires no further proof, given their long history of this front-running such that other congressmen and women are doing the same thing believing they can get away with the insider trading loophole. By inspection, it is quite o…

>In the Pelosis' circumstance, clearly their repeated actions of such trades and their connection to the timing of key legislation or lawsuits requires no further proof, given their long history of this front-running such that other congressmen and women are doing the same thing believing they can get away with the insider trading loophole. Claiming this happens, no matter how many times you repeat it (without eviden…

> Claiming this happens, no matter how many times you repeat it (without evidence) does not mean it happens.

You already know they did and yet still continue to defend politicians like the Pelosis' trading on insider political AND legislative information before it it released publicly and that privileged access entirely benefits them, not retail investors like yourself.

So, I don't think you even believe in what you just said about supporting a ban on politicians front-running the market. It should be ALL of them and there are zero exceptions.

It's as if you really want politicians to continue front-running the market with the sort of access that they have.

> Clearly, Your repeated denial of fact implies that it is instead _you_ are trading on insider information. The evidence is all right there. You should be locked up.

You got it all mixed up and it is other way round.

I'm not the one here admitting on this site to be "trading" or copying politicians trades to get an "edge" (it really isn't) like the Pelosis' and others (who truly have insider access to decision making legislation) really have on their trades.

The stock can drop / rise before the disclosure and you would always be behind regardless. So this accusatory comment is hilarious and laughable coming from someone like you supporting politicians using such loopholes for years.

The entire point is, if YOU did that yourself, made millions BEFORE the release of key legislation and knew people with connections to congress or the government; YOU would be talking to me on this site from your prison cell telling others to not do it.

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

#440

Post by kulahan »

amszmidt wrote: post #349
kulahan wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Police are fundamentally different. Their only job is to oppress. They uphold the law, right or wrong.
Post reply on HN