[deleted]
CFTC Orders JPMorgan to Pay Record $920M for Spoofing and Manipulation (2020)
141–150 of 200 posts
Re: CFTC Orders JPMorgan to Pay Record $920M for Spoofing and Manipulation (2020)
#142For the uninitiated, "spoofing" does NOT mean what you think it might, e.g. spoofing network packets or making fake trade records. "Spoofing" simply means placing orders on the exchange orderbook which one supposedly does not intend to execute. I've never understood this, because any bid/ask order on the orderbook CAN be executed against, until it is canceled. If they were "flashing" large bids/asks that were being i…
The algos are not trying to hit the spoof, they are using order book imbalance to modify their valuation. So the way it would work is that JPM could for example post a large spoof bid to trick the algos into aggressing into a JPM offer.
Yes, because the algos are being faked-out by the spoof. It's like being juked in basketball... if the algos were smart, they'd hit the spoof bid.
Re: CFTC Orders JPMorgan to Pay Record $920M for Spoofing and Manipulation (2020)
#143For the uninitiated, "spoofing" does NOT mean what you think it might, e.g. spoofing network packets or making fake trade records. "Spoofing" simply means placing orders on the exchange orderbook which one supposedly does not intend to execute. I've never understood this, because any bid/ask order on the orderbook CAN be executed against, until it is canceled. If they were "flashing" large bids/asks that were being i…
Unlikely. You can't know which orders are spoofs because they're anonymous and blended with the majority of real orders. Anyone that tries to hit large spoof orders when they occasionally pop up will just lose money unless you figured out a way to detect their signal. Even then they'll just change up their tactics to better blend in if they start getting filled.
What's the difference between a spoof and bluff in poker?
Re: CFTC Orders JPMorgan to Pay Record $920M for Spoofing and Manipulation (2020)
#144“This action sends the important message that if you engage in manipulative and deceptive trade practices you will be caught, punished, and forced to give up your ill-gotten gains,” added Division of Enforcement Director James McDonald. No, Mr McDonald, it's quite the opposite. The important message is that if your organization can keep the profits from criminal activities higher than the penalties, they can perpetua…
"... including the highest restitution ($311,737,008), disgorgement ($172,034,790), and civil monetary penalty ($436,431,811) amounts in any spoofing case."
Unless you are implying that JPM profited more than $172 million, the report suggests the government took the profits.
Re: CFTC Orders JPMorgan to Pay Record $920M for Spoofing and Manipulation (2020)
#145“This action sends the important message that if you engage in manipulative and deceptive trade practices you will be caught, punished, and forced to give up your ill-gotten gains,” added Division of Enforcement Director James McDonald. No, Mr McDonald, it's quite the opposite. The important message is that if your organization can keep the profits from criminal activities higher than the penalties, they can perpetua…
"... including the highest restitution ($311,737,008), disgorgement ($172,034,790), and civil monetary penalty ($436,431,811) amounts in any spoofing case." Unless you are implying that JPM profited more than $172 million, the report suggests the government took the profits.
Is that penalty going to hit the people who were steering the ship at the time, who got big bonuses? Or is it only going to impact the bonuses of the people who are steering the ship today?
Re: CFTC Orders JPMorgan to Pay Record $920M for Spoofing and Manipulation (2020)
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you cite a source of a US DOJ head saying the actual quote you claim they said . I work in the industry and follow things like this and I haven't heard the US government saying they would like to charge JPM but they can't due to destabilizing the US financial system. I'll even let you go back 5 years to find such a quote!! I don't think i've heard of this happening.
It's called the (Eric) Holder doctrine: > That sentiment was echoed as late as 2012 by Lanny Breuer, then the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, who said in a speech at the New York City Bar Association that he felt it was his duty to consider the health of the company, the industry, and the markets in deciding whether or not to file charges. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-w…
That in no way backs up your claim.
1) That was 10 years ago
2) All they said was that they consider the country as a whole when laying charges, they said nothing about they are specifically not charging banks due to this. And the fact that they just laid a huge fine against JPM blows your entire argument out of the water.
I can see why you chose to create a throw away account in this case to comment. I now see i'm being trolled by an anonymous account :( I'm sorry I feel for it.
Re: CFTC Orders JPMorgan to Pay Record $920M for Spoofing and Manipulation (2020)
#147“This action sends the important message that if you engage in manipulative and deceptive trade practices you will be caught, punished, and forced to give up your ill-gotten gains,” added Division of Enforcement Director James McDonald. No, Mr McDonald, it's quite the opposite. The important message is that if your organization can keep the profits from criminal activities higher than the penalties, they can perpetua…
US prosecutors literally said that they cannot criminally charge JPM (in another case) because that would destabilize the US financial system. They are literally "too big to jail".
Yeah, that's not the job of the judiciary to worry about that.
Re: CFTC Orders JPMorgan to Pay Record $920M for Spoofing and Manipulation (2020)
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called the (Eric) Holder doctrine: > That sentiment was echoed as late as 2012 by Lanny Breuer, then the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, who said in a speech at the New York City Bar Association that he felt it was his duty to consider the health of the company, the industry, and the markets in deciding whether or not to file charges. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-w…
That in no way backs up your claim. 1) That was 10 years ago 2) All they said was that they consider the country as a whole when laying charges, they said nothing about they are specifically not charging banks due to this. And the fact that they just laid a huge fine against JPM blows your entire argument out of the water. I can see why you chose to create a throw away account in this case to comment. I now see i'm b…
> . 1) That was 10 years ago
The Holder doctrine, (as explained in the article that was provided as a source) dates from 1999 and is thus over two decades old. This doctrine was referenced in 2012 by the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division.
If you believe this doctrine is no longer followed, it would behoove you to provide evidence of your own that "too big to jail" hasn't been a guiding doctrine for over two decades.
> I can see why you chose to create a throw away account in this case to comment. I now see i'm being trolled by an anonymous account :( I'm sorry I feel for it.
Calling someone a troll never improves any discussion and is inappropriate on HN.
Re: CFTC Orders JPMorgan to Pay Record $920M for Spoofing and Manipulation (2020)
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called the (Eric) Holder doctrine: > That sentiment was echoed as late as 2012 by Lanny Breuer, then the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, who said in a speech at the New York City Bar Association that he felt it was his duty to consider the health of the company, the industry, and the markets in deciding whether or not to file charges. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-w…
That in no way backs up your claim. 1) That was 10 years ago 2) All they said was that they consider the country as a whole when laying charges, they said nothing about they are specifically not charging banks due to this. And the fact that they just laid a huge fine against JPM blows your entire argument out of the water. I can see why you chose to create a throw away account in this case to comment. I now see i'm b…
> I can see why you chose to create a throw away account in this case to comment. I now see i'm being trolled by an anonymous account :( I'm sorry I feel for it.
Please don't include stuff like this in your comments. It degrades HN, and does not "assume good faith", as the HN guidelines ask you to do (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). The commenter could be uninformed, or have genuinely thought that their quote backed up their position (and just been wrong).
Saying that you're "being trolled by an anonymous account" is bad form and definitely not the kind of stuff that I want to see on HN.
Re: CFTC Orders JPMorgan to Pay Record $920M for Spoofing and Manipulation (2020)
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
The algos are not trying to hit the spoof, they are using order book imbalance to modify their valuation. So the way it would work is that JPM could for example post a large spoof bid to trick the algos into aggressing into a JPM offer.
Yes, because the algos are being faked-out by the spoof. It's like being juked in basketball... if the algos were smart, they'd hit the spoof bid.
> if the algos were smart
Algos aren't smart. Thy automate human reasoning to the extent logically possible. If as a human you don't know how to detect a spoofed bid, then how do you make algorithm "smarter" than yourself?