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

The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 170 posts

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#141

Post by GJim »

sometimes_all wrote: post #133
librasteve wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as a brit that has lived in the US and EU and visited many places (not yet India) … I can well imagine that the BBC looks like the British imposing our views with a wrapper of intolerable righteousness … please allow me to apologise on behalf of all us licence payers

Why would you have to apologize? If I had to apologize on behalf of all the drivel Indian newspapers write, it'd take me more than a month. It's pretty clear that newspapers around the world are now decoupling from the actual wishes and necessities of their subscribers/licensees. The latter are not to blame, especially when they are willing to pay for their news. Plus I don't have to read the BBC if I don't want to,…

You clearly haven't spent long enough in Blighty to identify sarcasm.

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#142

Post by Terr_ »

Terr_ wrote: post #134
N_Lens wrote: post #2

"Suspicions" doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

In the sense of extreme understatement , yes, which is amusing since the "heavy lifting" is the other way around. Much like "There are looming suspicions over the effectiveness of colored quartz and homeopathic water." [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

s/is the other way/is usually the other way/

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#143

Post by sometimes_all »

GJim wrote: post #141
sometimes_all wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you have to apologize? If I had to apologize on behalf of all the drivel Indian newspapers write, it'd take me more than a month. It's pretty clear that newspapers around the world are now decoupling from the actual wishes and necessities of their subscribers/licensees. The latter are not to blame, especially when they are willing to pay for their news. Plus I don't have to read the BBC if I don't want to,…

You clearly haven't spent long enough in Blighty to identify sarcasm.

Apologies. I haven't even spent a minute in Blighty, so I took their post in good faith. I should've learned from my experiences with their news...

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#144

Post by amenhotep »

joecool1029 wrote: post #129
ruszki wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood this. Basically every country, including the US, has libel and slander laws, and almost the same everywhere in the West. People were thrown to jail even in America for "a single tweet", the exact same way as in the UK. And for example, saying that you support violence in specific cases, like there is an ongoing riot, and you tweet "kill them all", that's not protected by any free speech laws in the…

You can actually tweet/write agreement with acts of violence and advocate for it in a general sense in the US. The legal standard is whether that speech is a threat to imminent violence (encouraging violence at a specific place and time): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Furthermore, defamation/libel is not covered under criminal law, it’s considered a tort so it would be a civil suit. So no, not at…

What on earth does defamation being a civil offense have to do with anything? It's a civil offense in the UK too, criminal defamation hasn't been a thing since 2010 and was barely a thing before then. If you want to confidently post how one thing is not at all like the other thing it might be a good idea to know the most basic facts about the other thing.

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#145

Post by imglorp »

idle_zealot wrote: post #62

> Some analysts say it bears the hallmarks of illegal insider trading, whereby bets are made by people based on information that is not available to the general public. > Others say the picture is more complicated and that some traders have become more adept at anticipating the president's interventions. This and the title are journalistic malpractice. This is an article designed to report on obvious insider trading,…

The term is sanewashing.

None of this kleptocracy is normal, or sane, or acceptable.

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#146

Post by tsoukase »

The US people have difficulty to understand how easy is for a politician to take advantage of his position. This government sends a specific signal of corruption (glorious words, deactivation of control agencies, insider trading and who knows what else dye to pre-election commitments)

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#148

Post by red-iron-pine »

davidw wrote: post #81
idle_zealot wrote: post #62

> Some analysts say it bears the hallmarks of illegal insider trading, whereby bets are made by people based on information that is not available to the general public. > Others say the picture is more complicated and that some traders have become more adept at anticipating the president's interventions. This and the title are journalistic malpractice. This is an article designed to report on obvious insider trading,…

Once you start seeing all the "both sides" and "sanewashing" you can't unsee it. And they lean on both so hard.

who is "they"?

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#149

Post by Shocka1 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #111
testfoobar wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allegations of insider trading are not the same as convictions of insider trading. No publication should be in the business of allocating criminal responsibility in advance of legal proceedings. If a crime is suspected then it should be reported to the authorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

I don't understand this response. Certainly they shouldn't say "Mr. John Smith is guilty" if a court hasn't found that. But there's nobody in particular being named here, just clear evidence that someone must have done it. If the police find a dead body, should newspapers pretend the victim might be alive somehow to avoid allocating criminal responsibility for murder?

> just clear evidence that someone must have done it

I would love to hear more about this clear evidence. There is smoke, sure, but clear evidence, I would love to hear more on your investigation.

I've been algorithmically trading for several years now, collecting data, running machine learning prediction algorithms and whatnot. Anyway, I made 4500% off a high risk 1 DTE options play between Thursday/Friday. This trade was put in right before the geopolitical announcements sent the Russell 2000 into Captain Insano mode overnight. This isn't the first time I've done this - it's a valid trading strategy with the continuous drama/volatility that Mr DJT brings to the markets. I'm sure if there are any insider trading flags I set them off on Friday, and for people who have no idea how markets work and what volume normally looks like, it would definitely look like an insider.

I realized long ago that to make money doing this, all bias/emotions need removed and the only thing that can be relied on is math. Have you ever considered that some of the bigger prop shop trading firms with a lot of buying power are just extremely good at what they do?

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#150

Post by nailer »

customguy wrote: post #84
waynecochran wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just simply pointing out the usual blind political hypocrisy ...

Implicit in that is the false dichotomy that everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B. And even if that framing was accepted: okay, now we "talk about the other side", but then anything said could be countered with something about this side. It's not pointing out anything relevant , it's rather wiggling a laser pointer.

> everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B.

This is a strange thing to say about someone pointing out that the problem is widespread. It's not a false dichotomy: insider trading is endemic to congress.

Also why would you write "false dichotomy that everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B" when someone is replying to the most unhinged and extreme take:

> > That line of argument... is often associated with pro-Kremlin narratives

If you want to talk about a false dichotomy, maybe someone engaging in ridiculous conspiracy theories about how criticising Democrats can only be of interest for proponents of the Russian regime would be a good place to start?

Post reply on HN