161–170 of 170 posts
Can anyone tell me why a great democratic system is unable to prevent this kind of problem? Even when it happens, there seem to be no effective measures to deal with it.
The American system is flawed and has been continuously eroded and dismantled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that have to do with the Trump admin?
Nothing; so it raises the question, when the BBC news reports "insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency", are they deliberately ignoring insider trading suspicions looming over a bunch of other high-ranking US politicians?
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I am confident in stating the UK has much weaker free speech laws and no constitution to base free speech protections on. FFS, this is the country a dude was arrested and fined for filming his dog doing a hitler salute. We have had a few cases not related to violence in the US but they usually end up overturned even when there’s a conviction (thinking of this guy as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_Mackey )
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 tra…
The source article details multiple cases where trading volume spiked 15 minutes before a market-moving Trump announcement. I don't think it's plausible that prop shops have such good math that they can predict Trump's announcements so precisely.
Next, there are definitely ML algorithms running in prop shops as we speak that are trained on the probability of DJT and media announcements, especially in volatile weeks like we've had. I cannot post the data here, but there is an article on Axios that shows this: https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/how-and-when-trump-tweets-1...
So not only was a mean reversion probability high, but there were probably prop shop ML algo green lights going off for the probability of an announcement that would give the mean reversion some more fuel. Regular algorithmic trading shops probably added to this volume when their programs saw larger orders coming in, which made the volume spike even larger.
Lastly, Nick Marsh is a journalist, not a professional trader or a professional in algorithmic trading. If he was, he wouldn't be making shock and awe articles for the BBC. For one low hanging fruit, why did he not pull historical data on oil futures - including other derivatives (not only Brent)? He would have needed to pull at least several years of data to understand if this was an actual outlier spike or not. If you have ever even remotely paid attention to the oil futures markets, you would know there tends to be higher volume spikes at any given time, especially after the futures market closes and re-opens between 5 and 6pm, and especially during volatile times like the last couple months.
This article isn't the full picture at all whatsoever and comes from someone who has an elementary understanding of the equity and futures markets. But it served its purpose, which was triggering an easily triggered society. Surely there has been some DJT-linked insider trading, but I personally cannot jump on board until there is more evidence - AKA the scientific method.