More Wall St. ethics

[kallend 2,027]

Insider trading AGAIN?

dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/sac-case-threatens-a-wall-st-cash-cow/?_r=0

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Your link doesn't work.

[Darius11 12]

I knew the name sounded familiar

http://www.forbes.com/sites/zillow/2013/03/29/report-steven-cohen-buys-60m-hamptons-mansion-while-facing-insider-trading-charges/

the original story that was posted on line was about 3 months old and was originally was just about him buying a house out here i see it has been adjusted.

He got the house by the way just because his other house was blocking his view.

I'll see if i can find the original.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[NorrinRadd 0]

Gravitymaster

Your link doesn't work.

Works for me

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[lawrocket 3]

First - the article doesn't even use the word "insider."

Second - the government has been investigating Cohen for the better part of a decade and apparently doesn't have enough to even indict him. So it's going after SAC.

Third - the US attorney speaking said that it's so bad that SAC - and not individuals - stands accused. Problem: they've gotten a few employees already.

Fourth - for all you out there who think that Corporations don't have personhood, look at this case. Criminal charges against a company and NOT against the person that runs it? It's being done to smack Cohen around.

Fifth - if it takes almost 15 years to charge for insider trading, then what's that say about the government?

Sixth - the US government is going after a company and a fella who have the scratch to defend himself. These will almost certainly be long and brutal fights.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Gravitymaster

Your link doesn't work.

the link works, but the article is nearly unreadable. Is the NYT now taking blogger articles? This seems to be a 6-7B$ fund...which in my world of wall street is pocket change in the laundry. (my former company managed 3T$)
So I'm struggling to give a fuck about whatever this article is supposed to be about.

[kallend 2,027]

Gravitymaster

Your link doesn't work.

www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/25/sac-capital-indictment-insider-trading/2582331/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

lawrocket

First - the article doesn't even use the word "insider."

THIS ONE DOES

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[weekender 0]

lawrocket

First - the article doesn't even use the word "insider."

Second - the government has been investigating Cohen for the better part of a decade and apparently doesn't have enough to even indict him. So it's going after SAC.

Third - the US attorney speaking said that it's so bad that SAC - and not individuals - stands accused. Problem: they've gotten a few employees already.

Fourth - for all you out there who think that Corporations don't have personhood, look at this case. Criminal charges against a company and NOT against the person that runs it? It's being done to smack Cohen around.

Fifth - if it takes almost 15 years to charge for insider trading, then what's that say about the government?

Sixth - the US government is going after a company and a fella who have the scratch to defend himself. These will almost certainly be long and brutal fights.

(full disclosure, i am a professional equity trader for an IB. I have executed for SAC, CR Intrinsic and Galleon but would not consider them an account or relationship of mine)

Galleon and SAC have always been fast money funds that seemed to get the jump on everyone. I personally had my doubts that they were always right because they are smarter than everyone else. Like most i was suspicious of the info they were getting and when.

It looks like they have 6 or so people pretty well caught. In all their years they have had thousands of employees and trillions of transactions so IMO thats not so bad considering how sketchy i felt they were. I expected more, to be honest.

i hate cheaters because it is bad for my profession. It erodes confidence in our markets which i feel are truly fair and orderly. It also gives ammo to people like the professor who just hate bankers. I hope if these people are guilty they get convicted and punished. On the other hand i dont think its representative of the business at large or even all the employees of SAC.

my 2cents

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[RMK 3]

I don’t know if you took a beating in your 401K or for what other reason you feel all the world’s financial markets are corrupt and geared against you, but this type of post is no different than the multitude of SC articles where someone posts a link to a poorly written article with a one-liner such as “Look at these dems”, “Look at these conservatives”, “Look at what Obama caused” – the usual fodder for which you have near 50,000 posts exposing their error or naivety. Yes, I usually laugh at their stupidity too, but with finance you miss the mark.

Fraud happens in all sectors of business and life, globally, always has, always will. We can do all we can to lessen or eliminate it – but there will always be bad people. Painting any industry with the same brush is wrong. If you attempt, at least do some real research to look credible.

Note: statistically, medical doctors and scientists have always made poor investors/traders. The reason is the mindset. A trader in the financial markets can be successful with only around 55% correct trades. Whereas, a medical doctor really needs to be in the high 90 percentile. (Any doctor that has a 55% success rate on diagnosing illness is not a doctor I’d want to visit when ill).

Here’s how the financial press really works. New reporter is tasked with covering an area of finance such as hedge funds; he’s the new hedge fund columnist for (insert magazine/newspaper) He finds, the largest and best fund managers will not bother taking his calls or having a meeting – many are outright rude and abruptly stop his calls. Why? Generally nothing good usually good comes of it, these are private vehicles & don’t/cannot offer to the general public. So this reporter will struggle along and for what he doesn’t know, he will fill in the blanks with what he thinks or supposes. This yields poor quality articles that come nowhere near explaining any situation or event as it should. I’ve been involved where a global industry body worked with reporters to help educate them and provide them access to key/prominent individuals in the sector. We’d then see, over a period, their reporting become much better (good or bad press, as long as it is correct). Then invariably after about two years, their editors (I don’t know why) would rotate them into a totally different sector – the finance columnist is now covering something like the auto industry. Over decades, this only serves to better the individual reporter’s career (I assume making them more “rounded”) and thus yielding a steady supply of reporters who do not understand their subject matter.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[weekender 0]

RMK

I don’t know if you took a beating in your 401K or for what other reason you feel all the world’s financial markets are corrupt and geared against you, but this type of post is no different than the multitude of SC articles where someone posts a link to a poorly written article with a one-liner such as “Look at these dems”, “Look at these conservatives”, “Look at what Obama caused” – the usual fodder for which you have near 50,000 posts exposing their error or naivety. Yes, I usually laugh at their stupidity too, but with finance you miss the mark.

Fraud happens in all sectors of business and life, globally, always has, always will. We can do all we can to lessen or eliminate it – but there will always be bad people. Painting any industry with the same brush is wrong. If you attempt, at least do some real research to look credible.

Note: statistically, medical doctors and scientists have always made poor investors/traders. The reason is the mindset. A trader in the financial markets can be successful with only around 55% correct trades. Whereas, a medical doctor really needs to be in the high 90 percentile. (Any doctor that has a 55% success rate on diagnosing illness is not a doctor I’d want to visit when ill).

Here’s how the financial press really works. New reporter is tasked with covering an area of finance such as hedge funds; he’s the new hedge fund columnist for (insert magazine/newspaper) He finds, the largest and best fund managers will not bother taking his calls or having a meeting – many are outright rude and abruptly stop his calls. Why? Generally nothing good usually good comes of it, these are private vehicles & don’t/cannot offer to the general public. So this reporter will struggle along and for what he doesn’t know, he will fill in the blanks with what he thinks or supposes. This yields poor quality articles that come nowhere near explaining any situation or event as it should. I’ve been involved where a global industry body worked with reporters to help educate them and provide them access to key/prominent individuals in the sector. We’d then see, over a period, their reporting become much better (good or bad press, as long as it is correct). Then invariably after about two years, their editors (I don’t know why) would rotate them into a totally different sector – the finance columnist is now covering something like the auto industry. Over decades, this only serves to better the individual reporter’s career (I assume making them more “rounded”) and thus yielding a steady supply of reporters who do not understand their subject matter.

I would agree most financial reporters do not understand their topic. Even the WSJ can really botch the markets. i do think this story, as being reported, is pretty fair and accurate. I dont know anyone who didnt think there was a good chance they were doing something sketchy. They will say they are momentum players and just seem to be ahead of most. Obviously, some of the time, they were in fact not just following momentum but creating it.

again, if they did it, i hope they get convicted. also though, i dont think it means our markets are unfair or traders in general are unethical.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[RMK 3]

Agreed; I was more so making a point re the thread title of “Wall Street” inferring the whole financial markets, instead of “SAC”.

Of course, some may know that SAC is a multi-strategy hedge fund as opposed to a single-strategy hedge fund. A point that is lost on those who, without Googling, couldn’t actually tell you what a hedge fund is.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[Darius11 12]

And RMK

I hate the bankers and the reason is they never got punished, that leads to people thinking this is the way to success, and they are right (which is wrong). They have taken the risk out of it for the top bankers, so I have no confidence in the system as it is rigged.
Sense 2008 because of these questionable practices and even more so the lack of punishment you will see many people who have lost their business, their retirement, there income through no fault of their own.

This is where the hate comes from; I personally think there should be more hate and action. These bankers and Wall Street types committed an act of treason against the United States and all of its citizens for no other reason than GREED.

So yes I understand there not all bad but the ones that are haven’t been punished, and I want their heads, and think that’s the only way they will ever learn to act right. I see these people every day the super rich and they do not give a fuck because they know they can get away with it.
I don’t think it has to do with just one person 401k I think it has to do with everyone who suffered because of the economical down fall. The worst part was many didn’t have anything to do with stokes or derivatives they were regular people, but they suffered more than the people who caused this shit.

So yes fuck the bankers, and wall street types make NOTHING produce NOTHING, they just fuck with numbers and make money. They find loop holes, there basicly lawyers with less ethics.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[weekender 0]

Darius11

And RMK

I hate the bankers and the reason is they never got punished, that leads to people thinking this is the way to success, and they are right (which is wrong). They have taken the risk out of it for the top bankers, so I have no confidence in the system as it is rigged.
Sense 2008 because of these questionable practices and even more so the lack of punishment you will see many people who have lost their business, their retirement, there income through no fault of their own.

This is where the hate comes from; I personally think there should be more hate and action. These bankers and Wall Street types committed an act of treason against the United States and all of its citizens for no other reason than GREED.

So yes I understand there not all bad but the ones that are haven’t been punished, and I want their heads, and think that’s the only way they will ever learn to act right. I see these people every day the super rich and they do not give a fuck because they know they can get away with it.
I don’t think it has to do with just one person 401k I think it has to do with everyone who suffered because of the economical down fall. The worst part was many didn’t have anything to do with stokes or derivatives they were regular people, but they suffered more than the people who caused this shit.

So yes fuck the bankers, and wall street types make NOTHING produce NOTHING, they just fuck with numbers and make money. They find loop holes, there basicly lawyers with less ethics.

ever drive on a highway, over a bridge or dam, seen a police station, public hospital, drink clean water, use power from a power plant? all built by municipal offerings.

ever see a computer, the internet, a cell phone, phone network, automobile, airplane, medical device or medicine? all built with funds from public offerings.

I must live in a different place than you. or you have no understanding of the financial markets.

also, please name a few bankers who committed a crime and have never been punished. since they all go unpunished you should be able to name a few.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]i hate cheaters because it is bad for my profession. It erodes confidence in our markets which i feel are truly fair and orderly. It also gives ammo to people like the professor who just hate bankers. I hope if these people are guilty they get convicted and punished. On the other hand i dont think its representative of the business at large or even all the employees of SAC.

[kallend 2,027]

The mistake in your argument is that like many in your self-serving industry you confuse illegal with reprehensible.

The laws governing your industry have been crafted by lawmakers who receive campaign contributions from the very people they are supposed to regulate. There's a lot of reprehensible activity in your industry that is, therefore, not actually illegal.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

the US government is going after a company and a fella who have the scratch to defend himself. These will almost certainly be long and brutal fights.

On the bright side, this contributes to a vital and noble sector of the economy.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The laws governing your industry have been crafted by lawmakers who receive campaign contributions from the very people they are supposed to regulate.

So, basically, what you're saying is that we see the inevitable response to the system the government has in place?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

The laws governing your industry have been crafted by lawmakers who receive campaign contributions from the very people they are supposed to regulate. There's a lot of reprehensible activity in your industry that is, therefore, not actually illegal.

seems like the reprehensible activity is being done by the lawmakers, not the ones with a fudiciary responsibility to their clients.

[weekender 0]

kallend

The mistake in your argument is that like many in your self-serving industry you confuse illegal with reprehensible.

The laws governing your industry have been crafted by lawmakers who receive campaign contributions from the very people they are supposed to regulate. There's a lot of reprehensible activity in your industry that is, therefore, not actually illegal.

our laws are crafted by the same people who craft every law for everyone.

i have made no mistake in my argument and never condone reprehensible behavior. unlike you, i have actual experience and knowledge on this topic and experience in this industry. you have neither. you also lack the humility to admit that. unlike you i would never make such comments about babysitting. i am willing to admit i do not have the knowledge or experience on that topic or industry as you do.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante