Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Remember how someone was making billions from Trump's market chaos? Yeah, not so much   (slate.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Futures contract, Short, William Cohan, Profitable Mystery of the Trump Chaos Trades, Trade, Donald Trump's statements, Donald Trump, Long  
•       •       •

3115 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Oct 2019 at 1:44 PM (14 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2019-10-18 12:56:33 PM  
Very good debunking, well explained.

For every winner there is a loser.
 
2019-10-18 01:45:53 PM  
But chaos is a ladder!
 
2019-10-18 01:50:04 PM  
As usual, the correction gets less attention than the original false story.

/this isn't actually a correction, more like a rebuttal, but whatever
 
2019-10-18 01:50:16 PM  
Felix Salmon is awesome.  He's the guy who freaked out a Fox Business News panel for comparing the Alaska oil dividend to UBI.
 
2019-10-18 01:53:33 PM  
It's bullshiat? Then thank God we've defunded and cut the SEC. Waste of money there then.
 
2019-10-18 01:54:26 PM  
TFA does not disprove the theory. All it does is show that there is more investigation to do. The point of the original article is that there are some strange trading patterns that suggest foreknowledge of news events. It is well worth digging into this further.
 
2019-10-18 01:55:27 PM  

hubcity: But chaos is a ladder!


Nuh-uh, three -sided flat cube with days at each of the incongruously four corners!
 
2019-10-18 01:57:54 PM  
So it seems the only complaint is that the Vanity Fair article didn't ask the headline as a question, and instead makes it as an assertion.

Fair.

But the content of this article basically makes it sound like there is no such thing as a suspicious trade that should warrant more attention.  And it's tone is aggressive and obnoxiously condescending.

I'm not sure I understand the up-thread love for the author.

Maybe he's written something else that's actually interesting and well written.
 
2019-10-18 01:59:25 PM  

40 degree day: The point of the original article is that there are some strange trading patterns that suggest foreknowledge of news events.


The point of the original article is that there could be some strange trading patterns that suggest foreknowledge of news events.  It didn't prove that there were.  To me, it was like reading Nostradamus.  If you take an event, then you can go to the past and find things that that correlate to that event.  You still haven't proved anything.

Sometimes my investments pay off well.  That doesn't mean that I had special knowledge.
 
2019-10-18 02:00:55 PM  

BeesNuts: I'm not sure I understand the up-thread love for the author.

Maybe he's written something else that's actually interesting and well written.


From 2011:  http://blogs.reuters.com/felix​-salmon/​2011/09/09/anthony-scaramuccis-sleazy-​sales-pitch/
 
2019-10-18 02:02:56 PM  

40 degree day: TFA does not disprove the theory. All it does is show that there is more investigation to do. The point of the original article is that there are some strange trading patterns that suggest foreknowledge of news events. It is well worth digging into this further.


As TFA mentions, original article invokes decisions announced by Chinese gov and the drone attacks on Saudi. These are not linked events. Nobody would have foreknowledge of both of those things. If foreknowledge of the events is not part of the explanation, it's all significantly less sinishter.
 
2019-10-18 02:04:08 PM  
It's not just that the Vanity Fair article didn't prove there was insider trading. It didn't even offer evidence. It proved that there were trades, but not even any data suggesting that any of them were suspicious, let alone based on insider knowledge.
 
2019-10-18 02:05:47 PM  
One trade that made a billion. And thousands of trades thst lost millions.

Practically government sanctioned gambling
 
2019-10-18 02:08:28 PM  
No way the Nats could pull off a four game sweep without inside kno--oh, right, it was the Cards. Never mind.
 
2019-10-18 02:08:57 PM  
And I should believe Felix why?
 
2019-10-18 02:10:21 PM  

kkinnison: One trade that made a billion. And thousands of trades thst lost millions.

Practically government sanctioned gambling


Have you MET the stock market?

/the winners do the insider trading with the proper politicians and judges in their pocket
 
2019-10-18 02:12:18 PM  
There were a bunch of short options on airlines before 9/11 but the commission called it "an anomaly" or some such hand wavinb
 
2019-10-18 02:13:09 PM  

Rapmaster2000: 40 degree day: The point of the original article is that there are some strange trading patterns that suggest foreknowledge of news events.

The point of the original article is that there could be some strange trading patterns that suggest foreknowledge of news events.  It didn't prove that there were.  To me, it was like reading Nostradamus.  If you take an event, then you can go to the past and find things that that correlate to that event.  You still haven't proved anything.

Sometimes my investments pay off well.  That doesn't mean that I had special knowledge.


You're giving the original article way too much credit.  It was the definition of painting the target around the arrows after taking the shots.  They chose arbitrary market moving events (of which there are actually at least 100s a week), looked if there were trades that correlated, and implied causation.  There are so many trades on a given day and so many international events/statements/meetings of market importance every day, it would be impossible not to find correlation.  Then, if you engage in lazy reporting and dont even do the most cursory analysis of the rates of these various factors or if anything about the trades is unusual (there wasn't), you can claim something nefarious is going on.
 
2019-10-18 02:13:17 PM  

Rapmaster2000: BeesNuts: I'm not sure I understand the up-thread love for the author.

Maybe he's written something else that's actually interesting and well written.

From 2011:  http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-​salmon/2011/09/09/anthony-scaramuccis-​sleazy-sales-pitch/


Okay.  Nice.
 
2019-10-18 02:16:10 PM  

mdarius: It's bullshiat? Then thank God we've defunded and cut the SEC. Waste of money there then.


Who needs it? I can get all the info I need here from the fifth estate.
 
2019-10-18 02:19:00 PM  

OccamsWhiskers: It's not just that the Vanity Fair article didn't prove there was insider trading. It didn't even offer evidence. It proved that there were trades, but not even any data suggesting that any of them were suspicious, let alone based on insider knowledge.


It's also worth noting that these wins were on the order of 1% of the trade.  The big one was 3%.  No one is going to risk $16 billion for a 1% return even if they have inside information -- there's too big a chance that some other information they don't have would ruin the trade.  3%? Maybe.  But not over a whole week.   The big tell in the original story was the repetition of the 9-11 insider trading tale. The SEC examined those trades. They know who did them and why. They were not done by Osama or anyone like that.
 
2019-10-18 02:19:36 PM  

whither_apophis: There were a bunch of short options on airlines before 9/11 but the commission called it "an anomaly" or some such hand wavinb


it was probably some FBI/NSC staffers who had been trying to raise the alarm on that shiat for months only to be ignored...so they figured they'd fund an early retirement...perhaps.

I considered shorting soy futures and a few other commodities back in early 2017...but I didn't have enough cash on hand to cover a wide enough span of time, as I knew trade was going to tank...but wasn't sure when.

I should have sold my car and dumped every dime I could into that when I had the chance...I could be retired by now.
 
2019-10-18 02:24:36 PM  
However, a good case could be made that if you are able to coordinate your buying and selling with which companies Fox and Friends are talking about, you have a fair shot that Trump will talk crap about them, allowing you to buy on the cheap.
 
2019-10-18 02:28:31 PM  

Thenixon: 40 degree day: TFA does not disprove the theory. All it does is show that there is more investigation to do. The point of the original article is that there are some strange trading patterns that suggest foreknowledge of news events. It is well worth digging into this further.

As TFA mentions, original article invokes decisions announced by Chinese gov and the drone attacks on Saudi. These are not linked events. Nobody would have foreknowledge of both of those things. If foreknowledge of the events is not part of the explanation, it's all significantly less sinishter.


There's no proof that the two trades had anything to do with said events or that they were made by the same person or were even unusual.  If lots of trades of a certain type happen constantly, every so often one will hit the motherfarking jackpot due to pure luck.
 
2019-10-18 02:34:53 PM  

hubcity: But chaos is a ladder!


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2019-10-18 02:39:14 PM  

Catlenfell: However, a good case could be made that if you are able to coordinate your buying and selling with which companies Fox and Friends are talking about, you have a fair shot that Trump will talk crap about them, allowing you to buy on the cheap.


Planet Money made a bot that made trades based on what Trump said.  https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08​/7683703​74/episode-763-botus

It didn't do very well.  It looked good at first, but the market cared less and less when they realized it was just talk and so the trades stopped profiting.
 
2019-10-18 02:40:06 PM  
in the last 30 minutes of trading on June 28"-which also happens to be the very end of the second quarter.

Yes, it could be coincidence, but Trump gives out info that will cause the market to swing wildly exactly at the very end of the second quarter?

Good timing on Trumps part.
 
2019-10-18 02:43:20 PM  

hubcity: But chaos is a ladder!


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2019-10-18 02:51:42 PM  
Someone DID make money off of those events and used the capital to buy in to high stakes poker games. But unfortunately for him, he's up against 007

Last poker hand in Casino Royale (2006)
Youtube H9fyOFefirQ


BTW how talented is Bond that every single player ahead of him had a huge hand when he had a straight flush. What a skilled secret agent
 
2019-10-18 02:55:29 PM  
This doesn't debunk shiat.

Of course if someone makes $190,000,000 on a bet someone had to lose it too.

This sounds like damage control from someone who doesn't want suspicious market activity to be investigated.
 
2019-10-18 02:57:30 PM  

you are a puppet: Someone DID make money off of those events and used the capital to buy in to high stakes poker games. But unfortunately for him, he's up against 007

[YouTube video: Last poker hand in Casino Royale (2006)]

BTW how talented is Bond that every single player ahead of him had a huge hand when he had a straight flush. What a skilled secret agent


The poker in that movie is so bad, it almost ruins an otherwise great film.  Have you seen literally any movie with poker, or even movies explicitly about poker?  They all do this crap because it's the only way to stage a poker hand dramatically, at least in the filmmaker's mind.  Real, skilled poker is boring and a grind.  No one makes money on coolers.  You'll break even on coolers throughout your career because no one is folding quads against a straight flush or most boat over boat hands, or whatever.  Long term winning in poker is done in small to medium hands over long periods of time, taking down pots you shouldn't with well timed bluffs, getting opponents to slightly overvalue their hands, stealing blinds, playing position, etc.
 
2019-10-18 03:02:01 PM  

Arthen: This doesn't debunk shiat.

Of course if someone makes $190,000,000 on a bet someone had to lose it too.

This sounds like damage control from someone who doesn't want suspicious market activity to be investigated.


See other comments.  There was nothing inherently suspicious about any of this.  Trades like those are made every day, thousands of times per day.  So, if you want to arbitrarily line some up with statements or market moving events, it's extraordinarily easy.  That's all the original article did.  If you want to show that some market manipulation is potentially going on, you'd have to show something like all those "suspicious" trades you cherry picked were actually done by the same person or group and they are right a significantly disproportionate amount of the time compared to their peers in such a way and with enough of a data set that could not be explained by temporary fluctuations in luck or chance.

You can't just say hey, someone made a trade, also someone in China said something to move the market.  Therefore, someone knew that information ahead of time.
 
2019-10-18 03:07:39 PM  
If 'Murica is patient, they can soon start selling China clean air and water in plastic baggies and clear up their trade deficit in toto.
 
2019-10-18 03:11:55 PM  

Apocalyptic Inferno: you are a puppet: Someone DID make money off of those events and used the capital to buy in to high stakes poker games. But unfortunately for him, he's up against 007

[YouTube video: Last poker hand in Casino Royale (2006)]

BTW how talented is Bond that every single player ahead of him had a huge hand when he had a straight flush. What a skilled secret agent

The poker in that movie is so bad, it almost ruins an otherwise great film.  Have you seen literally any movie with poker, or even movies explicitly about poker?  They all do this crap because it's the only way to stage a poker hand dramatically, at least in the filmmaker's mind.  Real, skilled poker is boring and a grind.  No one makes money on coolers.  You'll break even on coolers throughout your career because no one is folding quads against a straight flush or most boat over boat hands, or whatever.  Long term winning in poker is done in small to medium hands over long periods of time, taking down pots you shouldn't with well timed bluffs, getting opponents to slightly overvalue their hands, stealing blinds, playing position, etc.


So you like all the other over the top stuff but not the over the top poker? Realistic poker would be an absolute cinematic nightmare. I just thought it was funny that he he hit a straight flush and the first two guys go all in and the next guy raises them. I've had a straight flush in real life at a poker table, there was one guy in, he folded, I won a small pot and after showing my cards I got a free case of beer. But that's why Bond is the best spy ever and I'm just the best messageboard guy.
 
2019-10-18 04:27:27 PM  

Apocalyptic Inferno: There was nothing inherently suspicious about any of this.


There wasn't until someone paid money for an article to be published in order to point this out.
 
2019-10-18 04:30:27 PM  

Arthen: Apocalyptic Inferno: There was nothing inherently suspicious about any of this.

There wasn't until someone paid money for an article to be published in order to point this out.


That's the guy who did the trades!

We're through the looking glass here, people.
 
2019-10-18 04:57:44 PM  

you are a puppet: Apocalyptic Inferno: you are a puppet: Someone DID make money off of those events and used the capital to buy in to high stakes poker games. But unfortunately for him, he's up against 007

[YouTube video: Last poker hand in Casino Royale (2006)]

BTW how talented is Bond that every single player ahead of him had a huge hand when he had a straight flush. What a skilled secret agent

The poker in that movie is so bad, it almost ruins an otherwise great film.  Have you seen literally any movie with poker, or even movies explicitly about poker?  They all do this crap because it's the only way to stage a poker hand dramatically, at least in the filmmaker's mind.  Real, skilled poker is boring and a grind.  No one makes money on coolers.  You'll break even on coolers throughout your career because no one is folding quads against a straight flush or most boat over boat hands, or whatever.  Long term winning in poker is done in small to medium hands over long periods of time, taking down pots you shouldn't with well timed bluffs, getting opponents to slightly overvalue their hands, stealing blinds, playing position, etc.

So you like all the other over the top stuff but not the over the top poker? Realistic poker would be an absolute cinematic nightmare. I just thought it was funny that he he hit a straight flush and the first two guys go all in and the next guy raises them. I've had a straight flush in real life at a poker table, there was one guy in, he folded, I won a small pot and after showing my cards I got a free case of beer. But that's why Bond is the best spy ever and I'm just the best messageboard guy.


It's not that it's unrealistic.  Coolers happen all the time (though that last hand in Casino Royale is silly).  It's that movies use coolers to try to illustrate poker skill when there is no skill involved in winning a cooler.  If fully believe you could shorthand a way to demonstrate true (or at least truer) poker skill while still having it be dramatically compelling.
 
2019-10-18 05:31:25 PM  
Didn't the original article reference a bunch of old hands being surprised by the trades?  Sure it can be zero sum, but trades can be surprising and near term unfolding events might cause justified speculation.
 
2019-10-18 06:31:22 PM  
I guess we know who the trader is now...
 
2019-10-18 07:35:41 PM  
That article only explained how the Vanity Fair piece requires more research, but then provided no research, either. All it was was one guy saying, "This looks weird" and another guy being like, "Nuh-uh!!"

Not saying the Vanity Fair piece is definitely correct, but this Slate piece didn't do the work to disprove the original's thesis, necessarily.
 
2019-10-18 09:11:22 PM  

whats updog: That article only explained how the Vanity Fair piece requires more research, but then provided no research, either. All it was was one guy saying, "This looks weird" and another guy being like, "Nuh-uh!!"

Not saying the Vanity Fair piece is definitely correct, but this Slate piece didn't do the work to disprove the original's thesis, necessarily.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is not on the critic.
 
2019-10-18 10:56:30 PM  

whats updog: That article only explained how the Vanity Fair piece requires more research, but then provided no research, either. All it was was one guy saying, "This looks weird" and another guy being like, "Nuh-uh!!"

Not saying the Vanity Fair piece is definitely correct, but this Slate piece didn't do the work to disprove the original's thesis, necessarily.


These transactions were entered into by a significant number of diverse market participants.
 
2019-10-19 05:52:29 AM  

hubcity: But chaos is a ladder!


Pre-greased in ever-changing locations for your convenience!
 
2019-10-19 05:57:42 AM  

Apocalyptic Inferno: So you like all the other over the top stuff but not the over the top poker? Realistic poker would be an absolute cinematic nightmare. I just thought it was funny that he he hit a straight flush and the first two guys go all in and the next guy raises them. I've had a straight flush in real life at a poker table, there was one guy in, he folded, I won a small pot and after showing my cards I got a free case of beer. But that's why Bond is the best spy ever and I'm just the best messageboard guy.


All my hands like that but one have been the same way.  Everybody else has crap, walks, and I get a couple bucks - woooo!  Had one, count it - but it was the quasi-mythical royal flush, and it was even in spades, literally couldn't lose - that people actually stayed in and bet the hell out of.  Two of them were showboating or delusional, one guy had a decent straight, the last guy had a nice full house, I woulda stayed in on that too - hell maybe even the straight.

/won $75 - got to see Pink Floyd at the Rose Bowl - was nice timing for found money
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Fark and Schnitt podcast logo





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report