"Insider Trading: But basically, if you know information that is private (“Company A is buying Company B”) then you are not allowed to make money on that information."<p>I see this misconception all the time & I'm really surprised to see it in this context. The sine qua non of "insider trading" is being <i>an insider</i>. If I know of a merger because I overhear the parties talking about it in a restaurant, or I've hired private investigators to see who's visiting who's offices, there is no issue. There has to be some relationship that obliges me to keep that information private. The only way markets work is by surfacing "private information".<p>"The essence of stock market law in the US is this: every transaction has to have risk in it. If you eliminate risk by, for instance, paying for information that nobody else knows, then you have committed a crime."<p>That's just completely wrong. If I hire a satellite to track car dealer inventories, buy Ford as a result, and make a ton of money, I'm doing my damn job. No one has committed a crime. Ditto if I sell that data rather than trading on it directly.
Insider trading increases the speed with which information is encoded into prices and thus speeds up price discovery, which is the core function of the market.<p>But it does so by creating agency problems. Either directly or indirectly, the information being traded on in these schemes comes from people who work for the shareholders of the company. A particular problem is that insiders can profit both from the wins <i>and losses</i> of their employers; it's the magnitude that matters, not the sign.<p>There's already a lot of evidence that company insiders, particularly in management, will routinely harm their employers for their own personal benefit (see, for instance, abusive stock buybacks). It doesn't seem smart to create new mechanisms for that to happen.
Here's the idea with sounding important: short sentences. It makes you sound urgent. Even knowledgeable. Don't believe me? Throw in a question. And then answer it. Exactly.<p>But the big gun, to hold in reserve?<p>New.<p>Paragraph.
Showtime "Billions" is probably the smartest show so far this year (maybe before Mr.Robot S2).<p>Fun background info: even though the author denies it, the show is loosely based on Steve Cohen of SAC Capital (now family office Point72, after insider trading charges from US Attorney), who the author had a short encounter with. And the "career coach" psychiatrist in the show played by gorgeous Maggie Siff bears resemblance of the famous psychiatrist Ari Kiev floating on the SAC floor.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/showtime-s-billions-greed-is-gripping" rel="nofollow">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/showtime-s...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://nypost.com/2015/08/14/embattled-hedgie-inspires-showtime-series/" rel="nofollow">http://nypost.com/2015/08/14/embattled-hedgie-inspires-showt...</a>
I'd love to make a small change to the English language. When speaking of speculation and rent-seeking activities, don't say "make money", say "obtain money". Reserve the term "making money" for activities which create value.<p>Just try it: how successful and glamorous does your rich banker friend seem when you describe him as an obtainer, rather than as a creator of wealth?
How hard is insider trading to catch, really? I'd assume a high level conversation between two executives over golf and bourbon is pretty damn hard to audit.
Being hedge fund psychologist seems to be much safer bet than being a trader.<p>Regardless of market direction - you always win (a stressed clientele with reasonably deep pockets).
5 years ago Altucher advocated not buying stock as lead into buying his system:<p><a href="http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/04/10-reasons-you-should-never-own-stocks-again/" rel="nofollow">http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/04/10-reasons-you-should-n...</a><p>Last year he started selling a system for buying stocks:<p><a href="http://www.timothysykes.com/2015/09/the-best-new-stock-market-tool-with-6-month-money-back-guarantee/" rel="nofollow">http://www.timothysykes.com/2015/09/the-best-new-stock-marke...</a><p><a href="http://www.thealtucherreport.com/one-percent.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.thealtucherreport.com/one-percent.html</a>
I'm calling bullshit on this guy being who he says he is (a former hedge fund manager) based on the following two passages:<p>"I would estimate 90% of hedge funds commit crimes along the way."<p>No way. It's a material number, but it's not 90%. Even if the author is using "hedge funds" here to refer to "long-short equity hedge funds"; the latter are often quite sketchy and operate close to the line in terms of hiring consultants who basically traffic in insider information. But the 90% estimate is asinine hyperbole.<p>"The 20% is the percentage of profits that the hedge fund manager takes. So if a one billion dollar hedge funds returns 10% (about the same as most mutual funds on a good year), then the profits are $100 million and the hedge fund manager makes an extra $20 million for himself (20% of $100 million)."<p>NOOOOOOO NONONONONONO.<p>The 2/20 fee structure gives GPs 20% of the carry <i>above a specified hurdle rate</i> that is usually in the mid-high single digits. So, in this example, if the hurdle rate were a relatively industry-standard 8%, the GPs would have earned $4mm. Not $20mm.
Well, one of the secrets is this:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspan_put" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspan_put</a><p>Which is a form of subsidizing speculative bubbles.
These colorful exposés by jaded ex-financial insiders are all the rage, and I'm not saying Wall Street rules/ethics aren't important to talk about, but it's easy to ignore more fundamental processes. The Fed, with the touch of a keyboard, writes money into existence out of thin air, purchasing securities with it. It amazes me that so few discuss the ethics of where the money comes from in the first place.
Maybe I'm jaded, but reading this I came away a little disappointed at not learning anything much. A lot of the behaviour seems strange, and yes, a little crooked. But "evil"?<p>I think a better explanation is hidden in this phrase. The authour writes:<p>>> Trading is very stressful. I hate it. I would make a bad trade and I would feel my blood pumping all over my body all day long. And then if the trade was a loss I would cry at night. I was so scared all the time. I hated it.<p>On one hand it makes me feel a little better that this happens to even successful people. But on the other hand, you cannot be a trader with this kind of attitude.<p>Suffice to say that not everyone has the same problem. Sounds to me like he's justifying his own actions in retrospect, at least a little. Does recounting a grab-bag of fun anecdotes say anything about the real problems in finance? I like James Altucher a lot, but I expected more here!
Excellent article. Loved the informal style!<p>If you haven't already watched "Billions" [1], it is an absolutely thrilling show. I was uncertain about it after the pilot, but I continued because of my experience with Showtime's "The Affair" [2].<p>I did not regret that decision. It is in my opinion the second best show of last season, after "Fargo" [3] of course.<p>[1]: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4270492/" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4270492/</a><p>[2]: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2699110/" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2699110/</a><p>[3]: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2802850/" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2802850/</a>
>> And if you can’t make it there, as the song sort of goes, you can’t make it anywhere.<p>The song sort of goes the complete opposite of that :).<p>If I can make it there,
I'll make it anywhere.
It's up to you, New York, New York.
The section "Hedge Fund Compensation" was very simple and clear, yet a really effective explanation of the problem with current incentive structures.
The US Attorney is widely believed to be loosely based on Preet Bharara. This is a good recent profile: <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/09/the-man-who-terrifies-wall-street" rel="nofollow">http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/09/the-man-who-ter...</a>
Some investors like Calpers, biggest pension fund in the U.S., are falling out of love with hedge funds. <a href="http://wolfstreet.com/2016/04/21/whats-hammering-hedge-funds/" rel="nofollow">http://wolfstreet.com/2016/04/21/whats-hammering-hedge-funds...</a>