[HN Gopher] An insider-trading indictment shows ties to Bloomber... ___________________________________________________________________ An insider-trading indictment shows ties to Bloomberg News scoops Author : onetimemanytime Score : 85 points Date : 2021-04-02 19:12 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.cjr.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.cjr.org) | raymondh wrote: | Life imitates art. | | "Blue horseshoe loves Anacott Steel" - Gordon Gecko, Wall Street | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8PLrkEXWnc | throwaway789256 wrote: | An inside trader in the UK was also shown to be exchanging | information with Bloomberg News's reporters: | | https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/the-mystery-millionaire-who-haun... | | What's not being said here is that for the trader to have timed | his bets so precisely, the reporter would have had to tell him | _when_ the story was coming out. | | The anonymous sources on Bloomberg M&A scoops all have insider | information one way or the other (think "provider of professional | services in the deal space"), otherwise they would have nothing | to say. While many of them are not stupid enough to trade on that | information, nearly all of them get some kind of benefit from it, | usually in the form of two-way information exchange with the | reporter. Since they work on deals, they want to know about | deals, because their livelihoods depend on deal flow. | | VCs know this dynamic well, but they are far less regulated, | because they primarily work with private companies, not public | ones. | mdeck_ wrote: | > What's not being said here is that for the trader to have | timed his bets so precisely, the reporter would have had to | tell him when the story was coming out. | | Based on what are you speculating this? I just looked at the | indictment, which is linked in the article. Page 8 shows that | the timeline between the relevant inside activity and the | article's appearance in Bloomberg running to multiple weeks or | even a month. More generally, I don't see anything that would | require an inside trader to know exactly when a news story on | these kinds of topics is going to come out. If they know a | stock is likely going way up SOMETIME in the near future, that | is enough to conclude that the trade is a sure bet. So, no need | for a specific tip (as to article timing) from the reporter, | and therefore presumably no need for complicity by the | reporter. | | *I do not intend this comment to mean I believe the actual | reporter actually was not complicit. I don't know the facts of | this case beyond what is stated in the story linked here. | throwaway789256 wrote: | From the story: | | > Peltz bought Ferro stock via others' accounts, culminating | with his last purchase at 9:37 am on March 15, 2016, | according to the indictment. | | > Around six or seven minutes after that final purchase, | Bloomberg posted a scoop by Hammond and another Bloomberg | reporter under the headline, "Ferro Said to Have Received | Takeover Approach From Apollo," a major private-equity firm. | | A 6-7 minute gap implies coordination and foreknowledge of | when the story would go out. | mdeck_ wrote: | You've got your causation backwards. | | He made a series of purchases... ok... of course his last | purchase was shortly before the story was published. As to | this being his last purchase, well of course--why would he | keep buying after his insider advantage had evaporated? At | that point there would be nothing more to take advantage | of. Anyway, this does not show awareness on the part of the | reporter. | | Yes, the fact that his last purchase was close in time | could show that he received timing information, but it | could be that he was making lots of purchases over time and | simply stopped once the story came out. | | You note that he started selling after the scoops were | published. Again, this doesn't prove anything about the | reporter's (non-)complicity. I.e., OF COURSE he started | selling after the story published. What did you expect him | to do? He was waiting on the story to be able to trade on | effects of its publication. Once it was published, the | stock's price would have shifted (presumably upwards) based | on those facts--no more reason to hold the stock! | | He bought options, which have time decay. Ok, but we don't | know that he bought options expiring within a few days or | weeks rather than months. Anyway, these deal scoops were | going to come out sooner or later--but reporters want to | avoid being scooped, so they typically come out sooner. | | Overall, I'm not convinced there's anything here. Of course | a criminal trial would/will make this all clearer... | kgwgk wrote: | I imagine that if the story has been published at 9:31 the | purchase at 9:37 wouldn't have happened and some other | transaction would have been his last purchase. He may or | may not have been aware of when the news would be | published. | throwaway789256 wrote: | That is logically plausible. An insider purchase that | occurs minutes ahead of a market-moving event is merely | circumstantial evidence, but it is very strong | circumstantial evidence. | | One thing to note is that Peltz bought options as well as | stock. Options suffer time decay. That is, all other | things being equal, their value decreases with the | passage of time. The better you can time your purchase to | immediately precede a market-moving event, the less time | decay matters. | | In addition, Peltz and his associates started selling | their positions within a minute of the scoops being | published. Do you think they just happened to be looking | at their trading screens during that minute of the day? I | don't think they would have left that to chance. | JKCalhoun wrote: | We must have a craving for justice -- I feel _lifted_ somehow | when I read about criminals being caught. | toss1 wrote: | Could be a combo of that and schadenfreude ... but the deserved | justice does make it seem more satisfying | bin_bash wrote: | Could something like this explain "The Big Hack"? | wmf wrote: | Not really. That would require Bloomberg to deliberately | fabricate a false story so that someone could do insider | trading based on it. | slymon99 wrote: | Honestly, who thinks they can get away with moronically obvious | insider trading like this? "Oh, I know, I'll take large positions | right before this reporter publishes MNPI, and I'll do it five | times". Obviously you are going to get caught! | onetimemanytime wrote: | do you think 100% of them get caught? | vmception wrote: | this is a pretty reliable way to get caught | | brokers and all licensed financial firms are essentially | deputized to freeze and enforce this stuff on behalf of the | regulator, who then has time to get a emergency asset freeze | rubber stamped by an "administrator law judge" who basically | works on staff at the regulatory agency | | then you can prove why you aren't guilty by retaining a good | lawyer with all that other money you have which isn't frozen, | you have that right? | | the better way is to use a bot to execute the trades right | after publication, or do it manually and lose a little bit of | alpha. but he didn't. | lordnacho wrote: | The ones who do it this way, yes. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, | but it looks like he bought the stocks shortly before and | then sold shortly after. | | That's going to show up in a simple search, and there's not a | lot of alternative explanations for it. | p1necone wrote: | Statistically on any stock with a large trading volume | there's pretty much always going to be _someone_ who bought | up right before a big announcement purely by chance, | realized they got lucky and sold immediately afterwards. | | It's not obvious to me how you'd separate this from | intentional trading on insider information. (Unless you | just investigate everyone). | lordnacho wrote: | You'll find that even on some fairly large names there | isn't all that much activity during the day. There's a | lot of names, and there's a lot of trading in the | auctions, so the total volume in the market won't result | in a steady flow for a particular share. | | My guess is it will stick out like a sore thumb if you | buy x shares right before an announcement and sell x | right after. Especially if you do nothing else. Pretty | much as soon as you've exited a second announcement-trade | red lights should be flashing. | jbritton wrote: | I maybe wrong, but I was under the impression that trades are | essentially anonymous unless they are for a significant | percentage of the stock. | esoterica wrote: | They are anonymous to other participants, not the SEC | WJW wrote: | It really depends on what you are trading. For example the | prototype of a "dumb" insider trade is getting OTM call | options when you know a company is getting a blowout quarter. | Large amounts of OTM options trading in a stock that rarely | sees much options activity is quite noticeable. When the | authorities notice those, they can (and do) find out who got | into that position simply by calling all the registered | brokers and asking them who did it. (With a court order if | need be, because suspicious options activity just before | large jumps in stock price is reasonable suspicion of insider | trading) | elliekelly wrote: | Any time there's a big swing the SEC requests data for | transactions before and after. The time period of their | requests vary but sometimes they ask for transactions months | in advance to look for unusual patterns of activity. Insider | trading is a particularly stupid move because it's only a | matter of time before you get caught. | frakkingcylons wrote: | It seems ethically dubious to publicly name a Bloomberg reporter | based _only_ on circumstantial evidence. | | Don't get me wrong, it is awfully suspicious that the stories' | timestamps match closely. But I wonder if there's other info they | have that links the reporter to Peltz. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-02 23:00 UTC)