this hedge fund scandal
Wang's Upon a Time 19 Dec 19 11:07
Reply |

As exposed in the Times today: I don't get the fuss tbh.  Sure, the provider of the back-up audio feed has probably breached its contract (unclear from the article) but surely if something is said in a news conference with the press it is instantly "public information".  The fact that someone knows this a few seconds before someone else seems irrelevant to me, if the words have been said in a press conf the information is surely instantly public.  Comparing it to "insider trading" seems like bollocks (from a strictly semantic point of view, I realise it just isn't cricket).

Puts me in mind of, I think, a Pratchettism, which states that nothing travels faster in the universe than royal succession.  As soon as old bess shuffles off the coil, big chuck will become king faster than the speed of light.  (From one of the witches thingys I think.)

I realise those best placed to comment may not be able to so do.

Sorry to steal your expert thunder tecco (not your sexual expert thunder which is, of course, trite rof).

I don't think it's any kind of crime, but any manager that's purportedly adhering to FCA principles should recognise it's something that shouldn't be happening and report it rather than trade on it. 

Like if you default back to the position that anything which isn't illegal is fair game and fuck the ethical business principles you've agreed to follow, then the regulation needs to be far stricter. 

I kind of agree that anything which is not proscribed is fair game.  That's the fundamental of the common law system.  The alternative is the horrendous Napoleonic Code / Roman Law model.*


*admit there are many parts of this cancer that have seeped into our system from the EUSSR.**



what wango and ??? said

"Paul...get me my afternoon tea after my snooze"....might not qualify as one

I am properly confused by this.  Sure - libor fixing was bent (and I've seen some of the IMs which were properly cringesome).  But how is access to information which is public by its very definition in the same league.  How is a live trade price on Bloomberg any different?  Sure, it will be slower than hearing the PUBLIC announcement verbatim in real time, but many home traders presumably cant afford a Bloomberg subscription.  Presumably a journo at the conference could short or long his personal stocks instantly on his phone.  Or hers obv.

They wouldn't be trading on stocks though, it would be forex.  Stocks would be too difficult based on one pronouncement from the GotBoE given all the other factors in play on an individual stock basis.  Forex though, you could stick on a £100m position and make a cheeky quick 1% with lower risk. The issue here seems to be that a handful of traders were making money to the exclusion and disadvantage of others based on what should have been confidential for another 8 seconds but wasn't as a result of a breach by a supplier.

But how is it confidential if you are disseminating it at a press conference?

I suppose it is kind of de facto confidential (for that 8 seconds) as if you are actually there you wouldn't be able to act on it within that 8 seconds with authentications, log-ins and bollox for the gazillion dollar trading account to make it worthwhile so the people there aren't an issue, ignoring some scuzzy Sun reporter with his small forex trading account permanently open. The issue seems to be some hedgies making money at the expense only of other hedgies.  Which is one reason to do a Wenger at any possible unlawfulness (if there is any).   

Indeed.  Admittedly I don't read the FCA handbook often so it wouldn't surprise me if it had some just aint cricket type censures in there like the tax legislation

heh i love the tax legislation

which basically says if we don’t like how it smells, we tax u

wish they would sniff some of rof’s tax complainers a bit harder

The overarching FCA rules are basically the same. Don't be a khunt, and if we judge you to be being a khunt we will fine you. 

Though how they avoid fining literally everyone in the financial sector under that principle remains unclear. 

If it was just forex trading of the back of this, then there aren't any insider issue at all unless I'm much mistaken (which I might well be) as no trading in securities/instruments are involved. Trading in gilts on the other hand....

insider is probably the wrong terminology here, buzz, but it is that benefit to a few for 8 seconds

cheating other hedgies is still cheating I suppose. 

do they discuss gilts that much on a regular basis? their discussion is probably now these days about currency and interest rate (if that)

If you're talking about currency and rates that's exactly the info you'd want to make an informed trade in gilts no?

i was thinking more in terms of volume and movement make a difference for BoE to ponder much about it

but yes currency/int is relevant.