[idle_zealot]

> Some analysts say it bears the hallmarks of illegal insider trading, whereby bets are made by people based on information that is not available to the general public. > Others say the picture is more complicated and that some traders have become more adept at anticipating the president's interventions.

This and the title are journalistic malpractice. This is an article designed to report on obvious insider trading, and the writer clearly knows and agrees that it's obvious, but goes out of their way to throw in concessions and a build a veil of neutrality. You are legally allowed to accuse public officials of crimes. You do not have to gesture at "looming suspicions." A neutral reporting of the facts would make such an accusation, and tie it into the broader pattern of criminality. But it's more important to perform neutrality than to be honest, so we get this garbage. "Mr President, would you please comment on the allegations that-" "Shut up, piggie."

[awakeasleep]

It may be different in the UK. They have defamation laws that seem insane to a USA person. (Burden of proof on the speaker to prove what they said is true iirc)

[ruszki]

I never understood this. Basically every country, including the US, has libel and slander laws, and almost the same everywhere in the West. People were thrown to jail even in America for "a single tweet", the exact same way as in the UK. And for example, saying that you support violence in specific cases, like there is an ongoing riot, and you tweet "kill them all", that's not protected by any free speech laws in the world, not even the American, or any states' in America.

[joecool1029]

You can actually tweet/write agreement with acts of violence and advocate for it in a general sense in the US. The legal standard is whether that speech is a threat to imminent violence (encouraging violence at a specific place and time): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Furthermore, defamation/libel is not covered under criminal law, it’s considered a tort so it would be a civil suit.

So no, not at all like the UK.

EDIT: But yeah sure if you want to try to defend your point, start linking cases to support the claim.

[amenhotep]

What on earth does defamation being a civil offense have to do with anything? It's a civil offense in the UK too, criminal defamation hasn't been a thing since 2010 and was barely a thing before then. If you want to confidently post how one thing is not at all like the other thing it might be a good idea to know the most basic facts about the other thing.

[joecool1029]

Maybe re-read parent’s comment? They were saying there are laws against libel/slander in every country, US doesn’t have such laws that would throw you behind bars.

I am confident in stating the UK has much weaker free speech laws and no constitution to base free speech protections on. FFS, this is the country a dude was arrested and fined for filming his dog doing a hitler salute. We have had a few cases not related to violence in the US but they usually end up overturned even when there’s a conviction (thinking of this guy as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_Mackey )

[ruszki]

Yes, the legal standards... which doesn't stop them to throw you in jail, like this case: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/fiu-student-faces-felony-charge-ov...

[testfoobar]

Allegations of insider trading are not the same as convictions of insider trading. No publication should be in the business of allocating criminal responsibility in advance of legal proceedings. If a crime is suspected then it should be reported to the authorities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

[SpicyLemonZest]

I don't understand this response. Certainly they shouldn't say "Mr. John Smith is guilty" if a court hasn't found that. But there's nobody in particular being named here, just clear evidence that someone must have done it. If the police find a dead body, should newspapers pretend the victim might be alive somehow to avoid allocating criminal responsibility for murder?

[Shocka1]

> just clear evidence that someone must have done it

I would love to hear more about this clear evidence. There is smoke, sure, but clear evidence, I would love to hear more on your investigation.

I've been algorithmically trading for several years now, collecting data, running machine learning prediction algorithms and whatnot. Anyway, I made 4500% off a high risk 1 DTE options play between Thursday/Friday. This trade was put in right before the geopolitical announcements sent the Russell 2000 into Captain Insano mode overnight. This isn't the first time I've done this - it's a valid trading strategy with the continuous drama/volatility that Mr DJT brings to the markets. I'm sure if there are any insider trading flags I set them off on Friday, and for people who have no idea how markets work and what volume normally looks like, it would definitely look like an insider.

I realized long ago that to make money doing this, all bias/emotions need removed and the only thing that can be relied on is math. Have you ever considered that some of the bigger prop shop trading firms with a lot of buying power are just extremely good at what they do?

[SpicyLemonZest]

The source article details multiple cases where trading volume spiked 15 minutes before a market-moving Trump announcement. I don't think it's plausible that prop shops have such good math that they can predict Trump's announcements so precisely.

[Shocka1]

There are a slew of things that were going on that make it much more probable than you might realize. One non-mathematical factor was that oil was already spiked, the perfect time to short is when it's on the rise, especially with intent of a mean reversion trade. You don't short oil on the trough's, you short on the spikes - the probability of a short working that day was much higher than average.

Next, there are definitely ML algorithms running in prop shops as we speak that are trained on the probability of DJT and media announcements, especially in volatile weeks like we've had. I cannot post the data here, but there is an article on Axios that shows this: https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/how-and-when-trump-tweets-1...

So not only was a mean reversion probability high, but there were probably prop shop ML algo green lights going off for the probability of an announcement that would give the mean reversion some more fuel. Regular algorithmic trading shops probably added to this volume when their programs saw larger orders coming in, which made the volume spike even larger.

Lastly, Nick Marsh is a journalist, not a professional trader or a professional in algorithmic trading. If he was, he wouldn't be making shock and awe articles for the BBC. For one low hanging fruit, why did he not pull historical data on oil futures - including other derivatives (not only Brent)? He would have needed to pull at least several years of data to understand if this was an actual outlier spike or not. If you have ever even remotely paid attention to the oil futures markets, you would know there tends to be higher volume spikes at any given time, especially after the futures market closes and re-opens between 5 and 6pm, and especially during volatile times like the last couple months.

This article isn't the full picture at all whatsoever and comes from someone who has an elementary understanding of the equity and futures markets. But it served its purpose, which was triggering an easily triggered society. Surely there has been some DJT-linked insider trading, but I personally cannot jump on board until there is more evidence - AKA the scientific method.

[testfoobar]

By researching, writing and publishing this article both the reporter and the news org believe there is significant public value in publishing this information.

But it is a higher and more restricted standard to say a crime has been committed. Journalists can uncover and publish evidence that a crime has been likely committed.

Journalists cannot make a legal determination that a crime has or has not been committed. This is left for courts.

[imiric]

That's ludicrous hair splitting.

If I have evidence that a crime has been committed based on my layperson understanding of the law, I will surely inform others before the case is even brought to courts. Journalists can and should do the same.

By your logic, reporting based on evidence provided by whistleblowers shouldn't exist. Things like Watergate would likely have never happened.

Journalists shouldn't accuse anyone of committing a crime, and goes without saying that facts shouldn't be fabricated, which is unfortunately common nowadays as well, but they should report events that happened based on the information they have, whether these happen to be related to crimes or not.

[testfoobar]

>If I have evidence that a crime has been committed based on my layperson understanding of the law, I will surely inform others before the case is even brought to courts. Journalists can and should do the same.

In the US, careful journalistic organizations follow ethical and legal guidelines that often split hairs.

Have a look here: New York Times - Ethical Journalism A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Opinion Departments

https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journali...

[ndsipa_pomu]

Reporting based on evidence is definitely allowed in the UK. Any accusation of libel/slander could be defended by producing the evidence and thus proving that the statements were true.

Going beyond the evidence and jumping straight to the crime is where the situation becomes tricky as the defense would be unlikely to prove beyond doubt that the accused person was actually guilty - that's why terms are used such as "alleged child abuser". Alternatively, the evidence/facts can be reported e.g. "Trump featured in many victim reports as an abuser".

[zeristor]

Justice or Just ICE?

The rule of law hasn’t been an impediment for some, when the legal machinery has been co-opted

[cosmicgadget]

What if they just said "insider trading (the act)" and not "insider trading (the crime)"?

[davidw]

Once you start seeing all the "both sides" and "sanewashing" you can't unsee it. And they lean on both so hard.

[red-iron-pine]

who is "they"?

[davidw]

Corporate media.

[imglorp]

The term is sanewashing.

None of this kleptocracy is normal, or sane, or acceptable.

[dlenski]

Thank you. I was going to simply comment "Suspicions"!?!

… but you've explained it more thoroughly.

[librasteve]

yeah, and Trump will no doubt retort that this is BBC fake news in the light of their legal battle over (improperly) editing his speech

the BBC is required by its charter to provide a “balanced” view and this often result in unbearable smugness and vaulting to “we are the ultimate arbiters of truth”

this is a big pity, because the alternative is Fox News / GB News

[sometimes_all]

> the BBC is required by its charter to provide a “balanced” view

I find this hilarious; the BBC has rarely provided a balanced view on many things. Indians (at almost every point in the political and social spectrum) will easily notice the bias and smug holier-than-thou attitude on India-specific news/opinion.

[librasteve]

well yes, balanced as in the net Islington dinner party

[librasteve]

as a brit that has lived in the US and EU and visited many places (not yet India) … I can well imagine that the BBC looks like the British imposing our views with a wrapper of intolerable righteousness … please allow me to apologise on behalf of all us licence payers

[sometimes_all]

Why would you have to apologize? If I had to apologize on behalf of all the drivel Indian newspapers write, it'd take me more than a month.

It's pretty clear that newspapers around the world are now decoupling from the actual wishes and necessities of their subscribers/licensees. The latter are not to blame, especially when they are willing to pay for their news.

Plus I don't have to read the BBC if I don't want to, but media literacy, combing through nonsense and finding the actual necessary bits, etc. are important, and that needs me to read news from different sources and countries, including that of BBC sometimes.

[GJim]

You clearly haven't spent long enough in Blighty to identify sarcasm.

[GJim]

>the BBC is required by its charter to provide a “balanced” view

You say this like it is a bad thing.

The BBC journalism is rather good and quite rightly seeks to be as impartial as possible. To compare the likes of Rupert Murdoch as a credible alternative to be BBC (or indeed, any news media which lacks a 'fairness doctrine') is simply idiotic.

[librasteve]

so, yes and no

I believe in an active, pluralist and free press.

Simplistically, this should emerge spontaneously from a free market in publications and subscribers. But newspapers are prone to capture by rich folk who can then manipulate political destinies (Heart, Murdoch, Bezos).

Realistically, a state funded media channel such as the BBC is a good balance to that, but it is idiotic cant to pretend that a “neutrality charter” is meaningful since such organs tend to become captured by “dinner party activists” and foster groupthink about what neutral is. So I agree with the top comment that the BBC has a tendency to be a righteous preachy outfit.