• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

About those cattle futures

Slingshot Bob said:
A women with no experience in cattle trading, turns one grand into 100,000$ in 10 months. Does any one that voted for her, feel any shame in criticizing Trump. Has Trump done any, insider trading?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy
Click to expand...

You might try reading your own link.

"After the Clinton trading matter became public, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Mercantile Exchange, was brought in by request of the White House to review the trading records. On April 11, 1994, he said that the whole matter was "a tempest in a teapot" and that while her brokers had not required her to provide typical margin cushions, she had not knowingly benefited.[9] On May 26, 1994, after the new records concerning the larger Blair trades came to light, he said "I have no reason to change my original assessment. Mrs. Clinton violated no rules in the course of her transactions."[18] But as to the question of whether she had been allocated profits from larger block trades, he said of the new accounting, "It doesn't suggest that there was allocation, and it doesn't prove there wasn't,"[19] an assessment of uncertainty shared by Merton Miller, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business."
 
Tanngrisnir said:
You might try reading your own link.

"After the Clinton trading matter became public, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Mercantile Exchange, was brought in by request of the White House to review the trading records. On April 11, 1994, he said that the whole matter was "a tempest in a teapot" and that while her brokers had not required her to provide typical margin cushions, she had not knowingly benefited.[9] On May 26, 1994, after the new records concerning the larger Blair trades came to light, he said "I have no reason to change my original assessment. Mrs. Clinton violated no rules in the course of her transactions."[18] But as to the question of whether she had been allocated profits from larger block trades, he said of the new accounting, "It doesn't suggest that there was allocation, and it doesn't prove there wasn't,"[19] an assessment of uncertainty shared by Merton Miller, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business."
Click to expand...

She probably has that first dollar in a frame over her desk.
 
Hillary Clinton's defenders, including White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, maintained throughout that she had made her own decisions, that her own money was constantly at risk, and that she made both winning and losing trades throughout the ten months.[20] Regarding suggestions that Blair had favored Clinton so that Tyson Foods could gain influence with Governor Clinton, they pointed out that CEO Don Tyson, who had in 1978 endorsed Clinton, in 1980 endorsed Frank D. White, Clinton's opponent in his reelection bid. Tyson denied any knowledge of Blair's trading partnership with Clinton.[11][20][21]

Clinton's defenders also stressed that Blair and others stayed in the market longer than Clinton and lost much of what they had previously earned, showing that the risk was real.[3] Indeed, some reports had Blair losing $15 million[22] and Bone was reported as bankrupt.[7]
Click to expand...

Meh..
 
The profits made during the cattle trading first came to public light in a March 18, 1994 report by The New York Times, which had been reviewing the Clintons' financial records for two months.[7] It coincided with the beginning of congressional hearings over the Whitewater controversy.[10] Clinton initially told aides that she had made the futures gains by studying the financial news and placing trades herself, but later acknowledged the help of Blair. Media pressure continued to build, and on April 22, 1994, she gave an unusual press conference under a portrait of Abraham Lincoln in the State Dining Room of the White House, to address questions on both matters; it was broadcast live by CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN.[11] In it she said she had done the trading, but often relying upon the advice of Blair, and having him place orders for her; she said she did not believe she had received preferential treatment in the process.[11] She also downplayed the dangers of such trading: "I didn't think it was that big a risk. [Blair] and the people he was talking with knew what they were doing."[6]
 
Various publications sought to analyze the likelihood of Clinton's successful results. Clinton made her money by betting on the short side at a time when cattle prices doubled.[12] The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, "This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks."[2] Her activities involved exposure to losses that potentially could have been greater than her family's net worth if the market had turned sharply against her.[13] The former head of the IRS chief counsel’s Commodities Industry Specialization Team expressed skepticism that a novice trader could make such a return.[14] One analysis performed by Auburn University and published in the Journal of Economics and Finance claimed to find that the odds of a return that large during the period in question were about one in 31 trillion.[15][



ONE IN 31 TRILLION!:shock:
 
So, Hillary bad?
 
Is this thread gonna spur 10 threads about 'innocent until proven guilty'? I hope not.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
A women with no experience in cattle trading, turns one grand into 100,000$ in 10 months. Does any one that voted for her, feel any shame in criticizing Trump. Has Trump done any, insider trading?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy
Click to expand...
Let's also look closer at this paragraph, particularly that I bolded:


By January 1979, Clinton was up $26,000;[4] but later, she would lose $16,000 in a single trade.[4] At one point she owed in excess of $100,000 to Refco as part of covering losses, but no margin calls were made by Refco against her.[4] Near the end of the trading, Blair correctly sold short and gave her a $40,000 gain in one afternoon.[4] In July 1979,[1] once she became pregnant with Chelsea Clinton, "I lost my nerve for gambling [and] walked away from the table $100,000 ahead."[3] She briefly traded sugar futures contracts and other non-cattle commodities in October 1979, but more conservatively, through Stephens Inc.[4][8] During this period she made about $6,500 in gains (which she failed to pay taxes on at the time, consequently later paying some $14,600 in federal and state tax penalties in the 1990s).[8][9] Once her daughter was born in February 1980, she moved all her commodities gains into U.S. Treasury Bonds.[4]
Click to expand...

So she was down a 100K, recovered in large part due to a 40K gain afternoon, and then soon pulled-out when she had realized her 100K profit.

This is not at all an unusual trading pattern in highly leveraged markets like commodity futures or stock options.

What is unusual, is that she was not required to post margins. This would indeed have been favoritism from the trader to her. But if traded through her buddy's account, he would be responsible for the margins and she'd never personally get a margin call - he would.

(I do not know the details of the account set-up to verify this last item)
 
Chomsky said:
Let's also look closer at this paragraph, particularly that I bolded:




So she was down a 100K, recovered in large part due to a 40K gain afternoon, and then soon pulled-out when she had realized her 100K profit.

This is not at all an unusual trading pattern in highly leveraged markets like commodity futures or stock options.

What is unusual, is that she was not required to post margins. This would indeed have been favoritism from the trader to her. But if traded through her buddy's account, he would be responsible for the margins and she'd never personally get a margin call - he would.

(I do not know the details of the account set-up to verify this last item)
Click to expand...

You omitted "but no margins were called against her" Did you read the odds? 1 in 30 trillion, even if it was a paltry, one in a million, you don't see insider trading?
 
Slingshot Bob said:
You omitted "but no margins were called against her"
Click to expand...
Did you ommit reading my post in entirety? Particuliarly that I bolded below?

Chomsky said:
Let's also look closer at this paragraph, particularly that I bolded:




So she was down a 100K, recovered in large part due to a 40K gain afternoon, and then soon pulled-out when she had realized her 100K profit.

This is not at all an unusual trading pattern in highly leveraged markets like commodity futures or stock options.

What is unusual, is that she was not required to post margins. This would indeed have been favoritism from the trader to her. But if traded through her buddy's account, he would be responsible for the margins and she'd never personally get a margin call - he would.

(I do not know the details of the account set-up to verify this last item)
Click to expand...
Did you read the odds? 1 in 30 trillion, even if it was a paltry, one in a million, you don't see insider trading?
Click to expand...
No, I didn't.

Can you cite them, and explain please? I'd like to know how they're derived.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Post 7, from Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
I followed those three links, and they all linked back to one study that is behind a pay wall.

It seems these odds might be derived from putting a lump sum in the market, and letting it ride. But that's not what her trader did. He entered and exited the market as a day trader, riding the momentum. At one point he was down a 100K of her money. At other points, he lost and gained as much as 16-40K per day on her behalf.

I'd need to see the exact method of the claim determine those odds, but they are highly suspect. Hillary's partner's trading patterns are within the normal patterns I saw when working in this very business. In fact, I've seen far more volatile. We're speaking highly leveraged trading here, which was even more highly leveraged by a factor of 10 or more, due to her not being liable for margin. That's a big deal.

There's nothing unusual here besides her not being required to place margin. And to see why there was no margin requirement, we'd need to see how her account was structure. If her trader friend let her trade through his account, then his account provided the margin. And that may have been their agreement.

The only question I see, is why did this trading partner let her go margin free?
 
Chomsky said:
I followed those three links, and they all linked back to one study that is behind a pay wall.

It seems these odds might be derived from putting a lump sum in the market, and letting it ride. But that's not what her trader did. He entered and exited the market as a day trader, riding the momentum. At one point he was down a 100K of her money. At other points, he lost and gained as much as 16-40K per day on her behalf.

I'd need to see the exact method of the claim determine those odds, but they are highly suspect. Hillary's partner's trading patterns are within the normal patterns I saw when working in this very business. In fact, I've seen far more volatile. We're speaking highly leveraged trading here, which was even more highly leveraged by a factor of 10 or more, due to her not being liable for margin. That's a big deal.

There's nothing unusual here besides her not being required to place margin. And to see why there was no margin requirement, we'd need to see how her account was structure. If her trader friend let her trade through his account, then his account provided the margin. And that may have been their agreement.

The only question I see, is why did this trading partner let her go margin free?
Click to expand...

You obviously know more about this field than me, I was just surprised that Wikipedia actually criticized her. Smells a bit fishy.
 
Chomsky said:
I followed those three links, and they all linked back to one study that is behind a pay wall.

It seems these odds might be derived from putting a lump sum in the market, and letting it ride. But that's not what her trader did. He entered and exited the market as a day trader, riding the momentum. At one point he was down a 100K of her money. At other points, he lost and gained as much as 16-40K per day on her behalf.

I'd need to see the exact method of the claim determine those odds, but they are highly suspect. Hillary's partner's trading patterns are within the normal patterns I saw when working in this very business. In fact, I've seen far more volatile. We're speaking highly leveraged trading here, which was even more highly leveraged by a factor of 10 or more, due to her not being liable for margin. That's a big deal.

There's nothing unusual here besides her not being required to place margin. And to see why there was no margin requirement, we'd need to see how her account was structure. If her trader friend let her trade through his account, then his account provided the margin. And that may have been their agreement.

The only question I see, is why did this trading partner let her go margin free?
Click to expand...

You might also have a question as to how he figured out what was her share of any gain or loss. Did she have a specific share of some trading account. Also if the account was in his name only how did they report taxes?

Look, there is nothing to be gained by re-litigating something that happened 40 years ago. Suffice it to say that a key reason she lost was that people felt she was amoral. Somewhat different than Trump's being immoral.
 
washunut said:
You might also have a question as to how he figured out what was her share of any gain or loss. Did she have a specific share of some trading account. Also if the account was in his name only how did they report taxes?

Look, there is nothing to be gained by re-litigating something that happened 40 years ago.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the OP just happened to stumble into a venue where I have some direct experience.

I was simply testifying that the trading patterns were not highly unusual in futures or options.

Suffice it to say that a key reason she lost was that people felt she was amoral. Somewhat different than Trump's being immoral.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's a pretty profound statement.

"the amoral vs the immoral"

Nice! :thumbs:
 
Chomsky said:
Yeah, the OP just happened to stumble into a venue where I have some direct experience.

I was simply testifying that the trading patterns were not highly unusual in futures or options.

Wow, that's a pretty profound statement.

"the amoral vs the immoral"

Nice! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
washunut said:
You might also have a question as to how he figured out what was her share of any gain or loss. Did she have a specific share of some trading account. Also if the account was in his name only how did they report taxes?

Look, there is nothing to be gained by re-litigating something that happened 40 years ago. Suffice it to say that a key reason she lost was that people felt she was amoral. Somewhat different than Trump's being immoral.
Click to expand...

40 years ago, like Moore? That's cool, though right?
 
Uh yeah, thats a big deal. There are many trading strategies that are successful but require a lot of capital. If they waived the margin requirements, the fix was in.



Tanngrisnir said:
You might try reading your own link.

"After the Clinton trading matter became public, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Mercantile Exchange, was brought in by request of the White House to review the trading records. On April 11, 1994, he said that the whole matter was "a tempest in a teapot" and that while her brokers had not required her to provide typical margin cushions, she had not knowingly benefited.[9] On May 26, 1994, after the new records concerning the larger Blair trades came to light, he said "I have no reason to change my original assessment. Mrs. Clinton violated no rules in the course of her transactions."[18] But as to the question of whether she had been allocated profits from larger block trades, he said of the new accounting, "It doesn't suggest that there was allocation, and it doesn't prove there wasn't,"[19] an assessment of uncertainty shared by Merton Miller, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business."
Click to expand...
 
Chomsky said:
Yeah, the OP just happened to stumble into a venue where I have some direct experience.

I was simply testifying that the trading patterns were not highly unusual in futures or options.

Wow, that's a pretty profound statement.

"the amoral vs the immoral"

Nice! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

So 1 grand, turns into 100 grand in the 70's? Could you adjust the numbers to todays capital and show us where such an enormous gain happens in 10 months?
 
The no margin requirement is seriously fishy. However, the statute of limitations on this has long since expired, so it's moot from a legal standpoint. This is just another in the long list of questionable Clinton activities. In truth, we all know such things go on. Ask martha Stewart. It's when they're shoved in your face, as the Clintons have done throughout their public lives without penalty, that objections take root.
 
humbolt said:
The no margin requirement is seriously fishy. However, the statute of limitations on this has long since expired, so it's moot from a legal standpoint. This is just another in the long list of questionable Clinton activities. In truth, we all know such things go on. Ask martha Stewart. It's when they're shoved in your face, as the Clintons have done throughout their public lives without penalty, that objections take root.
Click to expand...

But yet moore faces 40 year old, allegations, the same people are, all over that! Right?
 
Slingshot Bob said:
But yet moore faces 40 year old, allegations, the same people are, all over that! Right?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. We're on a roll here. I bet sexual harassment is a problem in elementary schools now. "Mrs. Taylor, Bobby is sexually harassing me again!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom