Tag Archives: hillary clinton

Did Hillary Commit Insider Trading?

A story about alleged insider trading by an informed trader who bought put options on IBB (a biotech ETF) before Hillary made a tweet about ‘Epi Pen’ prices, went viral:

It was also posted on r/the_donald and r/conspiracy

Here is the tweet in question:

Posted at 11:02 PST.

The options in question are the IBB August 26th 190 puts traded on August 24th, 2016, particularly the 100 puts that were traded. Here is a chart of all the put trades and times for the 24th, for the 190 strike expiring on the 26th:

The 100 contracts, as evidenced by the huge bar, were traded at 8:21 PST. Although this trade was placed well before Hillary’s tweet, the evidence is less damning when you consider that many order were placed before the tweet, not just a single one. It shows over 300 put options traded before the tweet, with some orders (except for the 100 contract outlier) as high as 40 contracts. Had it been a single order placed just before the tweet, yes, it would be suspicious, but seems like many of these puts changed hands by multiple parties.

Also, the trade was made hours before the tweet. If an insider trader wanted to maximize their profits from bad news and minimize uncertainty, they would make the trade much closer to the time of headline.

Here is the chart for IBB on August 24th:

As shown above, IBB began to fall precipitously an hour before tweet, falling from 298 to 294. It fell from 294, after the tweet was made, and ended the day at 286.

This suggests that there were other factors involved in IBBs’s decline besides the tweet. The tweet itself was no the cause of the decline, which was underway an hour before the tweet was made. The decline of IBB also mirrors the S&P 500 for August 24th, which also began to fall rapidly around the same time IBB did. This suggests that someone may have bought those 100 IBB puts not due to informed trading but perhaps because the price momentum of IBB was negative in the hours leading up to the tweet. Also, people buy puts for many reasons: sometimes it’s to hedge or as part of bigger trade.

So yeah I doubt there was insider trading involved. Probably just a coincidence.

Politico, Politica

The 2016 election news cycle can be likened to a broken record attached to one off those antique megaphones, that blares the same outrage over and over, in a loop. We’re supposed to get worked-up about whether Trump or Hillary will win. The genius (or perhaps travesty) of the system are its multiple layers of redundancy that keep it self-sustaining and indestructible, no matter the outcome. You could put a wind-up doll in the Oval Office, or, as in the case of Obama, an empty suit with an earpiece and a teleprompter, and power is still conserved – but it’s not concentrated. Instead, it’s dispersed.

That’s not to say I’m agnostic about the outcome – I want Trump to win – but let’s keep our expectations realistic. In the case of Trump, congress is not like a boardroom. The odds that much will change are slim, and it will take years to get stuff through. Perhaps there will some form of immigration reform, but, again, these things take years, especially if it’s challenged by the courts.

Right now, Hillary’s health has become a concern. If elected, there’s a reasonable likelihood she may not survive office or may become incapacitated, and this makes her VP choice especially important. But for some reason, I don’t take as much delight in making fun of her as I did with Obama in 2008 and 2012, or Sanders in 2015. It seems like everyone on the ‘left’ (or at least everyone online) hates her, so her winning balkanizes and weakens the resolve of the left. Even if she wins, it’s still better than Sanders, who is much further to the left. One can make the libertarian argument that because Hillary is so rotten and avaricious, that in her effort to gain power she’ll leave everyone alone, focusing only on self-preservation and her own personal material gain (the opposite of the meddlesome do-gooder). Or that she is so inept and feeble (both mentally and physically) that she won’t do much.

Hillary the Lesser of Two Evils

From Canto Talk: The Democrats are really socialists now

That’s right. There is no real difference, and that is not a good path to national election for the Democrats.

President Clinton tried to move the party to the center. He worked with the GOP to pass welfare reform and signed free trade agreements like NAFTA. Clinton understood that the party had gone too far to the left and was losing the middle class.

Perhaps V.P. Biden can put the party back in the middle. At the same time, how can he please the Sanders vote if he does that?

Not long ago, the left mocked the GOP as the party of old guys clinging to their guns and the 10th Amendment.

It looks like the Democrats are the party of old guys (and ladies) clinging to the Great Society and their Woodstock LPs.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton, for all her flaws, was correct about Obama’s inexperience, his softness on terror, his connections with unsavory individuals, and inability to appeal to working, hard-working white males. Obama won despite failing to receive the majority of the white male vote:

Along with Sarah Palin, Hillary at least deserves some credit for exposing Obama for the wealth spreader and Islamic sympathizer that he is. We can poke fun about her email server and pantsuits, but I would rather have Hillary as president than Sanders, and many on the right would also agree Hillary is the lesser of two evils. Bernie Sanders wants to spread your wealth through regulation, entitlement spending, and taxes to those who did nothing to earn it.

The welfare liberals like Sanders want to cling to to the ‘old era’ of overpaid jobs that don’t create enough economic value, whereas some on the right understand that the economy is changing in way where productivity and quantifiable results have precedence over wages and benefits.