Reuters: Stevie Cohen's SAC Capital involved in insider trading

Anaconda · Nov 12, 2009

Quote from flytiger:

Yep. I do. But it seems an inordinate amount of that crap turns to reality, doesn't it?

No, not really. You simply do not understand how it works. Certain people get taken down because they stepped on someone else's toes. Not because you cry all over the internet.

Anaconda · Nov 12, 2009

Quote from MandelbrotSet:

The real money doesn't begin until you're taken on board as a first year analyst ... and then the party really gets started!

Real money does not start till you make it past the VP status. MD is where the 7 figures start.
Most of money, by a wide margin, is taken by the top execs.

Equalizer · Nov 12, 2009

Quote from Anaconda:

Real money does not start till you make it past the VP status. MD is where the 7 figures start.
Most of money, by a wide margin, is taken by the top execs.

Correct.

flytiger · Nov 12, 2009

Quote from Anaconda:

No, not really. You simply do not understand how it works. Certain people get taken down because they stepped on someone else's toes. Not because you cry all over the internet.

I understand how it "worked". You don't understand how it's going to go down. This ain't 1999.

patchie · Nov 12, 2009

You really have to wonder how SAC has survived unscathed all these years. Does anybody remember the WSJ article several years ago discussing SAC's fund Manager Seth Kanegis and possible insider trading activity involving him.

It is quite amusing how SAC is spinning this. First Lee is a rogue trader. Then it was, we had our compliance review our practices and found no wrongdoing. So today, with an ex-Analyst accused SAC will say he went rogue and dirty the day he left SAC. There was no learning curve at SAC but he just so happened to start insider trading the very year he left.

Don't these guys continue to use their contacts when they trade jobs which is part of their own marketing tool. Hire me, look what I come with.

I tried to get some insight on SRO referrals against SAC but the SEC suddenly lost the data.

http://investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/913

Anaconda · Nov 12, 2009

Quote from flytiger:

I understand how it "worked". You don't understand how it's going to go down. This ain't 1999.

I do understand. You may not. You're obviously oblivious to the fact that the biggest players of this game are now being backstopped by trillions of taxpayer money while a few smaller players are being sacrificed. Somehow you consider that progress.

patchie · Nov 12, 2009

Quote from Anaconda:

I do understand. You may not. You're obviously oblivious to the fact that the biggest players of this game are now being backstopped by trillions of taxpayer money while a few smaller players are being sacrificed. Somehow you consider that progress.

And that has what to do with SAC and Insider Trading? In 1999 Insider Trading by the big players was fully accepted by regulators and Federal Agents, now it is not so well received.

Anaconda · Nov 12, 2009

Quote from patchie:

And that has what to do with SAC and Insider Trading?

Uhm, do you understand that Wall Street gang is a lot bigger than SAC? You know, JPM, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, etc., are quite active in the Insider trading game as well.

In 1999 Insider Trading by the big players was fully accepted by regulators and Federal Agents, now it is not so well received.

More...

I do not know where you get this idea as Insider Trading was never looked upon favorably in the public eye, while being "business as usual" on Wall Street.
Rewind back to the late 1980s, when insider trading charges were used to fry Ivan Boesky and Micheal Milken.

patchie · Nov 12, 2009

Quote from Anaconda:

Uhm, do you understand that Wall Street gang is a lot bigger than SAC? You know, JPM, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, etc., are quite active in the Insider trading game as well.

I do not know where you get this idea as Insider Trading was never looked upon favorably in the public eye, while being "business as usual" on Wall Street.
Rewind back to the late 1980s, when insider trading charges were used to fry Ivan Boesky and Micheal Milken.

Insider Trading by SAC has been discussed for much longer that 10 years. The activities by SAC have been fully accepted and ignored. Same for many others. Boesky and Miklen were anomalies in the bigger picture of what was really happening.

And why is SAC being discussed, maybe because the story is about SAC. You want to talk about Goldman, where do you think Stevie gets his info? Goldman are as crooked as they come.

nitro · Nov 12, 2009

Quote from MandelbrotSet:

Everyone at Goldman doesn't make "at leasat $700,000 per year" ... that's a mean average of the grand total of the bonuses divided by the number of employees who are bonus eligible.

It's ridiculous that people still fall for the mean vs median vs mode.

What you want is the median, or mode. The mean can be horribly warped by a few executives making a massive amount of money (like at GS), and 80% of the rest make decent wages. If you get the median and the mode, that is what most make, which is what you are interested in. I would not be surprised that the median total compensation of those eligable for bonus comes in at around $500,000 or so, not $700k. If you include all salaries, it probably drops to about $250,000.