He presumably did not have access to the court's opinion before it was released, but he did have access to internal White House legal opinions before the tariffs were announced ("Mr. President this is illegal and very likely to be overturned by the courts"), and he obviously had access to the entire federal legal team during the court cases.

I can't prove that there was any White House advisory memo before the tariffs were announced, but hypothetically, would this not be considered material nonpublic information? It seems the same as a corporate insider dumping stock because a company lawyer privately told them "we're definitely going to lose this case".

In the business, even the appearance of impropriety is damaging. People who work in finance aren't allowed to trade the same stocks as their company is trading, whether they have any inside info or not. The assumption is that simply by being close to a source of information, you are compromised. The same restrictions should apply to those close to government. By being family, he is compromised by default.

> It's not insider trading.

One might argue it should fall under a different technical label, but whatever label one uses (A) it stinks of corruption and (B) it's only the tip of the iceberg.

People entrusted with government authority to do work for the public shouldn't be personally profiting from how they decide to wield that authority. Imagine a policeman that arrests people while placing bets about how long that person will be jailed, what they'll be charged with, or whether they'll be convicted.

The objection that "it's unfair, they know something other bettors don't" occurs first not because it's the biggest issue, but because it's easier to prove.

The bigger problem is making improper decisions with their work-powers in order to personally profit, a trust and separation which they've already destroyed by placing the bets in the first place.

is it not a conflict of interest if you facilitate the legislation of tarrifs that you knew are illegal?

What’s happening is that the deal stinks, and people aren’t precisely analyzing exactly why it stinks so they’re just using it to confirm their priors.

The deal stinks because Cantor bet against the administration that its former head is a part of, and against the signature policy of the president its former head serves.

Cool! How much money did you yourself make on this (given that it was entirely obvious, and not leveraging knowledge seems silly)?

> This is wrong. It's not insider trading. Lutnick didn't have inside information. His son just had a brain. Anyone who read the case knew which way the court was going, it was the least surprising decision ever. Perhaps the only surprising thing is that the court ever heard it.

If this was so obvious, wouldn't there have been more competitors pushing down the value of it?

The people selling the debt thought there was a ~ 20% chance the money would be collected.

Is there any proof he didn't have insider information? With this administration + court, it's rare when some sort of fraud, bribes, or protection money payments aren't at play.

It's not insider trading, but surely it's a conflict of interesting? If you ignore all the specific name calling, isn't it still quite wrong that one minister can financially bet against the administration?

No chance you’d make this trade unless you had some unique insight to even consider setting it up in the first place.

Could this open Cantor Fitzgerald up to class action law suits from consumers who ultimately paid the refunded tariffs?

If his son had half a brain he wouldn’t be trading in this quasi derivative

You mean the guy who kept talking about bringing back jobs to US - jobs requiring Americans to screw iPhone parts - wasn't debating in bad faith, like you are doing here? I am shocked, I tell you. I am really shocked.

The mental gymnastics people are performing in order to convince themselves that this isn't the most corrupt administration the US has seen in modern history is staggering.

If a fraction of the level of skepticism these people applied to Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton were applied to Trump and his cronies, they'd be demanding impeachment.

Divestiture applies to the household.

Oh? You have some sort of insider knowledge here?

Technically it might not be "insider trading" since most information (we assume) was public knowledge.

But members of the government being able to trade on matters of government policy is exactly how government corruption works. Previous administrations understood this was important to prevent (Carter putting his peanut farm in a blind trust, the Bush's did the same) but now Trump has made clear corruption is just totally fine (why else become president or a government official).

such hopeful naivety was passable early 2025. having seen 1% of the epstein files, you'd have to be acting in bad faith to say there was no collusion.

[dead]

[dead]

Yeah it's not insider trading. It's just that someone on the inside engaged in trade... Cmon guys you know there's a difference!