Political analysts and observers were aghast on Monday after a new report revealed that President Donald Trump's Defense Secretary has reached a new "height of criminality." Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's stockbroker looked into purchasing a defense-related fund ahead of the Trump administration l...
Someone more knowledgeable clarify this to me ?
How was the trade losing ? whatever stock it was went down ? was it something akin to weapons manufacturing ? and if I understand correctly, it was expected to go up because of their involvement in the “war effort” ?
You can gamble on whether a stock price will rise or fall. When going to war, stock prices for war companies rise because they are expected to get a lot of business, but if that call to war is suddenly canceled, then the stock price for that company decreases.
If he made a losing bet, one of two things happened:
The value of the stock was going to drop way below the value it started at, so he would earn a large payout on that gamble.
He was funneling large amounts of money to other insider traders.
Thank you. I didn’t know that was possible. How do you do such a gamble, practically ? Is it something that banks offer, or something you can do from a smartphone app ?
Additionally, how does #2 work ?
You can get a brokerage app, exactly what app and how they work are dependent on your region.
#2 just involves knowing the right people.
There are ways to make money when stocks go up, of course, but there are also ways to make money when stocks go down. We don’t know the details, but the bottom line is that he bet one way, and the market went the other.
What a dunce
Don’t have to be a good criminal to do crime! Dude’s an amateur at insider-trading!
Martha Stewart did this shit. You might argue she is more competent than Hegseth. And she went to prison.
That was in the before times when actions of the rich still had some consequences.
She didn’t even mean to and she was better at it
Even I think I could do better, after an internship at the white house
The tweet is linked, but doesn’t give any details. So we don’t know - and it might well not be true. What can be asserted without proof, can be rejected without proof.