Thread: Thousands to occupy Wall Street in protest

16 Major Firms May Have Received Early Data From Thomson Reuters | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone


Readers may recall an ugly story that broke earlier this summer, when New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman rebuked the news/business information firm Thomson Reuters for selling access to key economic survey data two seconds early to high-frequency algorithmic traders. The story strongly suggested that some Thomson Reuters customers were using their two-second head start (an eternity in the modern world of computerized trading) to front-run the markets.

"The early release of market-moving survey data undermines fair play in the markets," Schneiderman said, back in the second week of July. Thomson Reuters suspended the practice of selling two-second head starts after Schneiderman insisted upon a change. Still, the firm defiantly refused to declare the change permanent and insisted that it had the right to "legally distribute non-governmental data" to "fee-paying subscribers."

It turns out that there's more to the story.

Back in June, journalist Simone Foxman at the global economic site Quartz reported that in addition to the two-second head start some Thomson Reuters customers were getting on the release of the University of Michigan Survey of Consumers, other customers may have been getting their data even earlier, "nearly an hour in advance" in some cases.

Rolling Stone has since learned that a whistleblower complaint has been filed to the SEC identifying 16 of the world's biggest banks and hedge funds as the allegedly even-earlier recipients of this key economic data. The complaint alleges that this select group of customers received the data anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour ahead of the rest of the markets.

The identity of these 16 firms has not been made public yet, but sources describe the firms as major financial institutions, many of them well-known to the general public. Their inclusion in this case would significantly expand the scope of the scandal.

Contacted by Rolling Stone today, the SEC declined to comment on the status of the case.

This is a complicated story and some background is probably necessary to explain what's going on.

The case became public thanks to a wrongful termination suit filed in April by a former Thomson Reuters employee named Mark Rosenblum. Rosenblum sold financial data for Thomson Reuters between 2005 and 2012 (he also had previously worked for the firm between 1998 and 2000). During the course of his job, Rosenblum became aware that Thomson Reuters was distributing access to a set of key economic numbers, the University of Michigan Survey of Consumers, in what he thought was an unusual fashion.

The survey, which gauges how American consumers feel about the economy, is an important indicator that financiers look at when making investment decisions about the U.S. economy. Among other things, the Federal Reserve looks at the Michigan Survey when it determines monetary policy. Any investor who knew the survey results in advance would have an inside advantage over other investors in the market.

Rosenblum learned that his employers at Thomson Reuters, who had a contract with the University of Michigan to release the data, were releasing the data in three "tiers."

The general public would get the information at 10:00 a.m. at a certain date each month.
Ordinary subscribers to Thomson Reuters would get the data a little earlier, at 9:55 a.m. exactly.

Then there was a third group of "ultra-low latency" subscribers – algorithmic traders who use computer programs to make millions of calculations per second – who would get the data two seconds early, at 9:54:58 a.m.

This is all spelled out explicitly in the contract between Thomson Reuters and the University of Michigan, an excerpt of which was ultimately included as an exhibit in Rosenblum's wrongful termination suit:


Rosenblum, when he became aware of this practice, quickly became concerned that it was improper and perhaps violated federal securities laws. By May of 2012, Rosenblum began asking his superiors about the possibility that the practice violated rules. Over the course of the next few months, he claims, he was told in various ways to stop asking meddlesome questions, among other things being informed that his inquiries would affect his bonus, and that he was "sticking [his] nose where it does not belong."

To make a long story short, Rosenblum finally became frustrated in his efforts to get superiors to listen to his concerns, and went to the FBI on June 29th, 2012. A little over a month later, on August 3rd, 2012, he was fired.

Interestingly, about a month after Rosenblum was fired, the SEC sanctioned the New York Stock Exchange and its parent company NYSE Euronext, fining them $5 million, for somewhat similar conduct, i.e. releasing important data early to some paying customers. The SEC press release on September 14 of last year chided the NYSE for "improperly sending market data to proprietary customers before sending that data to be included in what are known as consolidated feeds, which broadly distribute trade and quote data to the public."

In the release, SEC Enforcement chief Robert Khuzami had this to say about the practice of releasing data early:

Improper early access to market data, even measured in milliseconds, can in today's markets be a real and substantial advantage that disproportionately disadvantages retail and long-term investors . . . That is why SEC rules mandate that exchanges give the public fair access to basic market data.

This seemed to speak directly to the issues in the wrongful-termination suit later filed by Rosenblum, who cited the quote in his complaint. Rosenblum believed that his firing violated federal laws governing the protection of whistleblowers, believing that his decision to go to the authorities was a protected act, defined by the Dodd-Frank reform law. He and his lawyers filed his suit in April. Thomson Reuters has since filed a motion to dismiss in the case, and a decision on that motion is pending.

The interesting new development is the news that a number of major financial players may have gotten an even bigger head start on the survey data than the two second jump already addressed by Attorney General Schneiderman earlier this summer. If true, it's yet another story suggesting that the markets are a sharply uneven playing field, with the general public playing the role of suckers trading on sloppy-seconds information, while powerful insiders pay for enhanced access.

The story jibes with the research done by the reporter Foxman earlier this summer. In her article from June 10th, "More evidence that Thomson Reuters data may be leaking out earlier than it's meant to," Foxman pointed to a study done by the market-analysis firm Nanex. The study showed a huge early run-up in trading ahead of the release of the Michigan survey results. Specifically, Nanex saw a spike in the milliseconds before 9:54:58 on December 7th, 2012. To be exact, they saw a flurry at 9:54:57.18, nearly a full second before the "third-tier" algorithmic subscribers got their data at 9:54:58 a.m.

This is exactly what you would expect to see if someone, or a bunch of someones, had access to the data even before 9:54:58 a.m. In this game you would want to hold your cards until the last possible moment before placing your bets. Foxman quoted Nanex founder Eric Hunsader's explanation:

"I really believe that this was a case where someone knew this [number] early," Hunsader said in a phone interview. If you had early information, he reasons, "you wouldn't want to take a position until really close to the release," both because you'd want to avoid other adverse market moves ahead of the release and because investors cancel orders prior to a release, making it difficult to find someone to trade with. Hence the trading about a full second before the release. "That tells me that someone was getting as close to the trigger point as possible."

There are disagreements as to whether or not this practice is illegal. To answer that question one would probably need to know more about how Thomson Reuters marketed access to this data, in particular whether its ordinary subscribers were made aware that other, bigger customers may have been getting data early. But certainly, if the Attorney General was concerned about a two-second head start, he would have to be similarly concerned about a 10-minute or one-hour advantage. At the very least, it raises questions about the propriety of letting big banks and hedge funds get head starts on the rest of the markets.

Thomson Reuters has denied the allegations in Rosenblum's lawsuit and will not comment on the allegations that major customers may have received trading data up to an hour early, except to say generally that they believe these and other accusations to be "unsubstantiated" and "without merit."

Stay tuned to this space on this story, as I'll be reporting developments as they become available.

Read more: 16 Major Firms May Have Received Early Data From Thomson Reuters | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

After watching the following clip and getting reminded of the disgusting state that America remains in and how the bankers got off so easily after the economic crisis of the past five years, I would say that Obama is doomed to a fate similar to George Bush in that he will want to avoid a lot of interviews if the topic of the financial crisis comes up. Every serious interview he gets in the future he will have to answer why he failed the people and let the bankers get off scot free when so many average Americans suffered and still suffer from the bankers lies and abuse of the financial system. It's Obama's Iraq. The sad truth is let the bankers abuse the majority of Americans. He's really no different from that scum today. Whether he was willing to sell out the people for the sake of the wealthiest from before going into office is unsure but at this point it's very clear that he is a traitor to the common man. A lot of people will never forgive him for this as they haven't forgiven his chosen moral role model, George Bush. F Obama. He blew it.

This thread brings back some good memories...

You mean that feeling of hope?

Didn't last long.

Originally Posted by misskit

You mean that feeling of hope?
Didn't last long.

It is just ramping up darling. The game has just started.

The gulf between the richest 1% of the USA and the rest of the country got to its widest level in history last year.

The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of total income in more than 100 years, according to a an analysis by economists at the University of California, Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford University.

The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%. The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service data.

One of the economists behind the research, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, is a top researcher in the topic of wealth and income inequality. He won the John Bates Clark medal last year. The Clark medal is awarded to the most promising economists under the age of 40. Past winners have includes Paul Krugman of Princeton University, Lawrence Summers and Steve Levitt, co-author of "Freakonomics."

In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000. Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of earnings rose 6.6%.

Income

Something on the history and state of America. Last year but enlightening in many ways.

Hedges is great. Read "Empire of Illusion" if you get the chance. Depressing but I think he's nailed the state of affairs in USA

Occupy group files lawsuit alleging Defiance violated First Amendment - Toledo Blade

DEFIANCE - Occupy Defiance filed a federal lawsuit today against the city of Defiance alleging the city violated the First Amendment by its ban against sidewalk chalk writing.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, on behalf of the local Occupy group and three individual plaintiffs from Defiance and Napoleon, filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Toledo.

The suit stems from a dust-up last year over chalk messages written on city sidewalks by members of Occupy Defiance. Police told the group writing the messages to stop the activity but did not issue any citations.

The suit states plaintiffs want to hold another “chalk walk” event Thursday but “are afraid to do so for fear they will be arrested or prosecuted.”

Plaintiffs seek a judgement declaring their right to write on sidewalks with chalk and preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering the city to stop using and enforcing city ordinances that pertain to the situation, as well as unspecified monetary damages plus attorney’s fees and costs.

City Law Director David Williams said he found out about the suit from media outlets and had not read the complaint.

“It pretty much tells me that this whole thing is aimed at publicity,” he said.

Mr. Williams, in a Sept. 26 letter to the ACLU, said Occupy Defiance is welcome to use public right-of-ways to express political opinions and may assemble on public property. But, he wrote, the group “must supply its own sign-making materials” if it chooses to express itself in writing instead of using “the pavement as its blackboard.”

An ACLU attorney was not immediately available to comment on the case.

Nice - let the taxpayer pay for it for ones who do not pay tax.

Originally Posted by Retro

Occupy group files lawsuit alleging Defiance violated First Amendment - Toledo Blade

DEFIANCE - Occupy Defiance filed a federal lawsuit today against the city of Defiance alleging the city violated the First Amendment by its ban against sidewalk chalk writing.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, on behalf of the local Occupy group and three individual plaintiffs from Defiance and Napoleon, filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Toledo.

The suit stems from a dust-up last year over chalk messages written on city sidewalks by members of Occupy Defiance. Police told the group writing the messages to stop the activity but did not issue any citations.

The suit states plaintiffs want to hold another “chalk walk” event Thursday but “are afraid to do so for fear they will be arrested or prosecuted.”

Plaintiffs seek a judgement declaring their right to write on sidewalks with chalk and preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering the city to stop using and enforcing city ordinances that pertain to the situation, as well as unspecified monetary damages plus attorney’s fees and costs.

City Law Director David Williams said he found out about the suit from media outlets and had not read the complaint.

“It pretty much tells me that this whole thing is aimed at publicity,” he said.

Mr. Williams, in a Sept. 26 letter to the ACLU, said Occupy Defiance is welcome to use public right-of-ways to express political opinions and may assemble on public property. But, he wrote, the group “must supply its own sign-making materials” if it chooses to express itself in writing instead of using “the pavement as its blackboard.”

An ACLU attorney was not immediately available to comment on the case.

Russell Brand says what a lot of people out there feel in this. Absolutely great clip. He mentions Occupy at the end.

Originally Posted by Retro

Russell Brand says what a lot of people out there feel in this. Absolutely great clip. He mentions Occupy at the end.

This is a great interview. It reminds me of Rocky (Brand) v Drago (Paxman). Paxman, smarmy shill that he is with his pompous arrogance thinks he is getting one over Brand and batters him for round after round, and then, Rocky Time. Brand hits on the left, then on the right, various combinations, finishing with a flurry resulting with Paxman on the deck, out for the count.

Brand might well be the Messiah, the dirty shagger.

Originally Posted by Retro

Russell Brand says what a lot of people out there feel in this. Absolutely great clip. He mentions Occupy at the end.

Watching that just made my night. Old coots like Koman and boon will freak out.

Best interview I've seen in long time. Worth posting in other threads. Just says it all and straight.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Watching that just made my night. Old coots like Koman and boon will freak out.

Yes Snubbie, I'm just totally freaking out.....just checked my stock portfolio yesterday...it's up 18% so far this year. How are you doing......

HTF can anybody take Russell Brand seriously? Great interview....

I'd rather listen to Russell Brand than you, Koman. Russell Brand is probably worth a lot more due to his business choices that you. What's 18% 180,000 dollars or more? I sure hope so. Better 1.8 million. Doubt your investment skills will ever get you past Mr. Brand's wealth. Our wealth does reflect a lot about us. It says a lot more for those who actually tried to get ahead and didn't really get far. BTW, my stock is up 103% in the past 3 months. What does that say? Stupid numbers mean nothing. How much do you have in the bank?

Originally Posted by Retro

I'd rather listen to Russell Brand than you, Koman. Russell Brand is probably worth a lot more due to his business choices that you. What's 18% 180,000 dollars or more? I sure hope so. Better 1.8 million. Doubt your investment skills will ever get you past Mr. Brand's wealth. Our wealth does reflect a lot about us. It says a lot more for those who actually tried to get ahead and didn't really get far. BTW, my stock is up 103% in the past 3 months. What does that say? Stupid numbers mean nothing. How much do you have in the bank?

Yes I can see why you would rather listen to Brand. He talks total bollocks and lives in some kind of fantasy world where profit is not just a dirty word, it's a "filthy" word and we just need to bring down the system without having even the slightest clue about what would replace it.......and of course stupid numbers don't matter....

It's nothing like that. Those who support Occupy don't have one view on things other than the system is screwed and favors those with wealth and that democracy should mean every vote counts. I don't need to post a graph about who holds the wealth of the nation or other stats to prove that corporations buy out politicians. You would probably get by under any system yourself because you just focus on money. That mentality works for democracies and horrible dictatorships, but of course you've lost the moral component. Dumping your wife and kids for more personal money and happiness is very capitalist idea as well. We all can choose our lives. There is no right or wrong for many money-hungry folks out there. You have and will benefit from the efforts of those who fight for justice for the little guy as is always the case in history. Russell Brand is sympathetic to his roots. He was poor once and hasn't shrugged off where he comes from. I'm glad he's speaking up.

Here's a link to an interview on Bill Moyers about JP Morgan and the lack of prosecution of the banks for their crimes relating to the big crash. 19 minute clip at the link. Not available on youtube.


Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist rips Justice Dept. for not bringing JPMorgan Chase to trial | The Raw Story

Bipartisan House gives in to Wall Street and passes Dodd-Frank rollback drafted by Citigroup lobbyists

Bipartisan House gives in to Wall Street and passes Dodd-Frank rollback drafted by Citigroup lobbyists | The Raw Story


A bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives rolled back one of the key elements of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law passed in the wake of the 2008 economic meltdown.

The House voted 292-122 to pass Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act, which repeals a provision in the law that required big banks to move some derivatives trading into separate units that aren’t backed by the government’s insurance fund.

The vote followed months of heavy lobbying by Wall Street banks, and The New York Times reviewed emails that showed Citigroup lobbyists drafted at least 70 of the House bill’s 85 lines.

In addition, a MapLight analysis showed Citigroup had showered House members who voted for the bill with campaign cash in the three years since Dodd-Frank was passed.

One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Rep. Jim Hines (D-CT), has received more than $66,000 from the bank, more than any other House member, and the bill’s co-sponsors received an average of 16.8 times more money from Citigroup than other House members.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has received more than $917,000 from interests supporting the bill, more than any other House member, and primary sponsor Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-IL), has gotten more than $136,000 from the securities and investment industry.

Banks were still permitted under the Dodd-Frank law to offset their risk directly with interest rate and foreign exchange swaps, but lawmakers had sought to remove risks in trading contracts such as futures or credit default by moving them away from banks.

But members of both parties have said banks should have more options in hedging their risk, and Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, also favored the change approved by the House, saying it pushes the derivatives trading out toward less-regulated depository institutions and risked financial stability.

The White House said Tuesday it opposes the bill, but President Barack Obama hasn’t said he would veto the measure.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), the second-ranking Democrat on the House financial services committee, claimed on the House floor that the bill’s namesake favored the change, which brought a swift reaction from former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who issued a statement saying it would be “a mistake and destabilizing” to repeal the provision.

Another opponent, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), said banks could still perform about 90 percent of the swaps hedges under the current law that they could before the Dodd-Frank reforms were passed.

Only three Republicans, Reps. John Duncan (TN), Walter Jones (NC), and Thomas Massie (KY), voted against the measure, which gained the support of 70 Democrats.



-

A video from the occupywallst website...

Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for World Revolution

The 'revolution' will occur when Joe Sixpack finally realises how unfairly he has been treated by his government, for the benefit of a very few. Don't hold your breath though, Joe ain't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

Originally Posted by sabang

The 'revolution' will occur when Joe Sixpack finally realises how unfairly he has been treated by his government, for the benefit of a very few. Don't hold your breath though, Joe ain't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

These days many of the joe sixpacks out there think differently than the joe sixpacks of the times past. They've been brainwashed to hail the rich which wasn't the case in the past. Most world revolutions seem to have been about the havenots fighting against the haves. The poor still are in the same state but in a different mentality. The rich are wealthier than ever but much more into controlling the minds of the poor. Capitalism being 'flawless' has been pushed so much by the government and media since ww2 that most just can't look at it objectively. And Joe always lighting up each night with that six pack doesn't help change either.

Occupy's Rolling Jubilee Ends $15 Million Of Debt - Business Insider




One year ago, a fascinating plan emerged out of the Occupy movement — the group would crowdsource money to buy consumer debt for "pennies on the dollar" on the secondary market, and then, once they owned the debt, they would cancel it.

The plan was called "Rolling Jubilee," because the hope was that the liberated debtors would then donate to the fund, "rolling" the jubilee forward.
The idea received a lot of buzz, but there were real doubts it could work — Felix Salmon wondered if lenders would really be happy to sell the debts to the Rolling Jubilee if they were just going to cancel it, and there were serious concerns that if debts were repaid it might be technically considered income for those for whom it had been repaid (and thus subject to taxation that would eclipse its benefits).

12 months later on, however, and the concerns are beginning to fall by the wayside. The organization behind Rolling Jubilee, Strike Debt, announced this week that they have been able to buy and forgive $14.7 million of debt over four separate purchases, the most recent of which forgave $13.5 million of debt for 2,693 people across 45 states and Puerto Rico. According to the Guardian, the group has raised around $620,000 so far, though it has spent only only $400,000.

By any measure, these figures sound like a success, though it has not come easily.
"It's a very complex and slow process, involves accountants and lawyers," Mike Andrews, a writer and editor who has been involved in Strike Debt from the start told Business Insider in a phone interview. "It's why we've had four buys over the course of the year, with long time spans in between. It's a complex process which takes a lot of time."

At least one of the potential problems raised by critics has not appeared, Andrews says: Lenders have been happy to sell the group debt on the secondary market. "It hasn't been an issue at all," Andrews explains. "I'm not sure why. Maybe they aren't aware that Rolling Jubilee is buying their debt, or that we're buying their debt to abolish it, but maybe they're happy to get paid any amount for it, and they don't care what happens with it after its bought."

The tax issue hasn't reared its head, at least not so far. However, Andrews admits that a lot of the debtors haven't got back in touch with the group yet (Rolling Jubilee knows little about the debtors' identities until after the purchase has been made but sends a letter to the individual informing them that their debt has been forgiven).

"Unfortunately, we haven't heard from a lot of folks whose debt we abolished, even though we send them letters announcing that the debt was bought," Andrews says. "I would guess that some of them are just kind of astonished that someone bought their debt and just cancelled it. And some of them may not have heard of Strike Debt before. We haven't heard directly from many debtors, but we have heard from a couple and they seem incredibly enthusiastic."

Those who have got in touch have tended to be people in low-income communities. "They have to go to the emergency room, and they're uninsured, they decide to go to the emergency room and they incur this debt to the hospitals," Andrews says.

Of course, even if Rolling Jubilee is a success, in the grand scheme of things it isn't that big a success. Strike Debt concede that $15 million is a tiny fraction of the secondary debt market, and so far the plan has been limited to medical debt — Andrews says that while the group would like to target student debt, it is difficult as much of that debt is held by the government and not listed on secondary markets (the group are looking into ways to buy the smaller portion of student debt that is private).

Even so, Rolling Jubilees' ability to create dialogue about debt marks it as perhaps the most successful legacy of the Occupy movement. The hope is that this dialogue can grow and help create real change.

"When we launched rolling jubilee we knew it would be temporary," Andrews says. "Of course we wanted to do some material good by actually abolishing peoples debt, but another major motivation was to just highlight the existence of this secondary debt market, and the fact that the original lenders are actually selling the debt for a very small amount of money, and unfortunately they won't do that to the actual debtor."