thr0waway2

The Bogdanoff twins recently died within a week of each other

Like a company can literally spin off a division and make it public in a similar way. Or you can securitize cash flows into an ABS. The investment bank's fees will be a lot lower than the gas fees.

That's kind of how markets work though - when things are going most in your favour it's hardest to capitalise on it as price going your way means few people want to take the other side. And there's more things going into a price than just forecast of future prices - there's also liquidity, credit risk, operational issues, etc.

But by that logic anything that a company ever does can be pinned on Steve Cohen.

If he was so powerful his returns wouldn't be that shit. Last year was good for P72 but other than that they're extremely mediocre ever since they stopped insider trading lol

Trading (or posting) to cause impact and affect other positions you have is manipulation too. But it's not really provable in the case of WSB so they're safe.

P.S. not legal advice

There is, large market moves down over last few days are mostly due to hedge funds selling off longs to cover their shorts. If you look at GSVIP ETF (GS ETF for most loved names by hedge funds) it was down 4% yesterday. The short squeeze is real but I think funds are mostly out of it now (or ones remaining in the short have shorted at higher prices and in reasonable proportion of AUM). There's also a direct negative correlation between short interest and Russel 2000 performance over the last few days.

Mate, every medium-sized company and above has an investment by PE and VC. You can literally pull any company with above $10 mm EBITDA and there will be no more than two degrees of separation between them and Steve Cohen/any other big financiier

That's just building a large position. I don't think they expected to run the company into the ground by merely shorting it, that's not how market impact works. These firms generally try to minimise market impact as opposed to r/wsb who try to maximise it

Not when moving the price is the goal. If you trade specifically to create an unfair impression of the supply and demand of a stock that's market manipulation.

Thing is no one is going to prosecute a randomer on the internet for throwing $5k at an option especially when there's no proof that it was done in bad faith.

Financiers in London are paid similar to financiers in NYC, it's not about solidarity, it's about supply and demand. And forces of supply and demand are not working in developers' favour in European countries. I myself switched from being a quant dev to a trader within a large bank (and now a fund) and the work is a lot more interesting/rewarding and better paid.

Assets != jobs

Agree direct comparison is tough and multifactored and would be highly individual (how do you put a price on being a 2 hr train ride away from Paris whilst having much better job opportunities than Parisians). However, given that compensation in US is a large multiple higher I think it would be easy to agree it's better overall. For comparison Big Law pays 20-30% lower on average in London vs. NYC and finance pays marginally lower (outside of quant finance where London pays a lot lower than NYC as hedge funds don't have to compete with FANGs for tech talent that wants high pay).

London wasn't that great when it comes to tech jobs compared to US/Canada. Starting salary for grads at FANGs is around a third of what it is at large US cities when living costs are no more than 30-40% lower for example. Compared to rest of Europe London is a lot better with notable exception of Switzerland which is a non-EU country. So to me it would seem that membership in EU is not a necessary condition for good tech jobs with competitive pay.

I'd be a lot more worried about the general shift to working from home than leaving EU when it comes to London's importance as a tech center.

To elaborate a bit more: vast majority of jobs where you can seek such excellence that you're able to say at some point "I am top 100 in my field, I enjoy it and am getting paid for it" are taught in an apprenticeship manner. Where you have to make the life of a bigger expert easier while stealing as much knowledge as possible from them. The knowledge that's worth learning is not publicised as if it was publicly accessible it would lose its value. It would become industry standard or competitors would learn how to counteract it or whatever. And if a top expert has hundreds of CVs to chose from for their apprentice, having "Harvard" and "Goldman Sachs" mentioned there is a good way of skewing odds in your favour to even get an interview.

>Ambitious students seek out prestige thinking it is the missing ingredient to achieving their own excellence. In reality, they have it backward—prestige follows excellence.

I'm not sure I agree. I've been seeking out jobs at less prestigious firms for ages but I started getting interviews only once I had Goldman on my resume. I've never would've had a seat at the table where I can try to achieve excellence if it wasn't for Goldman. I guess the author's argument makes sense for IT where barriers for entry are low, but almost every other industry worth getting into has high barriers for entry.