Eric Cantor Stands to Gain Big Time if U.S. Defaults -- Bets Against America

reply to post by stephinrazin

We are talking about one of the most powerful men in the US government
whos alleged person position will benefit from leveraging distruction upon the country
He represents... That is not ethical in the stightest

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Yeah. I was unclear. I was off topic. It is slimy, and criminal for cantor to be doing such things. It seemed that there is an undercurrent of outrage for shorting anything, and I was responding to that feeling.

I kind of assumed that Cantor, and for that matter the whole oligarchy, are slime deserving nothing except scorn. I am so accustomed to such opinions I forget to even point them out.

reply to post by stephinrazin


No problem, investors short the market all the time, some specialize in it. However, Cantor isn't shorting stocks or the market - he is shorting US TREASURY BONDS.

From Dylan Ratigan:

"Suppose you wanted to make a killing in the bond market?

The quick-and-dirty way to make a killing would be to go short on US Treasury bonds, then affect the budget negotiations on the debt ceiling in a way that affects the prices of Treasury bonds in favor of your financial position.

But if you were a budget negotiator, you would want to steer clear of any financial positions on Treasury bonds.

Why?

Because holding any sort of position – long or short – would put you at risk of being charged with insider trading. You are an ‘insider’ in the negotiations, and consequently you steer clear of financial activities that may involve Treasury bonds – at least, for the duration of your time as a negotiator.

Unless you are Eric Cantor.

Dylan Ratigan reported today that Rep Eric Cantor holds a ‘short’ position on US Treasury bonds. In other words, Cantor’s position as a negotiator means that he can affect the price of Treasury bonds. The same bonds on which he has taken a short position.

Stop the presses, please.

Forget arguing about who gets to cut what.

We were told these were budget negotiations.

If Ratigan’s information is accurate then Cantor’s ‘budget negotiations are a bizarre form of market manipulation."

If Ratigan is right, shouldn't Cantor be investigated?

He's right, this is close to insider trading. I'd love to see if any other Congress members, especially those on the budget meetings, are shorting the US bond market.

Originally posted by stephinrazin
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

 

I kind of assumed that Cantor, and for that matter the whole oligarchy, are slime deserving nothing except scorn. I am so accustomed to such opinions I forget to even point them out.

And that's the stunning part. Something like this that is so egregious barely even registers with us. That is how jaded we have become. It says volumes about the nation, not of it good.

Cantor's goal is not for us to default.

His goal is to cut enough spending to cover whatever increase in the debt ceiling.

Nothing to see here......move along.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

I'd love to see if any other Congress members, especially those on the budget meetings, are shorting the US bond market.

Oh...I would highly doubt any of our upstanding politicians would ever do such a thing..lol.

Many of them own stock and vote based on their own financial interests.

Eric Cantor is a pig.

It isn't treason and it isn't illegal . Dylan Ratigan gave a non-specific impression because he knows that Congress is the only entity on planet Earth totally exempt from insider trading laws . They appropriate the funds and know where it's going to be spent and who gets it long before it becomes public knowledge . The 15 grand bet by Cantor is chump change . If he wants to make some real money he should be taking lessons from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi . If anyone wants a challenge then look up Harry Reids financial disclosure the year he was elected to Congress and his 2010 disclosure and compare it to his salary . There is knowledge that isn't being reported . Cantor can hedge his bet by going long one side while shorting the other but his long bet isn't being reported .

Originally posted by stephinrazin
I am shorting the markets, the banks,and if I thought the bonds were gonna fail soon I would short them as well. The shorting by average investors like you, or me is miniscule compared to the manipulation by large institutions.

What moral qualms is there with shorting? The markets are horses on a race track with little connection to the real economy. If the working group on finance is going to pump trillions propping up imaginary asset values you can be damn sure I will short them. The same goes for bonds. It is not like T-Bonds are going to fall because I short them, or if a million people shorted them. They are failing because the Fed has printed 9 TRILLION dollars in the past few years. The bond markets will collapse, and the US will default. It is not like I created a perfect storm through my corrupt policies. I merely recognize reality, and am making financial decisions accordingly.

Should I go long on bonds when I know the unelected oligarchy is going to speculate them into worthless assets?

Should invest foolishly for some idealized "nation" that's leadership has done everything possible to hurt my economic future?

No. I will invest in local economic investments, and short the hell out of the imaginary global casino that we pretend is an economic system.

I guess the main reason I'd question this is that if any elected official would benefit from a decision that he could be involved in, he should recuse himself. Otherwise, people from either side of the debate will accuse him of something unethical.

Again, just common sense, which is no longer a requirement in congress.

Originally posted by bandito
It isn't treason and it isn't illegal . Dylan Ratigan gave a non-specific impression because he knows that Congress is the only entity on planet Earth totally exempt from insider trading laws . They appropriate the funds and know where it's going to be spent and who gets it long before it becomes public knowledge . The 15 grand bet by Cantor is chump change . If he wants to make some real money he should be taking lessons from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi . If anyone wants a challenge then look up Harry Reids financial disclosure the year he was elected to Congress and his 2010 disclosure and compare it to his salary . There is knowledge that isn't being reported . Cantor can hedge his bet by going long one side while shorting the other but his long bet isn't being reported .

This is an excellent point and I did not know this. Sickening. Americans need to force politicians to pass a law requiring ALL federal politicians must follow ALL the laws the same as the general public. As someone on another thread mentioned also, there should be NO pensions for federal politicians -- they must live like we live with our own savings and Social Security. People in Congress should also be barred from enacting any legislation that benefits them solely and directly, such as pay increases, instead being able to raise their pay ONLY 1. If budgets are balanced, and 2. Only at the rate of inflation, not a dime higher.

Originally posted by pajoly

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
What i wrong with people. Making money is not wrong. Everyone wants to improve their lot in life. He made that bet last year before this mess came up. I haven't looked but I would image that articles author is liberal. Capitalism is a good thing. Making money is a good thing. Government just takes and spends on crap like that shrimp treadmill and empty buildings.

Seriously? There is no room for morality, ethics? The end always justifies the means in your view? What about conflict of interest. Any idiot could see this problem looming when he made his bet. You think someone in his position had no visibility? So now that he is invested in American failure you don't think he has no conflict of interest.

Improve his lot in life? You sure take wide latitude. By your logic it would also have been perfectly legit to short German businesses owned by Jews in the late 1930s. Hey, it's just capitilism, right?

edit on 30-6-2011 by pajoly because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2011 by pajoly because: (no reason given)

I inveseted 5k in the same fund, am I now in a direct conflict of interest with the American people because I am betting against something that is not only inevitable, but also needed?

The guy made a solid investment and he understands that by raising the debt ceiling that it only staves the wolves for a couple of years. Millions of investors have done this because they are not stupid.

I cant hold this against him, Im sorry I just cant do it.

Does it look bad, because people cant see past their own face? Of course it does, but it doesnt change the fact that it is a wise investment.

I inveseted 5k in the same fund, am I now in a direct conflict of interest with the American people because I am betting against something that is not only inevitable, but also needed?

The guy made a solid investment and he understands that by raising the debt ceiling that it only staves the wolves for a couple of years. Millions of investors have done this because they are not stupid.

I cant hold this against him, Im sorry I just cant do it.

Does it look bad, because people cant see past their own face? Of course it does, but it doesnt change the fact that it is a wise investment.

I don't fault you either; smart investment. But, you are a private citizen and not in a position to influence your investment one way or the other. Cantor, on the other hand, has central influence on whether we default or not. You have no conflict of interest. He does.

It'd be like you betting on your local high school football team's loss of the big game while being the quaterback coach for that same team.

reply to post by pajoly


I agree with the COI and fact that he expect to gain... but how much are we REaLLY talking about here?! On a $15,000 investment?

Unless these are put options where you only have to front a portion 10%? (so would this mean really a commitment of $150K?)

Regardless, what kind of Jack are we talking about here? Could this be a HUGE windfall? Or, is he simply hedging, like any smart investor should?!

The people in a tizzy over this are idiots.

How many politicians are long U.S. treasuries (I'd guess virtually all of them, including this guy).

OMGs insider trading, conflict of interest... grow brains people.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
reply to post by pajoly

 

I agree with the COI and fact that he expect to gain... but how much are we REaLLY talking about here?! On a $15,000 investment?

Unless these are put options where you only have to front a portion 10%? (so would this mean really a commitment of $150K?)

Regardless, what kind of Jack are we talking about here? Could this be a HUGE windfall? Or, is he simply hedging, like any smart investor should?!

For me, it's the principle. I'm just stubborn enough to believe there are certain things that are just too unseemly. Right now, on both sides, it is a race to the abyss in terms of ethics in government. Pretty sad really.

Originally posted by pajoly

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
reply to post by pajoly

 

I agree with the COI and fact that he expect to gain... but how much are we REaLLY talking about here?! On a $15,000 investment?

Unless these are put options where you only have to front a portion 10%? (so would this mean really a commitment of $150K?)

Regardless, what kind of Jack are we talking about here? Could this be a HUGE windfall? Or, is he simply hedging, like any smart investor should?!

For me, it's the principle. I'm just stubborn enough to believe there are certain things that are just too unseemly. Right now, on both sides, it is a race to the abyss in terms of ethics in government. Pretty sad really.

I feel like what you are asking is that people in politics, cant or shouldnt be allowed to invest and I dont agree with you.

If you are stubborn, than I certainly understand that, but this is an example of someone making a sound investment and nothing more. Would you be angry if he was buying a pound of gold every month? It is an insetment that clearly says to the most basic investor that the dollar is going to crash and gold is the safe bet.

He is doing the same thing most investors are and I would bet BIG money that most people in his position have done the same thing, let alone millions of investors.

Im guessing the Prez has his money in some pretty interesting spots. Like GE, as they funded his campaign to the hilt.

At the end of the day, it does look bad, I dont dispute that. It only looks bad because he is hedging against AMERICA and our dollar system. most of us want it to go away because it sucks. There is money to me made if it fails and it doesnt even have to fail per say, just get bad and guess what; it IS going to get bad in the next 18 months and I m guessing it will come in mid Q1 2012...ie Feb 2012

Excuse me if this is irrelevant, but i thought that when seeking election aa candidate must put all his assets in trust till his term of office is over....???
Though i realise he may stll have some control over it, doesnt somebody else make to decisions and do the trading?
maybe only in Canada?

This whole topic is absurd, you really think someone is going to crash the world economy (and destroy the value of the dollar) to make a couple hundred thousand (now) worthless dollars?

What a crafty fellow!

He sees that it's inevitable that's all, he isn't gonna cause it to make a few bucks.

reply to post by pajoly


Just an FYI, this is kind of misleading. See, the thing with 20+ treasury bonds, they go up if the market goes down. So shorting it would be the opposite. If the market goes up, the bonds go up. So essentially, he wants the market to go up because if there is a default, the markets would plummet. If you look at 2008, the 20+ treasury bonds spiked, going from the $90's to $120.

Perhaps the dynamic is different with a default, I'm not sure. I just wanted to bring this to your attention.

Originally posted by bandito
It isn't treason and it isn't illegal . Dylan Ratigan gave a non-specific impression because he knows that Congress is the only entity on planet Earth totally exempt from insider trading laws . They appropriate the funds and know where it's going to be spent and who gets it long before it becomes public knowledge . The 15 grand bet by Cantor is chump change . If he wants to make some real money he should be taking lessons from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi . If anyone wants a challenge then look up Harry Reids financial disclosure the year he was elected to Congress and his 2010 disclosure and compare it to his salary . There is knowledge that isn't being reported . Cantor can hedge his bet by going long one side while shorting the other but his long bet isn't being reported .

If Cantor is hedging his bet then he is doing so to avoid selling his long position, so he can avoid income taxes.

Can you tell me why in this great country of capitalism, where supply and demand is suppose to be the ruling economic factor, people are allowed to sell things that they do not own? How does that work in any real supply and demand economy? Every short means an extra long which in efefct is a counterfeit share. Does hedging work to help our economy or does it simply wipe out risk and along with it any incentive to truly invest in growth and production?

it is pretty simple. Right now most would say there is too much money in the economy. However, that money is not really in the economy, but is tied up in offsetting financial instruments where it does the economy no good. If we really want economic revival we need to pry that money out of these financial instruments and return it to the real economy which represents real things that people buy and sell. If we don't do this then the real economy will continue to need additional monies in order to operate.

I feel like what you are asking is that people in politics, cant or shouldnt be allowed to invest and I dont agree with you.

People elected to office should completely divest themselves from their investments once in office. The argument is that these "great" people would no longer run for office. Sounds like a double win to me.