Nice idea! More citizen tools for observing and inspecting the elite is always welcome and good project to work on.
Some feedback:
- INSIDER CONFIDENCE INDEX is missing some sort of description, not sure if it's actually Insider Sentiment Index which is a establish term or if it's something else.
- Increase the contrast as almost all of the text (except table headers text) is hard to read without really focusing.
Thanks for the feedback! The insider confidence index is a ratio of net insider selling/buying to the total average volume of a stock in the last 30 days. I will make sure to add a better description, and try to improve the fonts.
The contrast is less about the fonts and more about the colors. Just making the darker a bit more darker and the light a bit lighter should solve the problem.
By the way, seems the page is now behind a login page, so it requires a signup, it was not like that before, so you're now not adhering to the guidelines for Show HN.
> Blog posts, sign-up pages, curated lists, and other reading material can't be tried out, so can't be Show HNs.
I don't think you're interpreting this correctly. A "sign-up" page here is one that just gets you on a list. You can certainly try this out, you just have to log in.
Boo-hoo, you can't handle the critic of the public, then sure, don't go into the spotlight. Better that way as well so win-win for everyone.
Do you have any sources where these self-proclaimed smart people tell us about their reasons for not going into politics? Many of the mainstream-smart people seem more interested in getting as much money for themselves than working for the public good.
This, plus most political narcissist think they can lie/talk their way out of anything - or when the questions are really pointed just act like they didnt hear the question and put on a huge grin and just ignore everyone.
Lite Pete did.
Or, play the Trump card and attack anyone who gets ybder the kimono too mych.
I'm skeptical of claims that insider trading is prevalent among those that are not professional traders. I recently analyzed the trading activity of Senators [0], and found the evidence that rampant insider trading to be unconvincing.
In its simplest form, insider trading consists of someone knowing something about performance or similar relative measures that would affect a stock price. But as Matt Levine points out, knowing the future isn't that helpful [1]. Research found that even when it has been proven that professional investors had and acted on insider information, their track record was still spotty.
I even made an app [2] where you can get a companies past and future performance numbers, and you try and guess which of two opposite paths the stock took. I call it the insider trading game, and its a lot harder than it looks.
[edit] Just reminded of the Jim Cramer still showing two headlines: "More than 16M Americans have lost jobs in 3 week, dow's best week since 1938" [3]. I'm skeptical a non-professional trader would be able to somehow deduce strong stock market performance from early access to something like 16mm Americans having lost their jobs in 3 weeks.
This post [0] in a related disccusion yesterday refers to research in 2004 [1] that clearly concludes senators did better trades than the index. But maybe times have changed. Or senators.
I've heard about this study but haven't read it carefully. My problem with these studies is that their methods of analysis are overly complicated I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if the results are being managed.
The range is from 1993-1998 while this was published in 2004. I'm not sure why that range was selected.
Also, consider the universe:
> Initially, we begin with 6,052 transactions. Before analysis we apply several
screens to the data. Only U.S. common stocks are included in the study. These
screens eliminate, among other things, all preferred stock, ADRs, REITs, foreign
stocks, and mutual funds. We also eliminate all initial public offerings (IPOs)
from the sample.2 In total, 360 observations are eliminated for the reasons given
above. Among the surviving transactions, approximately 59% of the stocks are
listed on the NYSE, 40% are traded on the NASDAQ, and about 1% are listed on
the ASE.
Why eliminate those other things? Would the conclusion have changed if they had been included?
> As indicated previously, Senators report transaction amounts only within broad
ranges.
Ranges are as follows:
$1,001 to $15,000
$15,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $100,000
$100,001 to $250,000
$250,001 to $500,000
$500,001 to $1,000,000
over $1,000,000
And from the paper:
> As before, we again estimate the value of their trades using the midpoint of the range reported by the Senators for all transactions less than $250,000. For all transactions above $250,000, we assume a transaction size equal to $250,000.
Why floor it at 250? Why not keep the midpoint, at least for 250 - 500 and 500 - 1mm?
I also thought it was odd to look at two portfolios, one of buys and one of sells. If the buys outperformed, but sells were a lot larger, then its not a good strategy on the whole. That's before we even get to the performance measure used.
Think could all be above the board and decided upon prior to actually crunching the numbers. But there are too many things here for me to definitively buy the narrative.
I can’t tell because the post source is hugged to death but I’m just speculating that this is utilizing sec form 4 data or similar sources? There can be some interesting signal there that you could incorporate into a trading strategy but that’s mostly semantic and another story, I totally agree with you broadly. It will be a minor miracle if there isn’t fraud that washes out with a market crisis of this scope, but I’ll be amazed if the grand majority of trading isn’t above board.
This sounds like a fun game! There was at one point also this game called chartgame.com, the interface when the site was still old is subtly (but importantly) different from now [1]. The most fun thing IMO was that you'd see the company name after you were done with that particular company. It was made to see whether technical analysis worked.
On another note, I was wondering how you got the data. So I opened my Chrome dev tools to see. I'll be checking financialmodelingprep.com out!
Financial Modeling Prep is amazing. Incredible that its free and well documented. My proudest github star [0] is from the creator of Financial Modeling Prep, Antoine Vulcain, who liked my site.
It would certainly be possible for them to abuse their position in this way, but there may be enough counter motivations. Most are already wealthy, so they are not going to be hungry for money. They are also fearful of negative publicity or information that could help a political opponent. Abusing their position to trade stocks could easily end up in an opponent's attack ad.
I feel like most quarters won't necessarily give easy opportunities for insider trading, because stock prices over the course of the quarter are greatly moved by macro trends that are hard to forecast. But there are definitely some short-term events that move a stock in fairly predictable ways (an acquisition offer, an imminent recall, earnings coming in way way above or below guidance, etc). With a bit of leverage it's easy to just wait and make plenty of money off of particular events rather than maintaining a continuous insider-trading portfolio. Of course this strategy makes your trades much more suspicious too...
So if no one can play the market successfully, it’s socialism propping up the rich and forced austerity for the poor to maintain the “story”, as Trump calls it, romantic nonsense as Thiel writes about it, propping up the imagined belief we need elites pushing us forward.
Elite wealth managers alone, btw. A minority of rich actually have marketable skills.
Has nothing to do with business acumen (math models have shown one time success was luck not skill and continued success is simply bought; hi Bloomberg)
So yeah let’s keep playing this game, guys! Physics I’m sure shows somewhere this was predetermined by the motion of the stars and matter we can’t see.
Why NOT subject the mathematical majority to a system that (conveniently) won’t educate them well enough to even offer a chance at falsifying the underlying presumptions!
All information is not created equal. Classified briefings on a virus that may shutdown entire sectors of the economy isn’t the same as unemployment numbers. Everyone knew a ton of people were going to be laid off.
From your blog: “Here’s a trade from David Perdue, the great Senator of Georgia. He actually made nearly half the trades of our dataset, and it makes sense since he’s worth $15.8 million”
Why would it makes sense for him to make half the trades because he is worth $15.8 million? Plenty of Senators are worth more than that.
On a unrelated note, how the hell can a senator sit on so much and be worth so much? Aren't they supposed to have the public in their main interest? Sitting on all those assets looks really suspicious. Seems they care more about themselves than their community/country.
Because you get rich by not distributing what you earn, back into the economy/communities, but by hoarding. Someone who is worth $15.8 million is clearly hoarding and not utilizing the funds to improve what's around them.
That argument could be made down to much lower income categories. “You make 80k/year and don’t give a quarter of that away? So selfish/“
$16 million is a not-unreasonable amount to save for a comfortable retirement that includes travel around the world and making sure your children get a good start to life, and says absolutely nothing about how much the person donates to society’s betterment.
This a beautiful display of "1%er" tone deafness and ignorance of reality, like Mitt Romney's advice that people should simply borrow money from their parents if they want to go to college and start a business.
FWIW, I’ll be lucky not to be homeless when I retire.
The general advice is to have at least, what, a million saved for retirement. 15 is a lot, not so much that it’s unreasonable to my mind for a successful person.
> $16 million is a not-unreasonable amount to save for a comfortable retirement that includes travel around the world and making sure your children get a good start to life
I agree with you. But maybe if that's what you're aiming for, you should not be in decision power over the entire country. If you're seeking out that position, it should be because you want to see the entire country as your children. Those are the people we want as leaders.
Not the selfish hoarders that currently hold the power in most countries today.
Your statement is overly broad and untrue. Someone who is worth 15.8 million could very easily be making enough to be worth 200 million but giving a lot to charity. For Perdue's case, he appears to average around 2% of his earnings to charity, which isn't an amazing amount, but it's not negligible either. But the point is that how much someone is worth doesn't "clearly" indicate what they are doing with their money. There are plenty of very rich folks that give / have given a lot back to society.
It's not like he has his money stuffed into his mattress. Money invested into the stock market is used by companies to grow / hire people / make new products.
I could understand that someone would like to have a buffer in case of emergencies, but it seems like $15.8 million is a bit over the "emergency buffer" line and becomes more like they want more money just to have more money.
You're a public servant, supposedly working for the public, why you need so much? Share it with the ones who have zero instead. The US have a huge problems in many areas, like healthcare, homelessness and other serious problems, if these hoarders would actually display a bit of care towards those people, you can solve it.
But again, sitting on $15.8 million does not look like you're actually trying to solve anything else but your ego.
whether its $100 or $100m - why do you get to decide what's right for someone else to have sitting in a bank account?
Why is your decision that "$1m is enough for anyone" (or whatever your arbitrary amount is) the correct one? Why not 100k? or 10m? (arbitrary numbers I know you haven't stated as such)
"You're a public servant" What does his personal finances have to do with his public service?
as long as he's not making his money from his service (IE: Kick backs, sweet deals for family, etc)?
Nothing.
"The US has huge problems" everyone/every country has huge problems in all these areas - each in different flavors. You could take 100% of money (or value, since a lot of "value" is in intangible stuff like property or stock that isn't "money") from everyone above $1m (or your arbitrary cutt-off) and guess what? We still couldn't afford "heatlhcare for all" and people will still be homeless. Money isn't the problem and it doesn't solve all problems. Just look at places like CA that are spending more and more and having worse and worst problems - the issue isn't money.
At the end of the day... his having 15k, 15m, 15b or 15t means nothing about his attitude, ego or ability to care.
He's the 25th wealthiest member of the Senate. To be fair, out of 240 trades, 206 of them were between 1,000 and 15,000. Turnover in his account between those three month was somewhere between 950k - 5.34mm, with up to 536k - 3mm in purchases. I don't think this is unusual volume for something with a net worth of 15.8mm, but I could be wrong. He seems to like day trading.
Let's consider a recent example. The massive Fed/Treasury coordinated $2T+ bailout from last week. This thing came as a surprise to most us. Prior to this we saw 10 days of "weird" bullish activity. Market was going up on incredibly bad news, some banks such as Goldman advised high-end clients to buy stocks for unknown reason. And then the news came. Later it was revealed that this SPV had wide congressional support. So 1000s of officials from the White House, Fed, Treasury dept and Congress were sitting on this info for 2 weeks. Now add their staff that worked on getting this done, lawyers, accountants, advisors, regulators, oh and BlackRock who executed the deal. There is exactly zero chance this piece of info wasn't leaked to all high end clients in the banks at least a week in advance.
I don't doubt it was leaked. But even with that information, unprecedented Fed support was speculated for some time but crystalized on March 3rd when Fed lowered rates 0.5%. the market still went down since then. Maybe it didn't go down as much as it would have had the Fed not intervened, but that's difficult to profit from. Market recovered a bit and you can point to another Fed policy in hindsight and say this caused the rebound.
Did you actually read the article? It specifically talks about press releases put out by companies. That’s just a sliver of the type of insider trading knowledge you can trade off of.
There are all types of other insider info. For example if you work at the FDA and know in advance what drugs are about to be approved/rejected.
Also I tried your app and the prompt it gives is... not even close to insider info
“ Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc is an integrated biopharmaceutical company. It discovers, invents, develops, manufactures, and commercializes medicines for the treatment of serious medical conditions.”
I fail to see how this is helpful info? Now if on the other hand it said “the company discovered a COVID drug in final approval with FDA”, that would be much easier to trade on.
I have experience working on civil investigations of financial crime. It takes a very long time to prosecute white collar crime of all kinds. Especially insider trading. The most effective technique is to overwhelm the accused with reports containing facts that don’t constitute cold, hard evidence of crime, and then wait for them to buckle under the pressure and admit guilt
> I recently analyzed the trading activity of Senators [0]
How is this relevant? Surely any senator knowingly engaging in insider trading wouldn't do so directly. They would get someone else to profit from the info and give back to them in either untraceable or legit ways.
Insider trading By elected officials isn’t against the law. There’s no reason for them to hide it. There have been several recent examples of senators openly insider training and no repercussions for being caught.
I agree that insider trading is less prevalent than people think, simply because lots of people love to believe in conspiracy theories, and put on a tin foil hat.
However, in the Bloomberg article you mentioned, it was cited that the hackers had a 77% success rate. Any serious investor would tell you that's an incredibly high success rate, as it's impossible to be 100% right all the time. If you had that hit rate, you're almost guaranteed to beat the index by a very large margin.
Lastly, it's possible to still have insider info, and not make money on the trade. That doesn't make it legal, though, does it? I think that's still insider trading - it's just making the wrong bet. If I had access to all insider info, I'd be super picky. Ignore 99% of what I hear (ie 16M Americans are unemployed, big whoop! everyone knows), and only trade on the 1% of info that will almost certainly move the markets (ie COVID-19 will shutdown entire cities). Extremely difficult to do if you love trading, but the optimal strategy.
KID TRADERS
Using data on a half a million accounts from Finland from
1995 to 2010, the study came to a surprising conclusion:
accounts set up to benefit kids 10 years and under did
really well at stock picking, and did especially well just
before mergers, earnings releases and events that generate
big stock moves.
The analysis was possible since Finland makes available
unusually detailed information about the identities of
investors.
“When guardians trade through under-aged accounts, there
is a relatively high probability that they are trading on
private information,” the authors, Henk Berkman, at
University of Auckland, Paul Koch at the University of
Kansas and Joakim Westerholm at the University of Sydney,
conclude in a paper slated to be published in the Journal
of Finance.
The gap between the junior set and typical accounts held
by adults was striking: in the day following trades made
by kids, their accounts outperformed the adult accounts by
9 basis points.
Ahead of major earnings announcements, the kids chose
correctly whether to buy or sell 57 percent of the time
and beat their elders by 1.1 percent in the following day.
It gets even better - at least for junior. On trades made
the day ahead of a merger announcement, juvenile
portfolios outperformed by 12 percent the following day,
and made the right decision to buy or sell an uncanny 72
percent of the time.
The rest of the market, by the way, chose correctly
whether to buy or sell only 50 percent of the time.
This is probably not all due to inside knowledge,
according to the study. The guardians tended to be richer
and may simply have been more successful at investing, the
authors argue, due perhaps to higher intelligence or an
advantage in obtaining legal, but valuable information.
Even so, the fact that the juvenile accounts outperformed
ahead of mergers while the guardians’ accounts did not
implies that the adults were smart enough to know better
than to trade on inside knowledge in an easily traceable
way.
“knowing the future isn't that helpful” — while true, it’s irrelevant as it relates to if the behavior is criminal insider trading activity, even if the trade resulted in no gains, it’s still criminal behavior.
I think what would be more useful would be to have a summary of bulk deals for the major index tracking ETFs and S&P 500 companies. I haven't been able to get this data on any free platform.
Keep in mind by adding that gate, you're no longer adhering to the guidelines of Show HN. I advise you to read through them before submitting more stories: https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html
It's sort of in-between. You're right that the rules don't exclude projects that require sign-in to try out. But users don't like it, and it's not encouraged. It's particularly repelling to readers if they click on a Show HN title only to go to a page that contains nothing but a call to sign up.
If the page explained why you added the form and made it clear that people are still welcome to try out the project, it would probably help.
Most likely, clicking and encountering nothing but a login form is the reason why people started flagging the submission. When users see a page like that, they pattern-match it to a different kind of submission—a boring corporate promotion designed to collect signups. (We get a lot of those.) Keep in mind that many readers will have clicked before looking at the comments.
This is a really interesting site, if you want to build into a company and need a partner to help raise capital and handle this business side, email me: hughes7370@gmail.com
This is a really interesting site, if you want to build into a company and need a partner to help raise capital and handle this business side, email me: hughes7370@gmail.com
Their homepage doesn't offer much either. Their blog has one post that shows an dual-axis line graph of % odds of a Sanders win and Tesla dollar stock price over 2 1/2 months. That comparison is laughably naive.
You can see who, when, which quantity, dollar amounts, dates... I signed up with your system and you only show in the LAST 6 MONTHS -- why not last century? Your title is a complete click and bait.
It is not in the last 15 mins. You'll notice there are two columns, the trade date -- in the middle, and the SEC filling date on the right. Sometimes people don't report for months.
88 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 158 ms ] threadSome feedback:
- INSIDER CONFIDENCE INDEX is missing some sort of description, not sure if it's actually Insider Sentiment Index which is a establish term or if it's something else.
- Increase the contrast as almost all of the text (except table headers text) is hard to read without really focusing.
The contrast is less about the fonts and more about the colors. Just making the darker a bit more darker and the light a bit lighter should solve the problem.
By the way, seems the page is now behind a login page, so it requires a signup, it was not like that before, so you're now not adhering to the guidelines for Show HN.
> Blog posts, sign-up pages, curated lists, and other reading material can't be tried out, so can't be Show HNs.
https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html
Yeah, this is a big reason smart people do not go into politics; the armchair-expert mob.
Do you have any sources where these self-proclaimed smart people tell us about their reasons for not going into politics? Many of the mainstream-smart people seem more interested in getting as much money for themselves than working for the public good.
Lite Pete did.
Or, play the Trump card and attack anyone who gets ybder the kimono too mych.
Anyone else seeing the same?
edit: OK I see others are experiencing the same thing.
In its simplest form, insider trading consists of someone knowing something about performance or similar relative measures that would affect a stock price. But as Matt Levine points out, knowing the future isn't that helpful [1]. Research found that even when it has been proven that professional investors had and acted on insider information, their track record was still spotty.
I even made an app [2] where you can get a companies past and future performance numbers, and you try and guess which of two opposite paths the stock took. I call it the insider trading game, and its a lot harder than it looks.
[edit] Just reminded of the Jim Cramer still showing two headlines: "More than 16M Americans have lost jobs in 3 week, dow's best week since 1938" [3]. I'm skeptical a non-professional trader would be able to somehow deduce strong stock market performance from early access to something like 16mm Americans having lost their jobs in 3 weeks.
[0] https://medium.com/ml-everything/analyzing-us-senators-stock...
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-11-26/knowin...
[2] https://insider-trading-game.netlify.com/
[3] https://i.redd.it/rrnajxjdb6s41.jpg
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22837708 [1] https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/gov2126/files/ziobrows...
The range is from 1993-1998 while this was published in 2004. I'm not sure why that range was selected.
Also, consider the universe:
> Initially, we begin with 6,052 transactions. Before analysis we apply several screens to the data. Only U.S. common stocks are included in the study. These screens eliminate, among other things, all preferred stock, ADRs, REITs, foreign stocks, and mutual funds. We also eliminate all initial public offerings (IPOs) from the sample.2 In total, 360 observations are eliminated for the reasons given above. Among the surviving transactions, approximately 59% of the stocks are listed on the NYSE, 40% are traded on the NASDAQ, and about 1% are listed on the ASE.
Why eliminate those other things? Would the conclusion have changed if they had been included?
> As indicated previously, Senators report transaction amounts only within broad ranges.
Ranges are as follows:
$1,001 to $15,000
$15,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $100,000
$100,001 to $250,000
$250,001 to $500,000
$500,001 to $1,000,000
over $1,000,000
And from the paper:
> As before, we again estimate the value of their trades using the midpoint of the range reported by the Senators for all transactions less than $250,000. For all transactions above $250,000, we assume a transaction size equal to $250,000.
Why floor it at 250? Why not keep the midpoint, at least for 250 - 500 and 500 - 1mm?
I also thought it was odd to look at two portfolios, one of buys and one of sells. If the buys outperformed, but sells were a lot larger, then its not a good strategy on the whole. That's before we even get to the performance measure used.
Think could all be above the board and decided upon prior to actually crunching the numbers. But there are too many things here for me to definitively buy the narrative.
Really enjoyed your medium series btw!
On another note, I was wondering how you got the data. So I opened my Chrome dev tools to see. I'll be checking financialmodelingprep.com out!
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJAw_LXcUgY -- someone playing the old version
[0] https://github.com/breeko/stox
Elite wealth managers alone, btw. A minority of rich actually have marketable skills.
Has nothing to do with business acumen (math models have shown one time success was luck not skill and continued success is simply bought; hi Bloomberg)
So yeah let’s keep playing this game, guys! Physics I’m sure shows somewhere this was predetermined by the motion of the stars and matter we can’t see.
Why NOT subject the mathematical majority to a system that (conveniently) won’t educate them well enough to even offer a chance at falsifying the underlying presumptions!
From your blog: “Here’s a trade from David Perdue, the great Senator of Georgia. He actually made nearly half the trades of our dataset, and it makes sense since he’s worth $15.8 million”
Why would it makes sense for him to make half the trades because he is worth $15.8 million? Plenty of Senators are worth more than that.
On a unrelated note, how the hell can a senator sit on so much and be worth so much? Aren't they supposed to have the public in their main interest? Sitting on all those assets looks really suspicious. Seems they care more about themselves than their community/country.
$16 million is a not-unreasonable amount to save for a comfortable retirement that includes travel around the world and making sure your children get a good start to life, and says absolutely nothing about how much the person donates to society’s betterment.
The general advice is to have at least, what, a million saved for retirement. 15 is a lot, not so much that it’s unreasonable to my mind for a successful person.
I agree with you. But maybe if that's what you're aiming for, you should not be in decision power over the entire country. If you're seeking out that position, it should be because you want to see the entire country as your children. Those are the people we want as leaders.
Not the selfish hoarders that currently hold the power in most countries today.
They don't make more products or hire more people when someone buys a stock on the open market.
if he donates to charity - or as the POTUS does, gives his salary away (or doesn't) - that's entirely on him.
Being "rich" and "caring" are two separate and unrelated things...
If I care, but do something that makes more than I spend - or invest wisely into something that makes more... I care and make money...
"if you have money you don't care" is a seriously flawed attitude.
You're a public servant, supposedly working for the public, why you need so much? Share it with the ones who have zero instead. The US have a huge problems in many areas, like healthcare, homelessness and other serious problems, if these hoarders would actually display a bit of care towards those people, you can solve it.
But again, sitting on $15.8 million does not look like you're actually trying to solve anything else but your ego.
Why is your decision that "$1m is enough for anyone" (or whatever your arbitrary amount is) the correct one? Why not 100k? or 10m? (arbitrary numbers I know you haven't stated as such)
"You're a public servant" What does his personal finances have to do with his public service?
as long as he's not making his money from his service (IE: Kick backs, sweet deals for family, etc)?
Nothing.
"The US has huge problems" everyone/every country has huge problems in all these areas - each in different flavors. You could take 100% of money (or value, since a lot of "value" is in intangible stuff like property or stock that isn't "money") from everyone above $1m (or your arbitrary cutt-off) and guess what? We still couldn't afford "heatlhcare for all" and people will still be homeless. Money isn't the problem and it doesn't solve all problems. Just look at places like CA that are spending more and more and having worse and worst problems - the issue isn't money.
At the end of the day... his having 15k, 15m, 15b or 15t means nothing about his attitude, ego or ability to care.
Did you actually read the article? It specifically talks about press releases put out by companies. That’s just a sliver of the type of insider trading knowledge you can trade off of.
There are all types of other insider info. For example if you work at the FDA and know in advance what drugs are about to be approved/rejected.
Also I tried your app and the prompt it gives is... not even close to insider info
“ Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc is an integrated biopharmaceutical company. It discovers, invents, develops, manufactures, and commercializes medicines for the treatment of serious medical conditions.”
I fail to see how this is helpful info? Now if on the other hand it said “the company discovered a COVID drug in final approval with FDA”, that would be much easier to trade on.
Knowing the right future information can be insanely profitable. No matter what clickbait headline Matt Levine can come up with.
This is a verbatim example of not assuming good faith in the guidelines for this site
How is this relevant? Surely any senator knowingly engaging in insider trading wouldn't do so directly. They would get someone else to profit from the info and give back to them in either untraceable or legit ways.
However, in the Bloomberg article you mentioned, it was cited that the hackers had a 77% success rate. Any serious investor would tell you that's an incredibly high success rate, as it's impossible to be 100% right all the time. If you had that hit rate, you're almost guaranteed to beat the index by a very large margin.
Lastly, it's possible to still have insider info, and not make money on the trade. That doesn't make it legal, though, does it? I think that's still insider trading - it's just making the wrong bet. If I had access to all insider info, I'd be super picky. Ignore 99% of what I hear (ie 16M Americans are unemployed, big whoop! everyone knows), and only trade on the 1% of info that will almost certainly move the markets (ie COVID-19 will shutdown entire cities). Extremely difficult to do if you love trading, but the optimal strategy.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-insidertrading-saf...
https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/9655/data-source-f...
The idea for this guideline is not to link to a teaser that can't be used. You can use this. You just need to sign in.
Most likely, clicking and encountering nothing but a login form is the reason why people started flagging the submission. When users see a page like that, they pattern-match it to a different kind of submission—a boring corporate promotion designed to collect signups. (We get a lot of those.) Keep in mind that many readers will have clicked before looking at the comments.
Username: testest
Password: testest
https://www.quiverquant.com/blog/
https://www.finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=AMZN
You can see who, when, which quantity, dollar amounts, dates... I signed up with your system and you only show in the LAST 6 MONTHS -- why not last century? Your title is a complete click and bait.
https://www.quiverquant.com/blog/
Sounds like the founders might need a basic course in stats, before giving stock tips.