Brilliant Meme Reveals The Difference Between Steve Harvey and Hillary Clinton

imageedit_4285_7018109578

Analytical Economist reports on Hillary Clinton’s forgotten insider trading scandal:

Like everyone else on the left, Hillary presents herself as an enemy of the financial industry.

We hear all the usual rhetoric over taxing hedge fund managers and billionaires without substance – and she’s even called for breaking up the big banks.

I guess when it comes to financial mischief it takes one to know one.

Hillary Clinton has a forgotten financial controversy of her own dating back over two decades ago.

The New York Times reported on March 28th, 1994:

The White House said today that in 1978 Hillary Rodham Clinton invested $1,000 in commodities futures and that the investment grew in 10 months of trading in the notoriously volatile market into a gain of nearly $100,000.

Seeking to dispel suggestions that the trades were risk-free and improperly arranged by an Arkansas lawyer who represents one of the state’s most powerful companies, the White House issued a statement this afternoon that said the First Lady had put up her own money and that she bore all of the financial risks in a marketplace where three out of four investors lose money.

The officials also released a year’s worth of brokerage statements from one of Mrs. Clinton’s two accounts. They show winnings outrunning losses about three-to-one. ‘Too Nerve-Racking’

So, Clinton was able to turn $1,000 into $100,000 in a period of 10 months. To put that into perspective, the compound annual growth rate of the stock market (measured via the Dow Jones) during the 20th century was 5.3% – meaning it would take slightly over 89 years to turn $1,000 into 100,000.

So what’s the probability of her feat? According to one study published in 1994, about 1 in 31 trillion. A few possible explanations exist for the “success”:

Many of her trades took place at or near the best prices of the day. Only four explanations can account for these remarkable results. Blair [her broker] may have been an exceptionally good trader. Hillary Clinton may have been exceptionally lucky. Blair may have been front-running other orders. Or Blair may have arranged to have a broker fraudulently assign trades to benefit Clinton’s account.

Let’s step back for a second and say that there was no wrongdoing here – that Clinton just got lucky.

Does she really have any right to attack the supposed “culture of short-term speculation” as she often does, considering she’s one of its luckiest beneficiaries?



Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *