Nanex Gets $700k Whistleblower Award from SEC

Re:Nanex Gets $700k Whistleblower Award from SEC by tptacek on Wednesday March 02, 2016 @01:43PM (#11211985)

That's not true. Even people who don't like Hunsader's analysis (and there are lots of those people) tend to acknowledge that his operation generates good data.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nanex Gets $700k Whistleblower Award from SEC by jnordwick on Wednesday March 02, 2016 @06:12PM (#11213825)

I agree with the previous poster. As someone who works in the field, I find a lot of the analysis very conspiratorial when often the correct explanation is somebody had a bug.

"Never assume bad intentions when assuming stupidity is enough" -- Hanlon's Razor

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nanex Gets $700k Whistleblower Award from SEC by PhantomGremlin on Thursday March 03, 2016 @05:53AM (#11216084)

often the correct explanation is somebody had a bug

That's true in general. But there are literally billions of dollars in play every day on Wall Street. One quip I've heard is IIRC "there are no coincidences on Wall Street".

Never assume bad intentions when assuming stupidity is enough

Wall Street does not, in general, employ stupid people. Stoned, perhaps (c.f. Jimmy Cayne), but not stupid.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nanex Gets $700k Whistleblower Award from SEC by nanexllc on Saturday March 05, 2016 @07:15PM (#11231796)

I welcome debate over specific topics. I demand specific examples from wild accusations. Since I've published over 3000 pages (and have never had to retract a single page), you have plenty to chose from. BTW, what have you published?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nanex Gets $700k Whistleblower Award from SEC by harryh on Wednesday March 02, 2016 @01:48PM (#11212022)

OK that's fair. The data is good. But the theories on top of that data....not so much.

[ Parent | on HN ]