1994-04-18 - Re: Dirty Laundry…

Header Data

From: Peter Wayner <pcw@access.digex.net>
To: perry@imsi.com
Message Hash: 74c5200105859341d2748c4e52c6db5a678d617f4933b8be21ce0f291b95edb7
Message ID: <199404181938.AA02158@access3.digex.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-04-18 19:39:05 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 12:39:05 PDT

Raw message

From: Peter Wayner <pcw@access.digex.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 12:39:05 PDT
To: perry@imsi.com
Subject: Re: Dirty Laundry...
Message-ID: <199404181938.AA02158@access3.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>> Notice that both Proctor and Gamble and Dell computers have recently
>> sustained large losses in the futures markets. Maybe they're gambling,
>> maybe they're funnelling money someplace. Who knows?
>Given the sums involved, if the firms wished to launder money in this
>manner they would not resort to silly martingale schemes but would
>just bribe a broker to swap tickets. They could not possibly have
>managed to "double the bet" often enough not to go broke. However, in
>both cases, I am sufficiently familiar with the events to very
>seriously doubt that any profits laundering was taking place at all.

I think you misunderstand what I suggested might possibly have
been happening. If a potential launderer guesses the market correctly,
then they don't close out their position. They just let it keep
losing money because they know that they're piling it up elsewhere. There
is no need to do any doubling. 

Someone else has pointed out a large company in Chile recently lost
a small fortune on financial trades. They placed bets on the market
and  didn't cut their losses. 

Another potential excursion into hypothetical guessing might suggest
that the reason the losses were so big is that they _were_ trying to 
launder a much smaller amount and they found themselves forced to
keep doubling. But, again: who knows?  

Don't get me wrong. Bribing a broker to swap tickets is an okay
system, but it may leave too great a paper trail as the recent news
has shown us.