From: hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:10:46 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: whitehouse web incident, viva la web revolution
In-Reply-To: <199606051821.OAA12450@jekyll.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <9606052018.AA03374@Etna.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>Phill, quit while you are ahead. It is my opinion, as a person highly
>familiar with the markets in question, that Hillary Clinton's profits
>were impossible to achieve by any means other than fraud, and that no
>honest broker would have allowed her to hold positions in which she
>was so far out of mandatory margin requirements and a trivial move
>would have wiped out her entire net worth and more.  I do not know of
>a single professional in the industry who disagrees with me.

Crap Perry, I discussed the affair with a top investment manager
at Barclays Bank Suisse. He saw no problem whatsoever in the deals.
Neither did my friend who trades oil futures for Rappaport. If you 
want to play the "who knows who in banking" game remember that the
Oxford Union and the Swiss National Croquet team are probably better
places to meet banking types than the Palo Alto Au Bon Pain.


>Futures, Mr. Baker.

Its Dr., Mr Metzger


Before you get all steamed up and bothered consider that you are 
behaving in typical USEnet flamefest fashion. Are you going to claim
that the underlying mechanism for options is any different than for 
futures? The point was that she was _selling_ and not _buying_. Thats
a fixed profit bet with an unlimited downside.

>The most astounding part of the trading pattern was that Hillary
>Clinton did not "let it ride" and earn the money off of repeated
>increases in the value of a single investment

Of course, a person _selling_ futures is going to take the profits out
each time. The profits are made against the net worth of the person
concerned. Its an _underwriting_ business Mr Metzger. $100,000 is not a 
substantial increase in Hillary's net worth so she _can't_ underwrite
more business. 

>There is an obvious trick by which this can be achieved. The broker
>writes two tickets -- one to buy, one to sell. One ticket always loses
>exactly what the other gains. The winning ticket is assigned to the
>bribee, the loser to the person doing the bribing. The mechanism
>self-launders the funds.

Oh yes, and how does one cover up the matching ticket? They would
show up on the brokers account. 

If one wishes to bribe a politician a much better way is to give them
a huge advance on their book, or buy some tangible asset at above
market value. I can't see an intelligent broker risking his business 
when there are easier mechanisms available.

>Margin requirements are set by the exchanges and the CFTC, not by the
>broker in most cases. They are required by law -- not under broker
>discretion.

Forgive me if I am wrong but are CFTC margin requirements not 
requirements placed on brokers as opposed to requirements brokers
must impose on customers? That at any rate is my understanding
of the situation from Galbraith.
 

Given the four years of dirt digging over Whitewater its a safe bet
that none of the actions were illegal as Mr Metzger claims. If they
were it would demonstrate more than incompetence on the part of
D'Amato et al. After four years they have a convicted fraudster and 
self confesed pejurer as their only link to the Whitehouse. If there
was such obvious criminality in those dealings D'Amato would have
been all over them.


ObCrypto: Perry is only able to make allegations because the
financial markets are to a degree open. If anoymous cash takes
off and anonymous derivatives follow won't it make it easier to
conceal the type of dealings Perry alledges?


	Phill