Former Goldman Programmer Sentenced To 97 Months 195
stevegee58 writes "Former Goldman Sachs programmer Sergey Aleynikov was sentenced to 97 months in prison for stealing source code used in Goldman's high-frequency trading algorithms. Aleynikov was convicted late last year in Manhattan federal court."
Shame (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a shame this is the only guy from GS who went to jail...
Re: (Score:2)
If the same principle applied to this as it does to bank losses, every US resident would have to serve about five sixths of a second in jail.
GS is a big donor to the right people (Score:5, Informative)
Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributors
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 [opensecrets.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder where the University of California gets it's money from.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you read the link where these numbers came from (I know, that would be WAY uncool around here), you'll see that "The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families."
Do you really think the University of California as an institution gave $1.5 million to Obama? Of course not, but add up all the generally left-leaning faculty, staff, grad students, and alumni across all the
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words, a bunch of people decided to donate money to political campaigns and if we group them based on what companies they're employed by or institutions they're affiliated with this is what we get.
The fact the total of all those donations comes up to 1.5 million for Uni. of California doesn't say anything about the intent of those donations. The list is written to suggest the donations are all concerted efforts to make large contributions to a political campaigns in hopes of favors from the admi
Re: (Score:2)
"If you read the link where these numbers came from"
Ohhh, is that what it is for. ;-)
Re:GS is a big donor to the right people (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not so naïve to believe US politics (or any Western country's politics for that matter) are free of corruption. But you're right there on the other end of the spectrum: making everyone supporting a political cause with money suspect.
If you think that's somehow helpful, power to you, but I don't see how it is. Of course you could be of the opinion that supporting a political cause with money is a bad thing for exactly that reason, but believing that would stop everyone from doing it would be no less naïve...
Well, Obama did hire Goldman's top lobbyist (Score:5, Interesting)
Question for you: If money doesn't buy influence, why do companies donate to candidates? And don't say because they are true believers - most donate to both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
True, which is why Goldman gave more to Obama (Score:3)
Goldman Sachs: Recipients
2008 Cycle
Senate Obama, Barack (D-IL) $995,745
Senate Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $401,950
Delegate Romney, Mitt (R) $235,275
Sena
Re: (Score:2)
And that's just the presidential candidates. Giving money to a presidential campaign has sweet-FA ROI. They don't need the money (their PR flacks will work for the love and fame, and the ads they buy will be nothing compared to the more independent media circus - look at how much free advertising Obama got just by being, well, Obama); and they are under enormous scrutiny. If the President pardons the head of GS, it kinda smells a bit funny.
A grunt congressman has virtually no free help, no free coverage, an
Re: (Score:3)
making everyone supporting a political cause with money suspect.
I suspect that some people support political candidates as a quid pro quo for government favors in return. In some cases, like military contractors, it seems obvious. Their PAC contributes to the Democratic candidate, and to the Republican running against him. What's their motivation? Once in the while politicians go to jail when they get caught on tape admitting it.
But putting straightforward quid pro quo aside, the problem is with the system that requires politicians to raise hundreds of millions of dolla
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Campaign Laws forbade giving more than $5000. How do they skirt around that rule?
Re: (Score:2)
The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and the
Re: (Score:2)
Merrill Lynch $373,595
Citigroup Inc $322,051
Morgan Stanley $273,452
Goldman Sachs $230,095
JPMorgan Chase & Co $228,107
US Government $208,379
AT&T Inc $201,438
Wachovia Corp $195,063
UBS AG $192,493
Credit Suisse Group $183,353
PricewaterhouseCoopers $167,900
US Army $167,820
Bank of America $166,026
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $159,596
Blank Rome LLP $154,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,437
US Dept of Defense $144,105
FedEx Corp $131,974
Bear Stearns
Re: (Score:2)
Ah that's why McCain lost:
correlation != cause. McCain got less money because it was obvious he was losing.
Next time forget about voting, just tally the contributions.
Or just watch the polls. The last election wasn't close except for a brief time after the Sarah Palin hail mary.
Re: (Score:2)
US Army $167,820
US Dept of Defense $144,105
Wait, WHAT?
Re: (Score:3)
So Goldman Sachs is pissed that someone that works for them stole something? Well, that's a switch.
America, how I love thee...
It's like the story of two con men who worked together on a scam, then, when they were splitting up the take, one says to the other, "You wouldn't cheat me, would you?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those who should get 97 months... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Those who should get 97 months... (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean to do this: http://www.cpeterson.org/2011/03/10/why-gas-is-so-expensive-today-hint-its-not-libya/ [cpeterson.org]
from TFA:
in 1991, J. Aron—the Goldman subsidiary—wrote to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the government agency overseeing this market) and asked for one measly exception to the rules.
The whole definition of physical hedgers was needlessly restrictive, J. Aron argued. Sure, a corn farmer who bought futures contracts to hedge the risk of a glut in corn prices had a legitimate reason to be hedging his bets. After all, being a farmer was risky! Anything could happen to a farmer, what with nature being involved and all!
Everyone who grew any kind of crop was taking a risk, and it was only right and natural that the government should allow these good people to buy futures contracts to offset that risk.
But what about people on Wall Street? Were not they, too, like farmers, in the sense that they were taking a risk, exposing themselves to the whims of economic nature? After all, a speculator who bought up corn also had risk—investment risk. So, Goldman’s subsidiary argued, why not allow the poor speculator to escape those cruel position limits and be allowed to make transactions in unlimited amounts? Why even call him a speculator at all? Couldn’t J. Aron call itself a physical hedger too? After all, it was taking real risk—just like a farmer!
On October 18, 1991, the CFTC-in the person of Laurie Ferber, an appointee of the first President Bush—agreed with J. Aron’s letter. Ferber wrote that she understood that Aron was asking that its speculative activity be recognized as “bona fide hedging”—and, after a lot of jargon and legalese, she accepted that argument. This was the beginning of the end for position limits and for the proper balance between physical hedgers and speculators in the energy markets.
To look at this another way—just to make it easy—let’s create something we call the McDonaldland Menu Index (MMI). The MMI is based upon the price of eleven McDonald’s products, including the Big Mac, the Quarter Pounder, the shake, fries, and hash browns. Let’s say the total price of those eleven products on November l, 2010, is $37.90. Now let’s say you bet $1,000 on the McDonaldland Menu Index on that date, November 1. A month later, the total price of those eleven products is now $39.72.
Well, gosh, that’s a 4.8 percent price increase. Since you put $1,000 into the MMI on November 1, on December 1 you’ve now got $1,048. A smart investment!
Just to be clear—you didn’t actually buy $1,000 worth of Big Macs and fries and shakes. All you did is bet $1,000 on the prices of Big Macs and fries and shakes.
But here’s the thing: if you were just some schmuck on the street and you wanted to gamble on this nonsense, you couldn’t do it, because your behavior would be speculative and restricted under that old 1936 Commodity Exchange Act, which supposedly maintained that delicate balance between speculator and physical hedger (i.e., the real producers/consumers). Same goes for a giant pension fund or a trust that didn’t have one of those magic letters. Even if you wanted into this craziness, you couldn’t get in, because it was barred to the Common Speculator. The only way for you to get to the gaming table was, in essence, to rent the speculator-hedger exemption that the government had quietly given to companies like Goldman Sachs via those sixteen letters.
Re: (Score:3)
>But what about people on Wall Street? Were not they, too, like farmers
The difference between Wall Street and the farmer next door, is that the farmer creates wealth. The Wall Street trader does not create wealth. At all. Ever.
The argument fails on its first premise. Argument is invalid.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
The Wall Street trader does not create wealth. At all. Ever.
Creates markets, provides liquidity, expedites trades. There's the value and consequently, the wealth that Wall Street creates.
Re: (Score:2)
Liquidity and trades are not wealth. And Wall Street does not create markets. The markets are already there, whether the traders exist or not.
It's moving wealth around.
And skimming off the top, honestly (or dishonestly).
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Do they create more than they destroy?
Prove they destroy real wealth first, then we'll talk.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they create more than they destroy?
Prove they destroy real wealth first, then we'll talk.
I suspect that this is not easily done.
If someone's going to try, I suggest comparing the spending power of a $ in the hand of someone at the top or bottom of the chain for any given commodity...
Re: (Score:3)
100% of this could be solved with a simple rule. Each time you buy, a random number is consulted. If your number comes up, you get physical delivery, ready or not. If you don't want your swimming pool and bath tub filled with crude oil, you'd better be a legitimate buyer and not just a commodities gambler.
None of the trading actually does the economy any good at all, it judt drives up prices fro consumers while driving them down for producers while the traders skim off the top.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that seems rather a stupid idea, unless your plan is to shut down the market for all but the big players. Or maybe you think stuff like storage tanks cannot be rented.
Here's a hint: all the big speculators in oil also have contracts out on oil tanker leases, barges, storage facilities, etc. If you ever see a Wall St commod desk, your mind will be blown. Realtime tracking and modeling of all energy in the world: tanker locations and speeds, electrical generating facilities realtime status (yes, a f
Re: (Score:3)
I want to shut the market down for all but actual producers, consumers, and distributors actually transporting product. The problematic speculators are not prepared to take physical delivery and then sell and deliver to someone with an actual use of the oil. If they can and regularly do, they are then distributors, not commodities speculators. They get to deal with realities like oil takes up space and food spoils if it sits in a warehouse, and that makes them behave more reasonably. Note that this includes
Re: (Score:3)
I want to shut the market down for all but actual producers, consumers, and distributors actually transporting product.
But how can you do that, and why would you want to? Oil prices, for example, are affected by nat gas prices, so it is not a closed system. Additionally, speculation injects capital, so the market doesn't freeze in response to short term shocks.
The problematic speculators are not prepared to take physical delivery and then sell and deliver to someone with an actual use of the oil. If they can and regularly do, they are then distributors, not commodities speculators. They get to deal with realities like oil takes up space and food spoils if it sits in a warehouse, and that makes them behave more reasonably.
But, if you try to punish speculators with random rules, firms will arb out the problem by providing one stop shopping that deals with your edge cases (for a fee, of course.) This is largely why exchanges exist in the first place: make it easy for people to transa
Re: (Score:2)
We know what a pure speculator is, someone who, unlike a distributor, has no warehouse and unlike a broker, has no buyer lined up when he makes a buy, and unlike a consumer, has no use for the commodity other than to sell it's futures.
I have heard the excuses about injecting capital, liquidity, etc, but it just doesn't ring true. Demand for commodities doesn't go away and supply rarely does. The high speed traders on Wall Street make similar claims but that rings false as well. The economy got along better
Re: (Score:2)
The economy got along better without them both for decades.
But that was before the bleeding hearts killed the golden goose. You need sensible, low levels of regulation and considerable reduction in entitlement spending in order to have an economy that would grow at the US's old rates in the 50s and 60s.
If you have a better idea to push the pure gamblers out and allow the business of matching sincere buyers and sellers together, I am open to suggestion. I suppose we could just shoot them, but that seems a bit drastic :-)
Here's the better idea. Doing nothing solves the non-problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Those issues are orthogonal. The economy overall has done well enough except where inadequate regulation allowed Wall Street to sink it while they lined their own pockets with taxpayer money. The problem is that too much of it got skimmed off by non-productive parasites in the market.
In the '50s and '60s taxation was more progressive, meaning higher rates and less loopholes for the richest segment. The people with the sense of entitlement are mostly those who could honestly retire right now and live out the
Re: (Score:2)
The economy overall has done well enough except where inadequate regulation allowed Wall Street to sink it while they lined their own pockets with taxpayer money.
In other words, the regulation was "inadequate" because it existed. Can't line your pockets with taxpayer money, if you don't have access.
In the '50s and '60s taxation was more progressive, meaning higher rates and less loopholes for the richest segment.
There's no evidence that the effective tax rate for the richest has changed since the Second World War (and taxation hasn't been progressive at the highest levels for a long time). Back then, they would have used trusts or manipulated taxable income to some other category. Tax avoidance is cheaper than tax payment.
The economy is a construct of man, it has no rights and no life of it's own. It exists to serve all of the people, never the other way around.
Moral bullshit. A tool's value is determined by how well a
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, the regulation was "inadequate" because it existed. Can't line your pockets with taxpayer money, if you don't have access.
WoW! You didn't just drink the kool-aid, you're mainlining it! In other words it was inadequate because it didn't send crooked investment bankers to jail before their fraudulent bonds crashed the economy and it allowed them to get so big that we were stuck bailing them out (note that was done by a Republican) or fall into an even deeper depression.
There's no evidence that the effective tax rate for the richest has changed since the Second World War (and taxation hasn't been progressive at the highest levels for a long time). Back then, they would have used trusts or manipulated taxable income to some other category. Tax avoidance is cheaper than tax payment.
Wow again! Two can play at that, there is no evidence you're not a new version of Eliza so I win!
If by no evidence you mean other than the actual tax laws in effe
This would make sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
...if all the top Goldman CEOs were put in jail for 8 years for their stunts that put the country into a major recession.
Re: (Score:2)
...if all the top Goldman CEOs were put in jail for 8 years for their stunts that put the country into a major recession.
A public execution in lieu of a football season would make everyone's day.
Now now (Score:5, Insightful)
Now now... I know those guys are hated, and caused a global recession to line their pockets, and were giving themselves gigantic bonuses just as they were being bailed out by the government, and all, but that's no excuse to go back to barbaric times. Two wrongs don't make a right, ok? There's no reason to deprive the people of football for that.
Do what the Romans used to: have the executions at halftime :p
Re: (Score:2)
Executions? Have them fight it out. One gets to live.
Re:Now now (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Celebrity Death Match: Financial Edition! Let's get it on!
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. *WHOOSH*
Now we know who can't read more than one sentence, eh? :p
The whole joke setup is that I start as if I were going to protest the executions, but th
Re: (Score:2)
Why "in lieu of"? Shouldn't take any longer than halftime.
Re: (Score:2)
Execution might be too much. But there should be some penalty that is a deterrent, and a punishment that is felt. The punishment they did get is like asking a shoplifter who walked out with arms full of merchandise to return a candy bar.
The mafia could learn a thing from these guys about how to avoid consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Execution might be too much. But there should be some penalty that is a deterrent, and a punishment that is felt.
We're seeing it. Your humiliation and occasional financial ruin is the collective punishment that the global public deserves for going along with this idiocy.
Bankruptcy is the deterrent for the banker and those who are supposed to be controlling him. After all, the number one reason they aren't being punished is because they didn't commit a crime in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Aleynikov was getting paid $400K/year and had just been hired away by another company at 3 times that salary. Nowhere near the upper echelons of wealth, but certainly not someone who could be described as "without money".
He doesn't deserve 8 years. I can't imagine Goldman really wanted this to go to trial. I wonder if his legal counsel was particularly incompetent or if he was just thickheaded enough to insist on a trial for a crime he admitted to.
Re: (Score:2)
Enough blame to go around for that (Score:2)
But, in fairness, if the Fed hadn't pumped the credit bubble with low interest rates, Fannie and Freddie hadn't helped by pumping it further by buying endless questionable loans, letting banks make more loans that they simply couldn't have otherwise, and had greedy home "buyers" not bought homes they couldn't afford, thinking they'd flip them anyway for a profit, those derivatives that Goldma
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing which separates Fed employees from Wallstreet is a couple of years and a career change (either way).
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, the responsibility of the Fed is very narrowly defined. It's basically responsible for the inflation and unemployment, and that's all (and really, it should stay this way).
The Fed is not responsible for auditing banks for predatory lending practice or regulating the derivatives. Had the Fed raised the rates, the USA (and probably the rest of the world) would have gone into a recession which would have stopped the predatory lending. But the moment the rates were lowered again, the predatory l
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem from what I have read is the bond rating agencies. Someone, say Goldman, would package a bunch of questionable home mortgages together to sell bonds in support of. All anyone knew about these mortgages was the average credit score of the borrowers - that was all the information they had. Moody's (and the other two whose names escape me now) would then "rate" these bonds.
Well, the idiotic thing was that Moody's would rate 80 percent of the bonds as AAA, or investment grade. The other 20%
Re: (Score:2)
People point to Fannie/Freddie, but they just followed along with what other banks were doing, they weren't the leaders or the instigators. Sure, they have some culpability but every time I hear someone point to them it sounds like someone trying to deflect blame from the real villains.
I think my post was very clear (Score:2)
wrong (Score:2)
wrong, the $147 bbl crude is the aftermath of what actually causes recession - money printing.
That's right. Recessions are caused by mis-allocated resources, but governments cause recessions by printing money and propping up various businesses, inflating asset bubbles, all of which leads to mis-allocated resources.
Of-course in this case that USA is in now, the government also has destroyed the capital savings by all the printing, but also it grew too much, and through its growth, it has created too many rul
Your argument is stupid and invalid (Score:3)
Your argument is invalid, and that's why - other prices are not rising, except for some commodities.
Look, oil has risen from $37 at the bottom of the financial crisis. Now it's back to $100. That's increase of 2.5 times! Inflation generally requires ALL prices to come up, and this hasn't happened so far - prices for non-energy-intensive goods and services are stable (within a few percents). There's no real inflation in the USA.
And please notice the part: "In the USA". Because there's also no inflation in th
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is invalid, and that's why - other prices are not rising, except for some commodities.
- Rising consumer prices will be coming to USA once it cannot DISPOSE of its US dollars and bonds to producer nations.
European countries that are in trouble are at least implementing austerity measures, however ECB is also printing and it is also pushing the Euro down.
Bank of Japan is also printing, especially now, though this is ridiculous, they should be cashing in their foreign holdings (US T-bills, dollars), because if they are scared to cash in the US debt now, when they really need to buy a lot of st
Re: (Score:2)
"- Rising consumer prices will be coming to USA once it cannot DISPOSE of its US dollars and bonds to producer nations"
Wrong! Bond prices are low and that means the USA can't print dollars fast enough for other people to buy. So the rest of your argument folds as house made of cards.
"- Great Depression was caused by the gov't spending into a recession it also caused. The 1920 recession was worse than 1929 (and worse than 2008) in terms of total job losses, however Harding turned it around by cutting 70% of
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong! Bond prices are low and that means the USA can't print dollars fast enough for other people to buy. So the rest of your argument folds as house made of cards.
- Bond prices are falling and thus the buyers are dumping, and the only buyers are national banks.
Bond prices are falling and thus the interest rates are rising, it's a seesaw, as bond prices fall, interest rise. If the bond issuer does not raise the interest, the bond price hits bottom.
Now, however, the Fed is the buyer of bonds.
So Fed is printing the dollars that it is buying the bonds with. So you have no argument at all - it's not that people want dollars, it's that they are not willing to hold the US
Re: (Score:2)
Fiat money is one of the greatest inventions of the 20-th century.
- just wanted to say something about this.
Fiat - I do not consider it to be money, not US dollars, not Euro. Sure, in the stores we exchange these for goods, but we shouldn't be holding these pieces of paper that become more and more worthless with every new one that is printed by the so called 'independent' central bank.
If fiat is any good, it's the kind that Hong Kong has - competing currencies, issued by different banks with different reserves behind them (and there is an official competing currency of
Re: (Score:2)
"The only sound type of paper money is the kind that is simply a gold equivalent. If the currency has no reserve behind it, but it has a printing press - that's not money, it's not worth holding, it's not worth saving, it's a losing proposition, this has been shown over and over, by all the inflations, hyper-inflations, if you don't see it, you are blind."
No. You fucking goldbuggers don't know how economy works. Currency is not a way to replace gold, it's just an unforgeable token for certain amount wealth
Re: (Score:3)
It led to a significantly more stable economy ... until Reagan fucked it up and trade imbalances and debt (the latter partially being created by the powers that be to make the former sustainable for a longer time) started going only one way. The last 30 years have been a stable drive, towards impending doom (for most of us, although obviously not for the neo-feudal overlords busy concentrating ownership in land/power/water).
Re: (Score:2)
In 1800s, the growth of US economy and lack of most of forms of gov't control, caused US dollar to appreciate by a factor of 2. I don't think people complained too much due to the deflationary effects of them being able to buy MORE things with the SAME money as time progressed, not fewer things with the 'same' money as it is happening past 1913 (the Fed and growth of gov't.)
USA had recessions - yes. You are saying it as if it is a bad thing! Recessions are wonderful, they are great. Recessions allow restruc
Re: (Score:2)
Stool Pidgeon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stool Pidgeon (Score:5, Funny)
Well, if you consider a cabinet position to be like prison, quite a few
A little crazy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Didn't actually "steal" anything (Score:2)
If you sneak into a library, take a book, and never return it, everybody would agree that you "stole" the book. But if you take home a library book, type up a copy for yourself, th
Re: (Score:2)
This was "trade secret" algorighms, not "copyright infringement". It was part of the crown jewels of Goldman Sachs business, and our convicted felon took it with him to his start up. What, precisely, did you think they were offering him triple the salary _for_ if not for his knowledge of these technologies and these algorithms?
Now, the whole "high speed trading" needs to be halted outright. The idea that a few microseconds difference in access to such information is being used to fund billions of dollars of
Re: (Score:2)
A book isn't the same as a piece of source code. How about if you sneak into someone's house, find a patent application, memorize it, and then file the patent yourself?
Given the number of dead obvious patents filed and accepted, and upheld... I thought this was legit.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, once you get busted for burglary, the patent application itself would count as prior art because the guy who filed wasn't the same one that filled it out.
Re: (Score:2)
You're guilty of aiding and abetting.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'd call it treason and/or espionage.
Things escalate in a hurry when foreign sovereignties get involved.
Re: (Score:2)
If an employee took Google's search engine and data center management code and used it for personal gain, I would call it "copyright infringement with damages", NOT "stealing", because facts don't actually change just because you get emotional about something. If the personal gain was selling the code to the Chinese government, then there may be other additional crimes, but none of them would be "stealing" either. Google would lose, but the loss wouldn't be due to "theft", the loss would be due to "damages"
what prison? (Score:2)
any goldman sachs excutives going to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:any goldman sachs excutives going to jail (Score:4, Funny)
Almost.
Their bonuses were a little smaller last year.
Re: (Score:2)
Smaller than what? What they're going to be next year?
Clear Message (Score:2)
Well, I think there is a clear message here. If you're a talented programmer, never ever work for Goldman Sachs!
Do not work for GS - just not worth the risk (Score:2)
This case makes it clear that potential risks involved in working for Goldman Sachs in technical position just not worth the risk. Likely that very few tech people are senior partners which is the only way to make any serious money there. From the circumstances of the case it seems that Aleynikov got sued because he pissed off his manager by taking higher paying position elsewhere and making it known. Unfortunately for him GS has deep connections in the government so banal civil case got blown out into crim
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree with you, but in this economy I doubt they are going to have any trouble finding workers
Oversentencing (Score:2)
I'm usually against conspiracy theories (real life is full of surprises), but such harsh judgment also make me think that prosecution and judge are huge friends with Goldman (it is just a theory, of course - it could be prosecution which feels all warm inside thinking about Goldman and incompetent judge). I mean, stealing code which is not your own is bad, but 8 years?! People with more far reaching consequences don't get even 4! Ok, I know, US is strange place for justice, but come on!
As side note, I think
Re: (Score:2)
Honor among thieves? (Score:2)
So, as I understand it, a programmer was sentenced to 97 years in prison for stealing the algorithm that Goldman Sachs used to steal money from other people.
The single most critical element of any market, including a stock market, is that it is, “fair.” That means, the same price and the same terms for everybody. In fact, these are the same words used by the NY stock exchange and NASDAQ.
But how is using super computers for millisecond arbitrage “equal terms for everybody?”
How do
Re: (Score:2)
Millisecond-arbitrage is the least of Goldman's 'evils'. Robbing taxpayers via "stimulus", dodgy bail-outs, and crony corruption at high political levels seem far worse ... and that's where they get the cash for the bonuses.
Just using super-computers for millisecond arbitrage doesn't seem too egregious ---- ANYONE can benefit from that, if it's profitable, by just investing their money with Goldman. And if you invest money with an investment firm, wouldn't you want them to manage the money in a way that giv
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't microseconds be more relevant?
Re: (Score:3)
The system isn't broken. It's working as intended - following the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
The same old song. (Score:3)
The punishment does not fit the crime. Period.
This should be a *civil* matter. Garnish his wages, make him pay for restitution and loss of revenues, but this should not be a criminal offense.
It always comes as a surprise to some folks when a white collar criminal - particularly one of their own class or profession - is caged.
Which is really the whole point of the business:
It teaches the lesson that no one is above the law. That no one is judgement proof.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should it be a civil matter? Would you feel differently if he stole office furniture and had a thriving side business selling that stolen property? How is this different just because it was only a bunch of bits formed into code that can be compiled? Should it really be treated differently than stealing and selling anything else from the company?
Yes, because stealing some tangible property means that the rightful owner loses it. If you have an apple and I steal it, you no longer have an apple. If you have a painting and I copy it a thousand times, you still have your painting.
LK
Re: (Score:3)
If you steal code that allows your company to make huge profits by executing trades a microsecond faster than your competition in a field with only a handful of real players, you certainly have taken something away from your company.
How that should ethically compare to other crimes and "business practices" that should be crimes is a different matter. But you cannot argue that Goldman hasn't lost anything.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not stealing the code, what you're stealing is the exclusivity of its use.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose I could use the same trick on rare coins and make as many copies as I want without taking your rare coin. However, flooding the market with many copies of a rare coin would dilute the value of each individual coin, causing your coin to lose value even though I have not taken it from you.
Monetary value isn't an inherent thing. The value of SCO's operating system fell through the floor when linux got popular, that doesn't mean that anyone did anything wrong. If you could produce exact copies of that rare coin and were honest with the people you were selling it to, you wouldn't have done anything wrong.
I'm not suggesting that this programmer didn't do anything wrong, but I'm suggesting that calling it stealing may not be accurate.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
It reminds me of the police. Most people would think that living close to a policeman wo
Re: (Score:2)
How is HFT a form of theft? And if HFT gives better returns the 'common trader' can benefit by just investing their money at firms that do HFT.
Goldman are indeed a bunch of crooks, but not through HFT ... look at tax-funded stimulus, bailouts, Fed arrangements etc. - THAT is theft.
Re: (Score:2)
HFT increases liquidity and narrows the bid/ask spread, which helps the common trader. But it can also be used to determine the maximum price that common traders are willing to pay, which is cheating.