Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Five Big Banks Plead Guilty to Rigging Currency Markets and No One Goes to Jail (therealnews.com)
249 points by snowy on May 23, 2015 | hide | past | web | favorite | 90 comments

Here is a better explanation of what these traders did: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-12/banks-manip...

Some additional reading: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-20/bank-fine-s...

Quote: "They also got together in chat rooms to, essentially, lay off some of their client risk to one another prior to the fixing. That laying off of client risk, again, looks a bit conspiratorial, but it probably made markets more efficient, and is not obviously bad or illegal. Then they went beyond that efficient laying off of risk, trying to move the price in their favor. They seem to have made some money doing this, at the expense of their clients, but my suspicion was that they were "tinkering at the edges of real supply and demand," optimizing how they made money trading their combined customer order book rather than truly rigging the FX market."

This is an alternative viewpoint: https://medium.com/bull-market/oranges-and-lemons-the-fx-sca...

Quote: "Although there was some behaviour that was clearly on the other side of the line, the regulators also made clear that lots of the practices involved were not intrinsically criminal; this was an investigation into a grey area, not a straightforward case of lying. Of course, the industry has less than zero claim to the benefit of anyone’s doubt, and people will be instantly suspicious of claims that “it’s more complicated than that”, so maybe I can explain what went on in the FX market through the medium of a series of examples..."

“Mess this up and sleep with one eye open at night.”

Some examples of what these traders discussed in the chat rooms, from the Barclays consent order (https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2084...)


One particular chat room, referred to by the participating traders and other traders as the “Cartel” included FX traders from Citigroup, JP Morgan, UBS, RBS and Barclays who specialized in trading the Euro.

One Barclays FX trader, when he became the main Euro trader for Barclays in 2011, was desperate to be invited to join the Cartel because of the trading advantages from sharing information with the other main traders of the Euro. After extensive discussion of whether or not this trader “would add value” to the Cartel, he was invited to join for a “1 month trial,” but was advised “mess this up and sleep with one eye open at night.”

On one occasion, a Barclays FX trader explicitly discussed with a JP Morgan trader coordinating the prices offered for USD/South African Rand to a particular customer, stating, in a November 4, 2010 chat, “if you win this we should coordinate you can show a real low one and will still mark it little lower haha.” After the JP Morgan trader suggested that they “prolly shudnt put this on perma chat,” the Barclays trader responded “if this is the chat that puts me over the edge than oh well. much worse out there.”

On June 10, 2011, the Barclays trader stated explicitly in another chat that “we trying to manipulate it a bit more in ny now . . . a coupld buddies of mine and I.”

As the future Co-Head of UK FX Hedge Fund Sales (who was then a Vice President in the New York Branch) wrote in a November 5, 2010 chat: “markup is making sure you make the right decision on price . . . which is whats the worst price i can put on this where the customers decision to trade with me or give me future business doesn’t change . . . if you aint cheating, you aint trying.”

Very interesting quotes! It seems that the most damning evidence comes from these "chat room logs". I wonder if in the future, this sort of behaviour is going to move to OTR chats. (Assuming multi-party OTR becomes a reality)

I'm pretty sure that financial companies are required by law to keep these logs.

Or, in other words, they abused the trust their clients had to get their money.

Sounds like fraud, but if some administrative body decided fraud was legal, that really makes it so... And don't look at that small book governing your nation laws, it's irrelevant anyway.

No, read the Medium article again; the clients always had the option to specify "best execution" or their own trading strategy, but for simplicity and lowest broker fees chose to transact at the 4pm price.

The clients (which are also large financial entities) are generally not screaming about fraud, they're just getting a deal that isn't as good as they thought.

> The clients (which are also large financial entities) are generally not screaming about fraud

Large financial organizations have a vested interest against strict regulation of the financial system, and certainly executives have a vested interest against the prosecution of executives, regardless of whether they (pr rather, their shareholders) got screwed or not in this particular case.

Clients chose to go against their own best interest? For what reason? That doesn't make much sense. What makes more sense is that those clients were falsely led to believe that "simplicity and lowest broker fees" was the best choice.

Without knowing in depth all the numbers involved, it's hard to declare it's clients choosing against their own best interest. There are considerations besides "most potentially profitable execution of a transaction or set of transactions".

These concerns include but are not limited to:

* risk tolerance

* direct and indirect costs (fees wages etc) associated with other methods.

* speed and/or predictability of transactions

* how this particular bit of business fit into an overall hedging strategy

* partnership considerations with the bank

These all factor into why a client would choose one option over another, even if the chosen option looks like a lower gain.

By analogy: this week I chose to have the dealership replace a broken mirror on my vehicle, rather than wait a day and have a nearby mechanic do so for $100 less. This choice was not the least expensive option, but it was the lowest hassle option. In terms of dollars it wasn't the most profitable transaction. In terms of spent time, it was still not the most profitable transaction. In terms of my risk tolerance and hassle, it was a good decision and I'm fine with it.

Let's not confuse this thread with an yet another appeal to "more study". Federal regulators, who are infamous for their inaction have made the rare determination that "the numbers" don't add up, with at least one SEC commissioner publicly furious that the SEC hasn't gone far enough. https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/stein-waivers-granted-dis...

I'm not persuaded by your analogy in which you compare a one-time transaction relating to an infrequent type of event to a systematic conspiracy to deceive clients and competitors alike in transactions that occur frequently.

Lets not confuse a discussion of a single point, namely why a person or group of people would choose something that appears to not be in their interest from my limited point of view, with a statement either for or against, any other actions.

Hell for all I know, the clients could have been flat out told: "look this whole thing is market manipulation, we're getting you profit consistency and stability that you could not otherwise get, albeit at a lower rate than individual transactions". I regularly choose index funds over picking stocks for the reason of lower risk albeit at lower profit potential.

I'm not saying anyone did anything right or wrong. I was just discussing a particular point that seemed relevant. It is possible that there was wrong-doing, that there was market manipulation, and that the clients still chose reasonably and in their interests despite that.

Going back to my analogy, just because I made the decision the way I did, does not mean the dealer is or is not involved in deceptive business practices, gouging or other scummy tactics.

One SEC commissioner has issued a "Dissenting Statement" as she was furious that the SEC has made a mockery of "recidivist criminal behavior" by banks


wow, that pretty much sums it up. We have more than enough regs on the book to reign in banks. We just choose not to enforce them.

This. A result of the proverbial revolving door between regulators and the banks. You can have regulations up the wazoo and it won't make a spec of difference if they are not properly enforced. Even with the odd criminal conviction bank regulation is kabuki theatre for mass consumption. These guys get away with murder - literally. EDIT: yes, literally the murder of thousands in Mexico. HSBC bank & Sinaloa cartel. HSBC in particular has a long history of enabling drug cartels. The Opium Wars.

Literally, hmm? I'd be quite interested to hear about these murder cases you allege (who murdered, who died, which jurisdictions and courts were involved, et cetera).

The solution is clear. Modify (gut) the regs to bring banks into compliance. Or simply ignore it. How will the SEC dress it up and sell it (to itself)?

Increased regulation in some regards has just driven further consolidation in the banking industry. It also makes it more and more difficult for would-be competitors to try and disrupt these banks.

I'm not sure that increased penalties, sending execs to jail, or more regulation will fix banking. If the banks are "too big to jail/fail" then maybe we should make them smaller...

>disrupt these banks.

What makes you think that the people involved in the disruption of the banks won't partake in the same shenanigans? Do you think "bankers" are inherently evil, while their replacements will be inherently good? The Bitcoin world says otherwise. "Tech people" are stealing people's money left and right.

>If the banks are "too big to jail/fail" then maybe we should make them smaller...

Sure, and then we'll let all the pseudo-government-controlled banks in say, China, or even Canada do all the large-scale banking business globally.

The business of banking is vastly larger than cheqing accounts and ridiculous ATM fees that people like us deal with day to day and complain about. That's why the industry is heavily regulated, and why the banks are so large, and why the local credit union in Podunk isn't underwriting the Facebook IPO. It's also why some SV startup isn't going to ride in and up-end the industry without itself becoming some financial behemoth that needs to be regulated.

> The business of banking is vastly larger than cheqing accounts and ridiculous ATM fees

Right, but until recently the various functions of finance were embodied in different institutions. Due to pressure from the banks themselves and from the threat of competing banks in Europe the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act[1] was passed in 1999. This allowed banks to get much larger than they were before and to operate as insurers, commercial banks, and investment banks simultaneously, which they were previously prevented from doing.

Now, I agree with you that these are reasons SV startups won't "disrupt" the banking industry. (Nor do I think this is desirable, but that is another topic.) However, the idea that it is good to have massive consolidation of bank functions into one large corporation is not immediately obvious to me.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bli...

> Increased regulation in some regards has just driven further consolidation in the banking industry.

This a million times.

As regulation increases, you make sure only the big guys follow it to their satisfaction.

And of course in the end there will be a lot of "hows, ifs, buts" falling through the cracks.

Some regulation of course is needed, but it seems the best regulation is not giving anyone the advantage to be the dominant player.

I don't know if you've been reading any news, but too much regulation is not the issue here. There are something like a few hundred SEC employees to investigate the entire banking sector. In addition we have evidence of overt sycophancy in the New York Fed and a general refusal to correct bad behavior (see Carmen Segarra).

Finally, the pattern of laws has been deregulatory, not vice versa. Enron was able to engage in fraudulent trade in energy derivatives because the derivatives market was deregulated.

I don't know where you are getting this story (ideology, I suspect), but it is deeply wrong.

Apparently you missed the part where I said "Some regulation of course is needed", which is not surprising given your shallow interpretation of facts

Over regulation is a problem exactly because it builds too big to fail corporations. It eliminates competition due to regulatory capture

"Enron was able to engage in fraudulent trade in energy derivatives because the derivatives market was deregulated."

Fraud is fraud.

> I don't know where you are getting this story (ideology, I suspect)

Yes, my ideology is opposed to having idiot bureaucrats stifling progress while regulatory capturing incumbents to their friends. See: Tesla vs. Car dealerships, Uber vs. taxi monopolies, this: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/heres-why-your...

>Fraud is fraud.

Yes, and lack of regulatory oversight (i.e., law enforcement) produces fraud. We saw this with Enron and later with Countrywide, AIG et al. The line seems pretty clear to me - we deregulated the derivatives market (via the CFMA), Enron makes use of the lack of oversight to perpetuate fraud.

>Over regulation is a problem exactly because it builds too big to fail corporations. It eliminates competition due to regulatory capture

You'll have to spell this out for me, because I just can't see it. Regulatory capture is not "over regulation", it is the opposite, at least in the case of finance - it is the regulatory apparatus failing to do what it should (regulate) because the power lies in those being regulated (e.g. the NY Fed's kowtowing to Goldman).

> You'll have to spell this out for me, because I just can't see it


Could you give a real explanation? Obviously I can look this up on Wikipedia myself (and my understanding is more sophisticated than that). I want to understand why you think too much regulation caused TBTF.

And if only the government weren't making this stuff illegal, there wouldn't be any crimes committed by bankers.

"I'm not sure that more regulation will fix banking" ... "Maybe we should make them smaller".

How do you think you make banks smaller ? Hint: it's through regulation.

The GFC and all the problems it has caused was due to a lack of regulation. It's almost always a good thing. And the highly regulated nature of the Australian financial system is the main reason that it survived the GFC with zero casualties. Capital requirements, lending practices, public disclosure etc. These are aspects of the banking sector which need MORE regulation not less.

According to the radio this morning, the bankers who did this and the LIBOR fixing are facing jail - it's just that their cases are taking time to progress.

I think it's safe to save the scandal for a little longer.

I think the article was more focusing on higher level execs that insulate themselves from any criminal charges.

"Higher"-level execs shouldn't be automatically held responsible for decisions they didn't make. Punish the manager(s) or employee(s) or exec(s) who held power and made the bad decision. Those execs don't really own or control the company anyway, for such large, post-IPO companies. That's like punishing the mayor for a crime someone committed on the street.

I have news for you - Sarbanes-Oxley makes high-level executives criminally responsible for a certain subset of the company's operations.

More broadly, executive control is more complete than you suggest. Delegated powers can be audited and controls used to ensure the integrity of the decision-making process. Communications can be monitored, and usually are in banks. Not enacting such controls, or not enforcing them strongly enough, could be seen as negligence.

> Communications can be monitored, and usually are in banks.

So ? You just join a chat room on your 4G phone or iPad.

Regardless banks are no different to every other enterprise. The firewalls just capture the URLs and white/black list against some subscribed set. They aren't monitoring every bit of traffic that goes out. Except for maybe PCI compliance e.g. checking for 16 digit numbers passing through the firewall.

Some enterprises MITM all PKI encrypted channels so that they can monitor all of its communications.

It's like punishing the mayor for a crime one of their employees made on the job, after the mayor had been put on notice that mayors are responsible for their employees' on-the-job conduct.

The CEO of a company with 50k+ employees can't be held directly responsible for every single action of their employees, it sounds good since we all hate banks now apparently, but in real life that would be ridiculous. Sure if the CEO was directly involved, or had specific knowledge that specific people were committing specific crimes, and ignored it that would be a different story.

Like it or not, Sarbanes-Oxley is the law (since 2002). We wound up with that law because of executives who built incentive structures within their companies which they knew would cause unlawful behavior while keeping themselves one or more layers removed from the actual criminality. The gambit was to feign surprise and throw the "rouge troops" under the bus if they got caught. That gambit is played out now. You missed your opportunity to play the naive CEO card https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME#t=12

Has it been shown in this case that the CEO directly setup incentive structures for employees to knowingly violate the law?

1. I don't know.

2. It isn't necessary after Sarbox.

3. It doesn't matter because they haven't been sued with Sarbox. They've been caught red-handed breaking plenty of other laws.

Therefore it sounds like the discussion here about holding the CEO directly responsible for these crimes is irrelevant and unenforceable.

By your reasoning, mafia dons should never have been prosecuted, since by design in these organizations it is very rare that they personally direct the commission of crimes. This is why RICO was created, and given conspiracies like the LIBOR-rigging scandal, I am perplexed that financial executives aren't being charged under RICO. Because if there is anything that is a Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organization, it's the modern international bank over the last 20 years.

If a UPS truck driver drives drunk, do you expect the CEO to go to jail?

This seems a little more like the CEO entering a lucrative shipping deal with a mexican drug cartel and then having the driver go to jail for trafficking when caught.

Let me make up a slightly similar scenario where I think the CEO should go to jail.

We have this long distance trucking company. And the shifts are really long. Like say 36 hours of straight driving. So it's common for drivers to take amphetamines to stay awake. Management doesn't do drug tests. If someone takes excessive breaks they are told by low level management to think hard about the problem and see if they cannot come up with some kind of solution wink wink nudge nudge. If the problem doesn't disappear the driver is fired.

After routine testing it is discovered that 40% of drivers usually use amphetamines with an addition 20% saying they have tried it.

In this case, yes I think the CEO should go to jail.

Yes, if he new about it and didn't stop it, or even in some way condoned it then he is certainly has responsibility.

Yup. The sort of leadership Obama and Bush have demonstrated when things go wrong. It flows down the food chain.

The company has a duty of care (which varies across legislations).

Not jail, no... but I do expect the CEO to act to prevent (or at least try to prevent) it in the future, or else some consequence should absolutely hit the CEO.

Well, it depends if driver can crash Worlds economy or not. And if it can, there is something wrong with economy, UPS, UPSs CEO, truck and a driver.

I can think of a whole host of such situations where virtually everyone would agree that the CEO should go to jail.

What do you have to say to that?

I can think of a whole host of such situations where virtually everyone would agree that the CEO should not go to jail.

What do you have to say to that?

Nah, Sarbanes–Oxley isn't needed in the package delivery industry like it is in banking.

Are you suggesting Obama should go to jail if a GI commits a crime in Irak?

If that crime was implicit in a direct order of Obama, why not? If someone creates a climate of "do whatever it takes" they should be held at least partially and possibly fully liable. At least that seems like good morale to me.

That's really not a fair comparison...

I think that's a dead on comparison.

Calling gold coin a true money is so funny, because it doesn't have inherent value by itself. It's only have value because people agreed to exchange things and services for it. Like a printed money. And if someone thinks gold coins didn't lost value over time...

Excellent video.

It's really increadible. 3% of one year profits, for multiple year huge scale robery. Not surprising, given the industry track record, but still mind blowing when you think about the big picture.

This is probably not a fair comparison because the illegal gains obtained from their bad behaviour was likely a very small fraction of their overall revenue. From the link I posted [0] in my other comment:

"The CFTC and OCC orders for Citi have no profit figures at all. So we have one case of Citi making $99,000. The FCA order covers conduct over a six-year period, though that might be a bit generous. Figure 250 trading days a year and you get $150 million of profits for Citi if every single day was as "impressive" and "lovely" as the day singled out by the FCA as, one assumes, a particularly egregious example of manipulation. That's not the case: The CFTC order, for instance, recounts a fixing in which "the Citibank trader reported that he was 'hosed.'" The manipulation was not foolproof, and fools abounded. But take $150 million as an upper bound, and Citi paid about an order of magnitude more in fines than it made in manipulative profits."

0. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-12/banks-manip...

Did you read the report? http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/ee8b6f40-fef5-11e4-84... The sort of profits the regulator mentions is $16,000, $14,270, $59,000. Even if they did that every day for 10 years, it is still pocket money compared to the fine.

That are the sums that can be directly priced. The report also points to tens of cases when the client/industry prejudice cannot be directly priced - for example: "FX traders involved in the USD/Brazilian Real market colluded together to manipulate markets in a more straightforward manner—by agreeing to boycott local brokers to drive down competition. On October 28, 2009, an RBC trader wrote “everybody is in agreement in not accepting a local player as a broker?” A Barclays FX trader responded “yes, the less competition the better." Those benefits, while impossible to calculate, where an order of magnitude bigger than the direct ones.

Also, don't forget that those banks have huge privilegies (gov backing, FED money, gov bonds dealership etc) in exchange for which they provide a fair market and services. For instance, in theory those banks should have a lot of their privilegies removed as the result of this case. I can assure you that they are extremely happy to pay only the ~$6bn to keep those safe.

That's because banks do a lot of things other than FX trading. It's a much bigger chunk if you use a more relevant denominator: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-20/bank-fine-s...

The banks have paid $235b in penalties for various misdeeds.


It's operational cost, already factored in, and paid for by clients.

Which is why the BRIC's want their own bank. If robbery is happening the playing field should be level.

Most people don't realise that the foreign exchange market was regulated very differently from other financial markets for a long time. Regulators acknowledged that the market was so liquid, transparent and competitive that front-running simply wasn't an issue and, in fact, was an appropriate way to fill client orders without exposing oneself to unnecessary risk.

Here's an article from May 2006 about the debate over whether the market needs best execution regulations imposed upon it: http://www.euromoney.com/Article/1039431/From-the-archive-Do...

Absolutely. Even today, you can't compare it to other markets where execution takes place on an exchange. "Honor among thieves" is the expression that comes to mind when talking about FX.

This article is bullshit. People are going to jail. http://rt.com/uk/193872-london-banker-libor-guilty/

That article doesn't say that at all. It says that the unnamed banker is being prosecuted and "faces up to 10 years in jail".

The cynic in me reckons at best he'll get a fine, a suspended sentence and we'll never know who he was. Not exactly justice.

The initial article is still bullshit. Just a cursory google search reveals a number of people in multiple countries on trial, many of whom have pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing... http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/07/banker-plead...

I think they mean "no one in the US is going to jail" but that's a way less offensive headline.

According to the Guardian, two people in the US (employees of Rabobank) have pleaded guilty. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/07/banker-plead...

I am sure there is more detail on this out there that I don't have time to research, but the linked article is still bullshit.

It's also interesting how the stocks of UBS, Barclays and RBS immediately rose despite a hefty $5.8 billion in fines. Which in practice aren't actually paid by the banks, it's the shareholders, taxpayers (through bailouts) and customers (through higher fees) who end up paying for this.

It's not interesting. 6B is much less than a year of profit for all the companies involved, and now with uncertainty cleared, they are now cash cows in the eyes of more people, hence the rise in prices.

Also, the "paid by ..." is a very-very interesting topic. Due to their sheer size and market share, they set the price for banking services. They don't even need to collude, but since there are not too many global banking conglomerates, they naturally have a sort of cooperation and competition, which basically leads to similar prices. (Though a bit different price structure, but that's irrelevant for a sizeable enough basket of financial products and sample of consumers.)

So, it's quite impossible to force them to eat the fines, because for that you'd need a bank that wasn't on in this "market optimalization", but is large enough to absorb/caputre the market share if the culprits rise prices. But there doesn't seem to be. (And local smaller banks are already doing as good as they could to charm customers away from the big ones, so it's unlikely that they'll help keeping prices down.)

However, if it's shareholders, that's not a problem. They should exercise some responsibility when voting with their money. And while we're at that, the same goes for taxpayers and customers too.

Even before the 2008 financial crisis, these behaviors were happening.

Unchecked, cheating by bankers distorts the market equilibrium and creates a bubble. The easiest example to see/understand for me is the pretend real-estate value on banks' books during the housing/mortgage bubble.

We had a chance to deflate the bubble completely, but by failing to prosecute the individuals, we only did it partially. Without criminal prosecutions, this is going to happen again soon.

With criminal prosecutions it would still happen again, but we would be insulated/innoculated for at least one generation of bankers and bank managers.

We had an opportunity at that time to

Is there some way of incentivising prosecutors to focus their efforts on the biggest problems?

For example, the prosecution of Aaron Swartz seemed gratuitously disproportionate.

The total costs of keeping everyone out of prison:


Sources? Timeframe? Which year's dollars?

For some reason, Bloomberg seemed amazed that the public yawned at the guilty plea:


Quote: "For all the muted response to Wednesday’s news, Donaldson Capital Management LLC’s Greg Donaldson expressed concern that criminal charges may now become routine. “Once you cross that line and admit you’ve done something bad, you open up Pandora’s box,” said Donaldson, chairman of the Evansville, Indiana-based firm that manages about $1.1 billion. “This settlement just moved the goal post.”

If convictions become too commonplace, the government may have to pursue even tougher penalties. "

No wonder the public yawns at this though. Here's Zerohedge listing all confirmed rigged markets:

Libor - interest rates: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/shocking-details-barclays-epic...

ISDAfix - swaps: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-14/banks-drop...

Platts - oil prices: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-09/libor-gate-comes-cr...

JP Morgan / BP - FX: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-30/rigging-triangle-ex...

WM/Reuters - FX: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-11/wmreuters-busted-la...

High-Frequency Trading - equities: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-11/hft-stock-manipulat...

UBS - gold: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-09/another-conspiracy-...

This happens all the time, for example movie The International (2009) is based on a true story :o. Banks are above the law.

They should take out student loans ..

One law and process for the biggest banks and another law and process for everyone else. That poor sucker currently rotting in a London jail for allegedly being the cause of a flash crash probably wishes he had worked for a big bank.

It is a farce to call this a criminal act when waivers remove all punishment beyond a fine.

The invisible hand, was nowhere to be seen...

the invisible hand left banking a long time ago when the banks consolidated into mega banks. For capitalism to work you need a high degree of competition...

How about we ban anti-finance hate articles like this from hacker news?

Certainly, the intent of these is not to spur in-depth intelligent conversation.

Few of us here "hate" finance, or big banks for that matter.

Likely the reason this article is upvoted is that it truly boggles the mind that after years and years of blantant fraud and rigging there is yet one banker to go to jail and instead the politicians, judiciary, regulators and central bankers happily cover for, or even join in on the manipulation and rigging.

If markets were to be un-rigged and allowed to function, banks were to stop getting hand-outs and fraud started to be persecuted, this would only be a good thing for 99.9% of people involved in the finance industry.

Maybe this knee-jerk "anti-finance" climate you speak of would even disappear.

So, on the one hand, you are a proponent of in-depth, intelligent conversation.

On the other, you want to prohibit all discussion of news that might somehow reflect negatively on certain people involved with some kinds of finance.

Is that right?

No, that's wrong.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact