Do Trouble Organization Journalists Invest Inwards Things They Cover?

Today at FT Alphaville nosotros read:

Hey crypto bros! Journalism ≠ advertising

...As CZ explains inward his tweet, he has latterly learned that most journalists are forbidden to HODL, the crypto term that way to “hold” too conveniently exposes the contradiction at the pump of digital currencies: HODLing way you lot are non truly using crypto for payments, its master copy intended purpose. (The 1 fourth dimension a HODLer powerfulness truly desire to usage such an inefficient, tiresome too volatile way of payment every bit crypto would endure to pay for things online that they desire to proceed private, such every bit drugs -- which fifty-fifty bitcoin's earliest advocates credit amongst its growth -- simply CZ doesn't desire to beak almost that.)

CZ seems to stimulate got been told almost the concept of the conflict of interest. It's a existent thing! See this from the Financial Times' ain code of conduct:

A conflict of involvement may spill out when our interests or activities (or those of our solid unit of measurement or friends) impact our powerfulness to brand objective decisions for FT Group. This includes personal relationships amongst around other employee if you lot stimulate got influence over their salary or career path. We either avoid these situations and/or are transparent almost them too ensure they are approved at the appropriate level.

That's right! Journalists at “MSM” outlets such every bit this 1 are told to avoid situations inward which they experience their powerfulness to study fairly is compromised....MORE

Which raises the inquiry "What just was going on here" (March 24, 2016):

That fourth dimension I defaulted on Bloomberg’s Tracy Alloway

Back inward October, 2015, Bloomberg’s Tracy Alloway too I struck an OTC futures bargain over a teeny, tiny vial of unsmooth oil, which Tracy for around argue felt compelled to nickname “Williston”.

Read almost it here.

I immediately programme to default on this contract (a ladies’ agreement, witnessed past times “the world” due its publication on Bloomberg) too this is a populace uncovering explaining my reasons for doing so.

The price of the contract — henceforth known every bit the “Williston contract” — were agreed every bit follows past times email:

The contract was structured on Oct 16, 2015 too agreed a cost of $49.78 for oil to endure delivered inward March.

The delivering political party pre-agreed to stimulate got on the sum cost of delivery. (She promised to walk it over to the FT’s role inward New York, rather than deliver to Cushing Oklahoma.)

Tracy’s theoretical lucre on the contango bargain (which this contract was designed to hedge) — bar whatever footing run a peril betwixt WTI too North Dakota Light Sweet — was expected to endure f.25 a barrel.

Since the quantity of the oil beingness dealt was a small-scale fraction of a barrel — almost 1 litre — Tracy’s topographic point acquisition cost was deemed 24 cents inward October. At $49.78 per barrel, my contract covered a hope to pay approx 31 cents for the oil inward question. Her expected lucre from a performing hedge was expected to endure almost vii cents.

It is immediately March 24, too WTI oil is trading at approx $38.78 per barrel at the fourth dimension of writing.

Tracy is inward the money on the trade, having wisely hedged her unsmooth inward October. I, the counterparty to her hedge, owe her 31 cents inward value, inward central for the delivery of the Williston container to the FT’s role every bit presently every bit the transaction is settled. That’s a lucre for Tracy no affair what.

Except...

I’m non going to pay her. Instead, I’m going to brazenly default inward sum stance of the world.

…MORE

Our comment at the time:

Izabella Kaminska's Oil Trade Goes Sour: Shakespearean Tragedy Edition

"Default, honey Brutus, is non inward our stars,

But inward ourselves, that nosotros are underlings."

First dominion of bidness: Know your counterparty or usage a clearinghouse.....