pequ.jpgAmusingly, it wasn’t 6 months ago that Pequot managed to capture the much-coveted “probably won’t go under” award (technically the “Pulliamp-Strasburg Likely Survivors Amid Turmoil in the Industry” award) issued by the Wall Street Journal to the most middling hedge-fund. More amusingly, it only three months and change from there before Samberg had “…concluded that Pequot can no longer stay in business.”
In no time at all Pequot Capital Management became one of those “repeat offenders” here on Dealbreaker. You know the type: constantly tarnishing these pages with tales of woe, hints of scandal, long missives and tedious adéus of every kind.
But now, new news brought to the forefront by Pequot hastens my return to these pages- owing to my minor, but entertaining connection to the firm, I gravitate to writing projects that include it.* Address your hate mail accordingly.

Trades [by Pequot] linked to Google Inc., Cox Communications Inc., International Securities Holdings Inc., Premcor Inc. and dozens of other companies prompted surveillance units policing U.S. exchanges to make the referrals to the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to agency records obtained by Bloomberg News. Thirty-six reports flagged possible insider trading. Four indicated possible manipulation and four were labeled “other.”
“The numbers would indicate they had trading that closely preceded 36 material events” said Bradley Bennett, a partner at Baker Botts in Washington and a former SEC investigator who focused on insider-trading cases.

No surprise there. Neither, sadly, is the fact that notices on Pequot go back to 2005 or earlier.
I bet there is a press release on their website. Oh. Darn.
Pequot Trading in Google, Cox, Premcor Sparked Warnings to SEC [Bloomberg]


* Related only tangentially, a conversation that took place on stage at a finance panel discussion a few weeks ago during the half-time break:
Panelist #1: Isn’t that (insider trading) what that one firm is being accused of? (She really asked this. And the mic was still on.)
Panelist #2: Which firm?
Panelist #1: The hedge fund?
Panelist #2: Uh, not sure.
Panelist #1: (Detecting evasion): The one in Connecticut? (No, I’m not kidding).
Panelist #2: Um… maybe?
Panelist #1: They have the same name as that shitty French car company.
Panelist #2: Mercedes? (Again, not kidding).
EP: Citroën?
Panelist #1: YES! No, wait….
EP: Peugeot?
Panelist #1: YES! That’s it!
EP: There’s a hedge fund named Peugeot?
Panelist #1: Yes. Well, like it. Named like it.
- long pause -
EP: Pequot?
Panelist #1: That’s it exactly! YES!
French car company. In retrospect, she was pretty close actually. There was an hour left in the second half of the panel though.

Comments (26)

  1. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 10:57 AM

    Too long; didn’t read.

  2. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:01 AM

    Is the accompanying picture of the casino owned by the Pequot indians? Are you really that stupid? If not, can you please explain its relevance?
    - A concerned citizen

  3. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:02 AM

    Hint:
    Amanda. Drury. Cleave.
    Any article containing those words will be a hit.
    Even if Tax Chick doesn’t read it.

  4. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:04 AM

    @1 Obviously you weren’t referring to the Pequot website . . .

  5. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:05 AM

    My Private’s are Equitable

  6. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:06 AM

    tl; dr.

  7. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:07 AM

    too long; didn’t read

  8. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM

    Connecticut, kumquats, what?
    I love kumquats.
    –Steve Cohen

  9. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM

    too long; didn’t read. war is Bess?

  10. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:14 AM

    Did Tax Chick do the black guy or not? Inquiring minds want to know.

  11. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:16 AM

    7 hyperlinks (1 not working) + one bad joke does not a post make, EP. Ugh.

  12. Posted by Shakes23 | August 10, 2009 at 11:24 AM

    please bring bess back

  13. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:28 AM

    Step 1: Make the main point a hyperlink, and throw it near the end of the article.
    Step 2: Obscure the main point with shitty run-on sentences.
    Step 3: Make the run-ons even longer so you can add in hyperlinks to sites nobody is interested in.
    Step 4: ???
    Step 5: Lose visitors.

  14. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:30 AM

    this post is pretty gawd awful

  15. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:33 AM

    Step 6: Put your junk in the box

  16. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:42 AM

    so if hanky panky is calling lloydy droidy 12 times a day, how many SEC referrals does someone like goldman sachs get typically on one year?

  17. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM

    EP, will u stop posting if i give u $5?

  18. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM

    how does this company get 45 referrals, blow out an SEC lawyer standing in its way and still remain untouched? did his niece marry an SEC enforcement boss?

  19. Posted by Anal_yst | August 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM

    @2
    That is Foxwoods Grand Pequot Tower. You gotta problem with that?
    Also, as a slight tangent on that front, the crowd there is, oh, how do you say this, that which makes Times Square on a given summer afternoon look like Fashion Week.

  20. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 12:06 PM

    @18 Schumer runs interference for them!

  21. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 1:54 PM

    Is Bess no more?

  22. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM

    @21 Start watching Happy Hour on Fox Business, I heard that since it’s a better incarnation of a financial tabloid than what DB has become she’s jumping ship.

  23. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM

    How was it said at lunch time with only an hour left in the afternoon session?

  24. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 3:11 PM

    @10 i second that.

  25. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 3:14 PM

    that dialogue about the Peugot sounds entirely fabricated but i have no doubt that it did really happen?
    was the debt bitch there by any chance?

  26. Posted by guest | August 10, 2009 at 5:23 PM

    Wouldn’t a picture of injuns getting killed have made more sense, and been less unrelated?

Leave a comment

You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.