Debunked: Alessio Rastani

[Mick]

Alessio Rastani is not hoaxer Andy Bichlbaum/Jacques Servin, but nor is he a Goldman Sachs trader spilling the beans.

Alessio Rastani appeared on a BBC news program, headlined as an "Independent Trader", and proceeded to say the end is coming, millions of people will lose everything, and that Goldman Sachs rules the world.

The conspiracy world ate this up, as a kind of "insider lets slip the truth about the powers that be"

The truth is rather simpler. The problem here is that the BBC set up Rastani as some kind of authority on the world financial system. But in reality he's not. He's an "independent trader", sometimes called a "day trader", which is someone who attempts to make a living by rapidly trading in financial markets with their own money. Trading as a full time job. He works from a bedroom in his girlfriends house.

He explains here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilylam...ani-and-asked/

I started trading for real in 2006. [...] I use actually TradeStation. [...] I work from home [...] I’m mostly a technical trader. I look at charts. I’m not a big, huge fan of funny analysis, you know, fundamentals.

In other words, he's just some guy. He's no expert. He's got no inside information. He doesn't even follow the fundamentals, he just looks a charts and tries to divine what will happen. The BBC was probably looking for an institutional trader (such as someone who actually works at Goldman Sachs), someone with a broad overview of the financial markets. But somehow they end up with this guy. Perhaps they need to check their sources a little better.

The picture was complicated by the existence of a hoax interview with a guy who looks superficially the same as Rastani. In the Forbes interview the interviewer even claims that it's the same person. Reuters says: "Rastani and Finisterra look and sound very similar to each other". But looking for a few seconds more it's apparent that it's a different person. (Look at the nose, and more distinctly the shape of the ears, and the turn of the mouth as he speaks).



Here's another comparison. Similar, but not the same guy. Unless he's lost a lot of weight and had plastic surgery.



And one more, this time with the scale adjusted so the eyes are equally spaced.



The above comparisons become redundant when you realize that the Yes Man in the Bophal video is Andy Bichlebaum, aka Jacques Servin. That video was taken in 2004, seven years ago. Jacques Servin now looks like this:




Rastani's non-notability becomes more obviously when you look at his web site (which has only existed since February 2010)

http://web.archive.org/web/201009201...der.com/about/

My belief is that anyone who wants to improve their income and achieve success in life, cannot afford to ignore learning how to trade. The problem is that most people are under the illusion that they either can do it themselves by reading books, or that they need someone to give them a “share tip”. Both these approaches are flawed. Books can be useful but nobody is going to give away their trading secrets in a book. As for tips – tips are for waiters!
To be successful in trading or investing you need to apply a PROVEN STRATEGY and have a POSITIVE MINDSET. A proven strategy need not be complicated, but actually very simple. But the strategy must teach you when to BUY and when to SELL.

So there's no insider spilling the bean here. He's just a day trader who has had the good fortune to manage to survive for more that a few years, presumably by following a strategy that benefited from (or was at least someone insulated from) the recent financial turmoil. Hence he, like every other trader with short term success, thinks he's hit on the recipe for success, so he paints a simplistic picture for the future based on his rather limited experience - projecting what he thinks happened, onto what he thinks will happen.

In the process, he's got himself a lot of publicity, which will help a lot with his backup career - selling books and teaching about independent trading.

[Mick]

Amusing quote from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...-a-trader.html

How a man who has never been authorised by the Financial Services Authority and has no discernible history working for a City institution ended up being interviewed by the BBC remains a mystery.
The incongruity led to some commentators speculating Mr Rastani was a professional hoaxer. The BBC denied the allegation: "We've carried out detailed investigations and can't find any evidence to suggest that the interview with Alessio Rastani was a hoax."
However, the BBC declined to comment on what checks, if any, it had done prior to the interview.
Mr Rastani was a little more forthcoming.
"They approached me," he told The Telegraph. "I'm an attention seeker. That is the main reason I speak. That is the reason I agreed to go on the BBC. Trading is a like a hobby. It is not a business. I am a talker. I talk a lot. I love the whole idea of public speaking."

[Mick]

Huffington Post is late to the party regurgitating mindless speculation they could have dispelled in seconds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011..._n_983156.html

It goes to show entertainment is more important than facts.

Many believe Rastani is in fact Andy Bichlbaum who created the group as a way of exposing lies and telling the truth in society.
'Rastani' is accused of a series of similar hoaxes including an appearance on the BBC in 2004 in which he claimed victims of the Bhopal disaster would receive compensation.
In the YouTube video from the 20th anniversary of the incident a man – who looks and sounds remarkably like Rastani - says he’s a spokesman for Dow Chemical which is paying out the money.

They also quote the Forbes article. Bad journalism feeds upon bad.

[Mick]

Background and follow-up to the actual Dow/Bophal hoax video with Andy Bichlbaum

[knownknows]

Some of what you said is of course right, other parts not so right.

What is correct is that a big collapse did not come that year, though we were not far of, and Alessio changed his outlook in the months that followed because as soon as the ECB stepped in the Euro was always going to muddle on through. Others like Marc Faber and Jim Rogers, who are more than just traders but take positions based on long term fundamentals were making, and are still making, similar predictions of financial collapse - though I suspect their idea of collapse and yours differ greatly. They also say savings are going to take a hit because of government easing and resulting inflation.

Alessio later clarified his comments with respect to goldman sacs ruling the world. What he meant was that the large financial centres have enormous sway in the world of politics, and Goldman sacs in particular have former employees occupying very important positions, people like Henry Paulson, Mario Monti, Mario Draghi and Mark Carney (soon to be Head of the BOE). There used to be several lists floating around of former Goldman Sachs employees and their current influence in Global politics and economics, though I have not looked for it recently.

Alessio is a day trader, but almost all day/technical traders do follow broad market fundamentals because it provides perspective, the difference is that they don't take positions based of fundamental analysis but use technical approaches because the 'smart money' as they call it, ultimately controls where the market heads - big investment banks, such as Goldman Sachs, represents the smart money. Technical analysis is really to take advantage of the movements driven by the 'smart money'. But technical analysis is not limited to independent or day traders, Barclays trades using technical analysis, as do many other hedge funds. Jesse Livermore, or any of the other people cited in the book series 'Market Wizards,' were not predictors of the future but they did understand the markets very well as they have to. You'll find a good many day traders are also people that formerly worked in financial services, and I know for fact that Alessio was trained by at least one.

In many ways you are right, but it is not nearly as one sided as you present it. Alessio did get it wrong in some respect in that perhaps he was a bit too dogmatic, but he got it right in others, what he suffered from mostly is a case of other people not understanding what he meant and a whole group of people taking his comments to the extreme. It is hard to get across exactly what one means in a 5 minute TV appearance.

[Mick]

So which bit did I get wrong then?

[knownknows]

So which bit did I get wrong then?

What you got right was he is not a hoaxer, he is not the 'yes man' and he is not a GS trader. What you misrepresented, not intentionally I might add because it was all over the media at the time, is what he meant by what he said.

What you got wrong are the notions you have about what traders are/do (and therefore what Alessio does), about traders not understanding fundamentals (for they do, deeply) and about traders being lucky (they aren't, at least not the professional ones).

The biggest mistake is assuming he does not have inside information... for he does. Traders spend all day every day trying to find a bit of info which gives them the edge otherwise known as 'alpha' and they collectively refer to the media vs the news from the market as ''information for the masses and information for the classes.'' Alessio, and other traders know that, for example, when Jim Cramer gets on CNBC and tells you to buy x, y or z that you shouldn't bother listening http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdqGS0RWlcw - that kind of information only comes with being burned several times and knowing your way around the market.

[Mick]

WWhat you misrepresented, not intentionally I might add because it was all over the media at the time, is what he meant by what he said.

Can you quote the bit where I misrepresented what he said?

[knownknows]

Can you quote the bit where I misrepresented what he said?

I may not be making myself clear... the thread is called 'Debunked: Alessio Rastani,' but as it turns out, and as you said in your opening line, Alessio Rastani is not a hoaxer.

What you are meaning to debunk I presume, are the conspiracy theories surrounding what he said, which were misinterpretations of what he meant - is that not why this thread was created, because of the uproar after his appearance on the BBC?

The point, is that you are not debunking Rastani, for he is what he has been for the past ten years and continues to be, a professional independent trader with a traders knowledge and insights. So, how are you debunking Alessio when it turns out he is everything he claimed to be?

Aren't you really debunking all the nonsense that followed his comments?

[Mick]

Can you quote anything I got wrong then? Or is it just the thread title you have problems with?

Are you Rastani?

[knownknows]

Can you quote anything I got wrong then? Or is it just the thread title you have problems with?

Are you Rastani?

I'm not Rastani, as you will know from from my IP.

I'm not sure what you want me to quote, as far as I am concerned much of the thread is a misrepresentation. Context is all important, and the context was set out by the title.

If you mean something else other than debunking rastani, which is what you have claimed, then we have a different debate. So I'm not entirely sure what you want me to quote as being a misrepresentation; you've claimed to have debunked Rastani yet in the process proved he said and does as he claims.

So I'm not sure what the issue is... perhaps a different tact.
What specifically about my posts do you feel is wrong?

[Mick]

Some of what you said is of course right, other parts not so right.

What you misrepresented, not intentionally I might add because it was all over the media at the time, is what he meant by what he said.

I'm not sure what you want me to quote, as far as I am concerned much of the thread is a misrepresentation. Context is all important, and the context was set out by the title.

If you mean something else other than debunking rastani, which is what you have claimed, then we have a different debate. So I'm not entirely sure what you want me to quote as being a misrepresentation; you've claimed to have debunked Rastani yet in the process proved he said and does as he claims.

So I'm not sure what the issue is... perhaps a different tact.
What specifically about my posts do you feel is wrong?

I think you are wrong in suggesting that some of what I said was "not so right", and that I "misrepresented" what he meant by what he said.

If you can't actually quote something that's "not so right" or "misrepresented", then I'm going to have to delete your posts.

[knownknows]

I think you are wrong in suggesting that some of what I said was "not so right", and that I "misrepresented" what he meant by what he said.

If you can't actually quote something that's "not so right" or "misrepresented", then I'm going to have to delete your posts.

Yet you have failed do what the thread title suggests, namely debunk Alessio Rastani and your own research confirms that he is in fact a trader - I'm not sure how you can't see this. Until you clarify what exactly you do mean, if it isn't Rastani debunked, I could be attempting to knock down straw-men all week.

More specifically lets deal with quotes that are wrong, and I will try and give you sufficient detail to show you that I have at least some knowledge in this area.

In other words, he's just some guy. He's no expert. He's got no inside information. He doesn't even follow the fundamentals, he just looks a charts and tries to divine what will happen. The BBC was probably looking for an institutional trader (such as someone who actually works at Goldman Sachs), someone with a broad overview of the financial markets. But somehow they end up with this guy. Perhaps they need to check their sources a little better.

Incorrect... by and large I am going to paste what I have already said.

Alessio is not 'some guy,' you don't make a living of day trader for the better part of decade by not understanding markets. Almost all day/technical traders do follow broad market fundamentals because it provides perspective, the difference is that not all take positions based solely of fundamental analysis (but some do), some use a mixture of both fundamental and technical analysis to enter and exit position. These traders, who use technicals to makes trades, often have spreadsheets for specific strategies that date back over many years documenting every trade and giving it a statistical score of success rate and rate of return. This can be computerised or done manually. You make this out to be some kind of gamble, which it is not, 'divine' has nothing to do with it.

The video I posted about Jim Cramer shows the disparity of what these traders do vs what they say on TV. Quotes from the Cramer video 'Fundamentals don't matter,' 'who cares about the fundamentals,' to telling the interviewer that hedge fund managers phone up news companies and propagate lies and then following all this up by saying 'I would never say that on TV.'

Rastani essentially tells everyone that the markets are not acting in their interest, whereas CNBC, where Cramer reports, says the exact opposite. That is insiders info by any definition, and the reason why he can say that is because he is independent. You suggest that being independent makes you less able, which is also wrong, as an independent you can speak freely without fear of being sacked.

Rastani has also appear on numerous TV and radio shows since then and clarified some of his comments:
Rastani With Frost - http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen
Rastani Talking about City Traders - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyw7LqJXkSI
Rastani saying he is independent - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD4VJ0IVzxQ
Rastani talking about Fundamentals - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnO8r...44tR6g&index=1 (this video was taken this month)

This isn't even hard to find. So I am not sure why you are saying you have debunked him, when he is exactly what he claims to be. Unless of course you are arguing something else.

So there's no insider spilling the bean here. He's just a day trader who has had the good fortune to manage to survive for more that a few years, presumably by following a strategy that benefited from (or was at least someone insulated from) the recent financial turmoil. Hence he, like every other trader with short term success, thinks he's hit on the recipe for success, so he paints a simplistic picture for the future based on his rather limited experience - projecting what he thinks happened, onto what he thinks will happen.

Incorrect.

Again, it is a case of you not actually knowing what day traders do. Good fortune to survive for more than a few years, no such luck exists, certainly nothing that you can ride for close to a decade. As I said above, you can either make lots of money using fundamental analysis, and or technical which is based on probabilities and cumulative statistics. I already suggested you consult the book series 'market wizards' for are more than a few who make a living of trading their whole lives, I personally know of several who do just that.


I don't know about Aliens, or 911, or any of that other stuff on these forums and I am sidelined to just reading. But I have a fair idea of what I am talking about here, because I day trade though I am by no means a professional, because I understand finance better than most though I am certainly no expert and because I have followed Rastani and along with many other traders for several years now. But let me assure you, what you alluded to is not correct.

Can you accept this is the real question.