All Chats Lead to Talk
Dear Walter,
Of course Mark Barton's homicides didn't "stem from day trading alone." I
meant that the Journal was far too offhand about the
non-digital factors that may have set him off. The story begins with some
general exposition about the sketchy details of Barton's past, but once the
narrative hits 1993 (right before the Internet boom!), it restricts itself to
Barton's highs and lows as a day trader. That's why the Journal's line
about trading not being the sole cause seemed so slapped-on and insufficient to
me. As you suggest, his killing spree may turn out to have a spray of policy
and business consequences: for gun control, regulation of day trading, the
online sector of the financial industry. So before we are asked to digest
proposals and reforms, I am hungry to know more about the other causes of
Barton's rampage, and some real consideration of what, if anything, makes day
trading particularly nefarious.
For example, the piece describes how Barton used the extra-risky practice of
trading "on margin," or borrowing funds against the securities he already
owned, which he was required to back up with additional funds when the value of
those securities dropped. But the story doesn't tell us if trading on margin is
allowed at Charles Schwab or Morgan Stanley--in other words, if he could have
bet as riskily at a more established firm or away from a computer.
You write that Barton's day-trading career is emblematic of the
"glitz-and-greed '90s" and that Americans are "abandoning safe investments in
the quest for instant riches." I am chary of decade-long generalizations (I
thought the '80s were supposed to have been about "glitz-and-greed"). Your
statement is wide enough to span the gold rush, the junk-bond era, and the Las
Vegas Strip. Sure, online investing is more populist and easily accessible than
panning for gold or high-risk bond trading, but you make it sound as if droves
of us are abandoning steady salaries for a home office, a modem, and a bunch of
trading accounts. So, tops on my list of Pieces I'd Like To Read remains a
solid analysis of the scope and specific dangers of day trading, and how it
compares to more conventional forms of extracurricular investing.
Perhaps, as you hypothesize, Hillary chose to air her woes in Talk
because it's a sympathetic forum. But so are lots of magazines (remember the
New York Times Magazine's recent rah-rah cover story?). I think she
chose it simply because it's the highest-profile magazine of the year. Her
Senate candidacy is a direct reward for the crosses she's had to bear; before
Monica, her approval rating was too low to justify a run. What bothers me most
about the interview is that she seems to be trying to nourish her candidacy
with a new harvest of Flytrap-induced sympathy.
Boy, did you dis my offer of a Talk subscription. Your high-minded
sneer leaves me crestfallen--does this mean you won't want to dish over it
tomorrow? I have a copy in front of me, and Hillary aside, it looks delicious.
I can't wait to read Martin Amis on Hannibal , Tom Stoppard on his
newfound Jewish heritage, and Mimi Swartz on the legal revenge being exacted by
wronged first wives. But if you won't share with me, then at least my fellow F
train riders will.
A demain ,
Jodi
P.S.: No, I don't eat on the subway. But I could if I wanted to. A dirty
little secret: Like many of Mayor Giuliani's "quality of life"
prohibitions--including those on jaywalking and cursing--the no-snacks on the
subway rule is never, ever enforced.
