Brian Hunter: Rogue or Not?

Was Amaranth’s Brian Hunter a rogue trader? That question is drawing understandable debate, including a poll at Dealbreaker (where they entertainingly typo into calling him a “rouge trader” — yeah, those rouge traders are trouble), and this Reuters piece.

My view: A rogue trader takes highly risky positions unbeknownst to the firm and then layers on leverage to try to escape. Hunter’s positions were seemingly well known to Amaranth, they just went in the opposite direction from what risk management (and Hunter) expected.

So, Rogue or not? Not.

Related posts:

  1. Nick Leeson, Liu Qibing, & the Rogue Trader Thing
  2. Beware Rogue PR Agencies
  3. Nick Leeson, Then and Now
  4. Me and Brian
  5. Profiting from Squawk Boxes, 101


  1. W.C. Varones says:

    That’s what happens when you give leverage to morons.

  2. /pd says:

    it happens and we have seen this happening in various brokers offices. Heres a classic

  3. Vinod says:

    The actual leverage was somethig like $1.30 per $1.00. It is nothing. Do not call someone a moron because a trade went wrong.

  4. burton says:

    Has someone reported his actual position?
    How someone reported something more concrete about the firm’s risk management system?
    How did the ‘spread trade’ reported in the New York Times become a directional trade?
    (probably dumb quetions, but I cannot figure any of this out from the reports I have seen).

  5. Yaser Anwar says:

    Brian Hunter was a gambler who went to the casino & gambled too much. He walked away a couple of times with the jackpot but he committed a cardinal sin. He played too often & at the end of the day, the house always wins, snake eyes!