SAC Discloses Government Subpoena (Top 100 Holdings Presented)

Tyler Durden's picture

Goodnight Sweet Prince

From Market Watch:

SAC Capital Advisors LP told investors in a letter that it got a government subpoena, according to a person who received the update from the hedge fund firm. SAC said in the letter, dated Nov. 23, that the government served identical “extraordinarily broad” subpoenas on a number of investment managers of different sizes and descriptions, including SAC. The subpoena does not focus on particular individual securities, sectors or strategies, SAC added. The firm said the subpoenas don’t “shed much light on whom or what the government may be investigating.” One focus appears to be on the use of consultants and soft dollars, SAC noted in the letter. SAC will respond to the government “in a professional and cooperative manner.” “Neither the subpoena nor any other information of which we are aware suggests that anyone at SAC has engaged in any wrongdoing,” the firm added.

Zero Hedge from November 4: Is The SEC's Insider Trading Case Implicating FrontPoint A Sting Operation Aimed At S.A.C. Capital?

Our questions back then:

  1. Did SAC short CYBX in the
    days immediately preceding the adverse CYBX statement from August 12,
    2004. And did it subsequently go long ahead of the favorable 8K from
    February 3, 2005. If so, what was the investment thesis/catalyst for
    such decision. Did SAC consult with an expert network or an outside
    consultant on any of the trades?
  2. Did
    SAC go long ITMN in the days immediately preceding the favorable ITMN
    statement from March 9, 2010. And did it subsequently sell all of its
    holdings in advance of the adverse news from May 4, 2010.
    If so, what was the investment thesis/catalyst for such decision. Did
    SAC consult with an expert network or an outside consultant on any of
    the trades?
  3. Did SAC sell its 700,000 shares in advance of the adverse MYGN news release from May 4, 2010.
    And did it subsequently sell all of its holdings in advance of the
    adverse news from May 5, 2010.
    If so, what was the investment thesis/catalyst for such a decision. Did
    SAC consult with an expert network or an outside consultant on any of
    the trades? Furthermore, what catalyzed the decision to reenter the stock.
  4. We also have some broadly
    rhetorical questions: how is it that a rabbi who as he himself admits,
    has never traded a stock in his whole life, knew ahead of everyone,
    certainly the SEC, that Skowron had (allegedly) traded on inside information. More to the point, why was Jeff Skowron not named as a defendant in this action: based on the
    SEC complaint,
    which in itself is worth an entire read, the agency has more than
    enough information to indict him as a co-conspirator in the case. Why is
    FrontPoint also not named? And why is it that we get the feeling that the SEC got all of its information on the Benhamou/FrontPoint case courtesy of the US attorney general, who had forwarded the Balkany information over to them. If that is the case, what else is the SEC currently investigating? Are all biotech
    consultants working for 'expert networks' currently under SEC
    surveillance and being bugged by various law enforcement administrations
    ala Raj Rajuratnam? And, most importantly, is the ongoing official anonymity of Skowron
    indicative that the SEC is merely using him to build a much greater
    "sting" case against his former, and oh so very elusive, employer? 

We were correct about pretty much everything.

And for shits and giggles, here are SAC's top 100 holdings: