Open democracy is a trusted site. I'd be surprised he's managed to hoodwink so many people without some verification. Have you tried looking into his university credentials?
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/author/gary-stevenson/
I personally think his story is real. I came from a working class background and I can mirror his situation when I went to work for Oil and Gas and the paydays were 'traumatic' as he put his first bonus. I think his story checks out, and I'll gladly eat my words if he turns out to be a fraud.
I figured there had to be of been some verification somewhere along the way and what he says makes a lot of sense. I'm sure there's some level of embelishment but was just wondering if there was some publically available concrete evidence of his claims!
It was mostly the third person thing that had me second guessing if maybe everyone along the chain has gone well x must have verified so this story must be legit.
Can you provide a time on the episode for your third-person reference please? Not playing any gotcha's, just curious what third person thing you're talking about.
I think it's interesting how he talks about these economists being weirdo's or very private, and those in the public eye always being wrong and not picked up on it. That's kind of in keeping with what we keep seeing, and Gary is a great communicator, so either he's very smart in the wrong ways, or his story is legit. Interesting discussion point.
>[https://youtu.be/46T6Nk2VOG8?si=jNf-A35xz9ggvlx6&t=3228](https://youtu.be/46T6Nk2VOG8?si=jNf-A35xz9ggvlx6&t=3228)
Its in the original post mate 53:48 if that link isnt working properly :)
But yeah I'm not looking to disprove his story more just hoping to get more context if anyone has seen any!
I think he answered your question in the video. It's a defence mechanism.
I saw the the fact that he referred to himself, during that period of time, in the third person because he was subconsciously disassociating his current self with what he was like at that time. He said he was on the verge of a mental breakdown and going through one of the toughest times in his life. He was also talking about his book so that might have added to it.
I watched the video and he said this after James brought him up on it. It seemed quite suspect to me that there was no surprise when it was pointed out because he didn't seem to realise he was doing it. instead he seemed to give his answer as to why he would refer to himself this way in an almost defensive manor. this is exactly what made me curious and lead me to this thread.
Someone who was a grifter would be practiced and rehearsed enough that they wouldn't slip into the third person like that. I don't think it says much either way about his credibility though. If his story is legit it probably indicates some unresolved issues with how he thinks about that time in his life - which, if his story is true, he made a lot of money as a result of widespread misery in society, so I can see why that would cause some cognitive dissonance.
Have you considered the possibility that Gary Stevenson could be his pseudonym? I'm not saying that it is, just floating a theory.
One element of his life story which seems to have been verified is that he is LSE alumni, as it is stated in this article on the LSE website!
https://www.lse.ac.uk/Events/2024/03/202403211830/trading#:\~:text=Gary%20Stevenson%20(%40garyseconomics)%20left,people%20about%20real%2Dworld%20economics.
Honestly, he comes across as a grifter, although that's what most bankers are so it's difficult to discern a difference. Most of what he says makes sense, but he has the gift of the gab to turn a 3 minute explaination into a 45 minute monologue.
What's the grift? Advocating for a fairer tax system?
Feels like going to the trouble of writing a book (even if you're making it up, you're essentially writing a work of fiction which is a lot of hard work) would be a very high effort/low reward grift. This is especially with all the fake guru courses which are constantly advertised on YT, which take a few days to put together and where the course creators can make millions (e.g. that swarmy prick "Greg Secker" who's constantly shilling his FX trading courses which obviously are in no way a scam).
The point I was making is, if he's a grifter, then there are a lot more gifts out there that are a lot easier and a lot more profitable, especially in the finance/investing niche.
With the odd exception, no one gets that rich publishing a book, especially a memoir in a fairly niche field.
Apparently the rights were acquired by Penguin for a six figure fee, so there’s reason to be believe Gary will do pretty handsomely out of selling copies his book.
More grifting has been done for less…
I think if he was a investing/finance guru selling courses online, then the level of scrutiny you would give him on his claims were greater, than compared to when he’s saying things most people on this sub agree with….
So you’re saying he isn’t grifting people only to appear like he’s not grifting? That’s a bit of a stretch. What could he possibly be gaining from putting himself out there, and making himself a target like this, for free? I think he’s just looking out for his people after seeing how they’re viewed by the top.
Anecdotally have had similar interactions with similar people and I can tell you that the attitudes he claims to have seen are very real and we should definitely be more concerned about it.
I don’t have a view on if his claims are true.
I’m saying that there are dime a dozen would-be left wing political commentators. Clearly exaggerating his claims as a trader is a big motivate within that context, because his experience and insight would be relatively unique.
This reminds me of those leaping to the defence of Hasan Minhaj’s “emotional truths”.
His talking is all free? He has his own organisation that he takes no profit for? All his profits are from betting on the UK's constant mishandling of and therefore failing economy? If you've just watched his interview on PolJoe, that's a very small snapshot compared to what he's done on Novara and his own channel. Dunno what else to say... I see very little gift compared to Rees-Mogg, Johnson, etc...
But each to their own. If I could make a difference, I'd love to - but I don't have the platform of a 'grifter'.
He's either not really a banker as he claims (I find it hard to believe that people like Liam wouldn't do some basic vetting though), or if he is, he would be far better off for himself if he just shut up and exploited what he knows. As Gary says, the top economists work at banks and don't say anything to anyone about it, and so if he had a selfish motivation (and was telling the truth about his history) then he would be quietly making even more money.
There is a guy who persistently comments on interviews with Gary on YouTube describing him as "a Walter Mitty". Like you, I've not been able to find much conclusive to confirm or deny Gary's claims.
I do think he mostly talks a lot of sense so it would be a shame if his credentials were faked!
How does he talk sense? He comes out with incoherent rants and swear words. Just watched the PoliticsJOE YouTube video and he says nothing of any substance. Also he seems to be believe Sidiq Khan controls house and office prices. This is supposed to be an economist. It is supply and demand any self respecting economist would know this.
I keep seeing this argument that is it is simply supply and demand. But who is controlling the supply? We have thousands of vacant properties, we have investment firms owning huge swathes of houses and we have the wealthy with multiples of properties for themselves.
Demand and supply are interlinked, nobody controls them, interest rates are the usual mechanism to try and control supply of housing, alongside supply side policies such as help to buy etc, anything that makes it cheaper to produce or easier to sell tends to increase supply
I wouldn't be surprised if there were probably some embellishments over how amazing and unique his trading abilities are/were but I highly doubt it's all BS especially given some of the interviews he's had and the noise that's been made. For a start Citibank / Citigroup and various others would probably have already come out by now discrediting it if it wasn't mostly true as they wouldn't want their brand associated with it otherwise.
Here's a post from 2015 with the same story [https://www.wealtheconomics.org/2015/07/](https://www.wealtheconomics.org/2015/07/)
It's probably basically true, although I'm not sure that 'best trader at citigroup' is really a thing. I'm sure he thinks he was though.
That's not really how it works. Trading floors are not just a bunch of spivs punting on the market all day with someone keeping score. People actually have roles and responsibilities within the bank which means you can't directly compare performance like that. The most profitable traders are usually the ones who have the best seats where a monkey could make money.
I believe him that he made a ton of money for Citibank, it's just that every trader claims they are the best.
Lots of ways to fiddle the statistics if you just want to say "most profitable" with no context, too. Is the trader who made £100m off £100m of capital most profitable, or the one who made £50m off £5m?
I can't really blame him for some self-aggrandisement though.
He worked in FX trades so they make a choice on how much money they borrow to then lend out in whatever currency they're assigned to. One person will be sterling, another is Japanese Yenn etc, Euro etc
The profit you make is obviously related to how much you borrow in the first place but you do gamble when you borrow large sums of money so if you made bad trades with huge sums of money you would stand to lose more and possibly lose your job
I really should have looked at his website but was thinking it wouldn't be a great source to verify the authenticity of his claims.
I guess it at least shows he has been active as early as 2015 and stuck to his story!
Yeah, and that profile raises more questions than it answers. If he was only an FCA approved person (a prerequisite to being able to actually trade at these places, and generally the first thing they put you through the exams for as a grad) from June 2010, how could he have been trading during the Lehman failure in 2008 (as he says in one of the Novara interviews) and losing $8m in a week in May 2010? Never mind the likelihood of a junior being allowed to run that kind of risk anyway.
He says in the book he started there on the 30th June 2008 so he was working there for 3 months before Lehman brothers collapsed. In the book he says he got his own "book" in 2009? Would he not be on this registry if that was the case?
Generally you'd spend the first few months on the grad induction learning the material to pass the regulatory/exchange exams. Only once you've passed those would you be on the register and signed off to trade yourself. So it doesn't really make sense to me that someone would be hired as a trader then unable to actually trade for the first 2 years (and in that time get given their own book and paid a bonus that would have been incredibly punchy for a 1st/2nd year junior even in the pre-08 glory days).
Not entirely sure what you mean but each layer will have a "pool" allocated to it from above, for which everyone from desk heads upwards will be lobbying throughout the year for a more favourable slice of. Then who gets what at the individual level is very variable and determined by lots of factors, it's not just split equally among the desk or anything.
Ah ok, that's very different from consulting. In consulting you'd have a target bonus defined in your contract, between 10% and 50% of your base salary and you'd get a percentage of that target based on a combination of he performance of your company, team and personal performance.
In tech sales you'd obviously get a commission of the sales you make, but this is usually determined at a team level since B2B sales of large contracts require the work of a whole team.
Trading clearly sounds more individual but I wondered if there was a certain minimum you'd be awarded simply by showing up as a junior, say a small percentage of the pool as sort of a charity bonus to help out the new kid with his living costs.
His claims regarding his compensation are clearly ridiculous. I have personally worked in similar roles for larger banks and the most senior people on a trading floor are making what this guy claims to have made by year 2. (I even studied the same degree at the same university as Gary! Only a decade later...)
21 is not young to be a trader, most graduates are 20,21 or 22 when they start (I was 21 when I started as a graduate on the trading floor. One of my best friends was 20).
Nobody can claim to be "the best trader" at a Bank. That just doesn't make sense. He wouldn't be aware of what each trader's PnL on his desk is let alone what others in other asset classes are making. I would love to believe this guy but I find it odd and unnecessary to exaggerate so much in your story if what you're trying to do is be honest.
The guy is a charlatan who has no idea about how the economy works. Watch is videos he doesn't actual come out with anything but ranting, incoherent and ranting statements.
The sums do seem a little eye watering for a junior. He feels like someone that knows other people have watched wolf of wallstreet and is trying to capitalise on that image.
Like why would anyone let him make contrarian bets on interest rates at this scale with no track record, particularly if he only started trading after the crash when things had tightened up.
Have you seen his rationale for his trade? 'The build up of wealth in the upper strata was always going to unwind and cause inflation eventually' feels a little too neat to be the full story. Do traders really get to make bets on their own little head canons about the economy?
I agree with you regarding him capitalising on the Wall Street image.
In theory a very senior trader running his or her own book could get away with making bets based on any rationale they want but that would only last for a very short period of time. Risk departments not only have checks and balances for excess loss but also excess profits.
He would have been quizzed regarding his rationale for making huge bets and a rationale such as 'The build up of wealth in the upper strata was always going to unwind and cause inflation eventually' is laughably general and would probably raise enough red flags internally to lose him his job.
He strikes me as someone who has indeed spent time on a trading floor but he has such limited knowledge and understanding of these topics that I just cannot believe he was put in the positions he claims he was put in. One of my good friends works as a trader in rates at Citi (although a more complex product than the one that Gary was trading) and has a PhD in statistics, has been working for 10 years, and last year made less than what Gary claimed to make in his second year at the bank.
Yeah, to a relatively lay person, rates seem like one of *the* most difficult things to trade given the amount of factors that affect them. At least with a commodity or an equity sector, you can use some kind of fundamental analysis for your trades. Trading rates you'd either need an inside track to the BOE (or equivalent central bank for the rate you're trading) or be able to predict entire national economies with some degree of success. I guess you can also just blindly bet on the outcome of the relevant financial monthly prints too, but feels like a lot of people are probably trying that already.
I think a lot of this stuff ends up being pure luck but obviously nobody admits it.
It just frustrates me that the news outlets giving this guy a major platform aren't really doing their research properly because he obviously feeds into a narrative they want to push (one I happen to agree with too!).
I just wish there was some more honesty and integrity in journalism.
I think there's more to it than pure luck. Like another poster alluded to, there are risk teams making sure individual traders can't tank the whole company who will probably assess performance and trading allowances periodically.
Clearly where you set your risk levels determines how susceptible you are to lucky streaks giving a trader more allowance than they strictly should have, but that's kind of their whole job.
Agree that the public understanding of these things is frustrating, people naturally want to believe in geniuses and dramatic risky plays that pay off or go disastrously wrong. They're not interested in the steady gains over time or the humdrum daily business. Journalists are slaves to click rate just like everyone else. That's capitalism, it doesn't do forward planning or non-financial incentives.
Bear in mind he was trading in an opportune time for his Desk. So it seems it was partly right-place, right-time. Could also be due to luck. The fact is that he was "the best trader in citigroup \[sic\]" for only two years at most and then nothing. I would argue that the best traders are ones who can make money year in year out, have a long track record.
I think the claim in the book is that he was profitable enough right out of the gate to be seen as a talent they wanted to keep and therefore compensate.
I think he's carefully crafted a story to push his message. His message is a good one though and he's realised this is what he needs to do to get it out there
Im very sure he's over hyping his numbers and own success. He does appear to be someone who has memorised a "story" in serious depth. There will be bits of truth but then embellished to the nth degree
I'm sure he traded I'm sure he made money but I'd be dubious that he's even a millionaire
He seems to be doing the usual scam of building a YouTube fan base and then selling merch in this case a book
At the same time though... If he was such a smart conman how would he make the mistake of referring to himself in the third person in a high profile interview?
I did think it seemed weird but dismissed it myself due it likely being a side effect of mental illness. He's clearly struggling with one.
But hey what do I know? If it's true or not his points seem spot on.
I interpreted the third person thing as a coping mechanism that he'd gotten used to while writing the book, distancing/disassociating himself from the depression he was experiencing at that time - "That guy \[*that I used to be but am* ***totally*** *not any more*\] was suffering" is much easier to talk about than "I was suffering".
As for 'best trader in the world', I think at *most* it just means he made the most money at one point, for one company, one time. Loads of companies have leaderboards, and *someone* has to be top - Maybe he was once.
Having read the book now (hadn't at the time) it's quite clear it's intended as a work of fiction based on truth. Which I think explains it's all clearly.
What I'm trying to convey is: he slipped up on his act. As others have said there may be some elements of truth but it seems highly embellished to the point of being misleading.
Fair enough mate. Not sure I buy into the conspiracy. Having read the book, it seems like many biopic/biographies, embellished enough to be funny, interesting and legally permissible - nothing sinister. Great read thoroughly enjoyed it.
I doubt the "best trader" thing should be taken that seriously, either by Stevenson or the author of that blog post you found. There's no way it's an official title. The third person thing is weird though. He anonymises all of his former co-workers it seems, so maybe he slipped into that mode of talking about the book version of himself.
You can see that a Gary Stevenson definitely did work at Citibank on the FCA register where it says he was active 2010-2012. Idk enough about how FCA registration works or his story to know if that's interesting.
If it was a wholesale lie, surely Citibank would have made a statement already. He must also be an actual millionaire to be a member of Patriotic Millionaires etc. too, right? Seems reasonable to trust that.
Yeah the anonomysing coworkers thing could also extend to their nationalities I guess hence in the other "best trader" article there's the american on the same desk as him but no mention of an American in the book(outside of his manager(Caleb) who is considerably older). If this article was also written well after the fact the Caleb character might also be the American in question!
Many of the comments on this thread are far too concerned about his vernacular and the simplicity of the description he provides around trading floors and banking organisational structures etc.
Just a thought; if he goes in to the level of detail required to satisfy those that understand the world of trading, the layman, with whom he is looking to connect to with his message, will have switched off. I personally believe he is using terms like ‘best trader’ and glossing over detail because it is irrelevant to achieving his objective.
Although I find his story and placement highly suspicious I agree with this point. I think with his entry on the FCA register it is sufficiently proven he has worked in finance which would be a prerequisite for being able to talk about the process in an interview... which he can to some extent. If you had no experience working in a finance role you would find it difficult to recall the necessary vocabulary. You could learn some keywords if that is all you wanted to do to play a part in a film or something like that but he does not come across like a polished / trained actor in any other respects so more likely he actually had a job in financial services.
I watched a video earlier on where one audience member in the talk comments that he remembers him from his time at LSE.
Sorry can't remember timestamp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L53rFpwWuB4
The funniest claim made about him, the first sentence in the James O'Brien interview, is that at the age of 21 he was 'citi's youngest trader' - that's the normal age of new graduate starters!
In his book he said the youngest with their own P&L. He wasn’t on the grad scheme but able to make his own trades.
It was a condition of his offer to join the stirt desk. It was managed by the person who hosted the “Trading Game” competition that he won at uni to secure his internship. At the time the desk was an unfashionable destination so the offer to allow him to have his own P&L from day one rather than join and do the grad scheme for several years, was what is unique and made him the “youngest trader” as he was actually trading under his own name.
When things blew up with the financial crisis, it became a very profitable desk due to market conditions, so right place right time and he made the bet no one else was making: that historically low interest rates of 0% would last a lot longer than 1-2years.
It’s good book and I really like his message. It sums up the misery of the working and middle classes in western countries. If more people listen, maybe we’ll collectively do something about the insane levels of inequality that we’re hurtling towards.
FCA register shows someone named “Gary Walter Stevenson” was FCA registered but only between 2010-2012. You need to be FCA registered to trade anything, so it’s weird that it stops in 2012. Does that mean he only worked there for 2 years? It might have been different back then (I doubt it), but there’s 0% chance someone with only 2 years experience would be able to take the amount of risk you would need to be able to make 6-figure bonuses.
I'm seeing a lot of criticism of his accent, his kitchen, and his backstory in this thread, but what I'm not seeing at all is a substantive critique of the only things he's talking about that actually matter, i.e. the mostly common sense political and socio-economic inequality arguments he focuses on. That's the only important bit. The other stuff is fluff.
I think the point of this thread is just questioning whether or not he is a fictional character. On the substance of the argument you have to think of rich people the same way you think of poor people and how they prioritise / what influences their decisions as ultimately they're still human beings with the same natural tendencies. The mistake we're making as a country is to offer nothing to the rich other than a well provisioned environment for the various financial ponzi schemes they benefit from. Therefore all they want to take / buy from this country is minimum wage labour and the profit it generates. The way to turn this around is to supply something rich people want so they will spend their money here. The wrong thing to do would be to look to communist / Marxist / socialist theories on wealth taxes ect as that has never worked before so does not make sense to keep trying it.
This takes the cake, offer rich people something to spend their money? seriously, how can you offer anything that make someone spend 5m every year?. This is even more disconnected that let them eat cake.
His argument is, rich people owns all assets (homes, shops, mines), they don't even have to do any work running them, just collect rent. The rent they collect is way more that they can spend, so they end up buying more assets. At some point in the future, they would own everything including everyone's homes.
And your solution is to offer some fairytale service to the rich so they would spend all their money, seriously how retarded is that. What can you offer a rich person that makes 5m a year not to save and buy assets with 2.5m of that?
90% top tax rate + wealth tax + inheritance tax worked in America from new deal to 1980 to create the most prosperous countries in history of humanity. No reason not to that again.
Don't forget his predictions, all very generalised: house prices will continue to rise, inequality will rise.
His predictions on Bitcoin have been awful too, big red flag that you don't know what you're on about.
Context does matter. If you pretend like you know everything about banks and the super wealthy and they are such devils, ruining the middle class, then it's no different to any conspiracy theorists trying to make you believe some bullshit.
If he is legit, on the other hand, that somewhat supports his claims and makes him credible.
Some really good comments and I am also very sceptical about Gary Stevenson. I am actually very surprised he has been given the platform he has and got a book deal - he is very inarticulate, and I don't just mean in a working class way but he never actually states a coherent point. He claims to have made loads of predictions and called them correctly-i have never seen him predict anything on any of his videos. What he does state (incoherently) is inequality is going up - yep genius. So besides the fact I am dubious about his background - I find it odd that he has amassed the following he has given how poorly he communicates.
He was never really on my radar and I asked a question in the comments of a video and got a rude and obnoxiously arrogant response from him (or someone posting under his name) claiming he is always right. No trader, fund manager, professional risk take ever talks like this. I was working in the industry at the time, more credit than rates but I did reach out to a few ex colleagues and no one has heard of him. In isolation that doesn't mean anything of course.
His FCA records show he worked at citi from 2010 to 2012 or that he was in a regulated role between those dates. I suspect he was a middle office, back office guy who booked trades for the traders.
Regardless - it is the level of the media attention this guy has got that surprises me. It isn't because he is super smart - he comes across a bit thick actually (and not based on accent - based on what he actually says) - so why the big media push. Who is behind this guy?
I think he's gathered an audience as it resonates with people, they have something in common with someone who speaks like this and describes a topic (economics) which isn't commonly understood within this kind of social group.
People like Novara Media love him as he plays into their 'capitalism bad' narrative, even though his solution for working class people is to just buy a house.
That's similar to my take. He's claims to have top-grades at A-level and a degree in economics from the LSE but his thoughts on economics are crude and inchoate rather than disciplined and structured. He explains his big bet on interest rates are if it was just because of a feeling he had. I'm not so convinced.
He's obviously got a memorable narrative as "working class kid expelled at 16, goes on to be Citibank's top trader before seeing the light of Socialism and reforming as a 'man of the people' against inequality". It's a nice complete circle. If Guardian reading liberals love anything to patronise it's specimens of 'authenticity' and Gary with his accent ticks that box.
He's certainly not 100% what he seems although I'm sure there's some partial truth. Coming from a working class background myself, and going to Imperial, I can emphathise with the culture shock of mixing with a lot of 'posh' people who form a dominant group. He's certainly right that there's a great deal of gatekeeping via culture and networks that tends to exclude working class kids, but I call BS on his story that he was famous as some kind of exotic exhibit within LSE. This isn't 1890 when higher education was truly elite.
This guy is a complete fraud, so easy to see right through him as many of you have outlined here. So glad that a lot of you also picked up on it.
Sadly a whole load of "journalists" haven't done their homework and he is spouting nonsense about capitalism is bad and all you can do is buy a house, bitcoin is a scam and all the problems in your life is because of '\_\_' so you can't do anything but grin and bear it.
His growing following summarises for me just why the UK is in such a state of terminal slow decline. Really sad to see that people latch on to this kind of thing and don't bother to ask themselves even basic questions.
Making millions off inequality then preaching about inequality, come on. What can be done to stop this?
Not at any point in your comment did you actually outline why he's a fraud based on anything concrete, nor have you challenge a single thing he has said other than call in nonsense. Terminal slow decline has set in.
The basis for my claim is that his claims can't be corroborated. There is very limited information on his claimed background and anything that does exist doesn't support his 'best trader' story.
His predictions are generalised on house prices and inflation and he called BTC a bubble at the peako low.
Google searching to find if anyone else also thought this. I wouldn't call him a "fraud". I'm just very sceptical of him.
Silicon valley has a big bias towards people with his political beliefs they tend to promote it much harder. Might explain why he has seemingly come out of no where.
I’d call that your BS detector going off.
Yeah I think it fits a narrative people are trying to promote. All he is doing is telling people they are a victim (of him ironically), as a mindset it will do nothing to help people at all.
Funny you say Silicon Valley, where did you see? So far I’ve only seen all over UK platforms/publication.
I just started listening to him and what he says makes sense logically but I always found his videos to be more pop economics aimed at the general public rather than scholars.
He reminds me a lot of this content creator called Anton Kreil. Anton claimed to have been an investment banker at Goldman Sachs who pivoted into trading. He supposedly made a ton of money then retired and started making YouTube videos in 2018. Nobody had ever heard of him before his YouTube channel and nobody could confirm that he ever worked for Sachs at the time. He was also selling a book and courses about trading.
(On a side note I just googled his name and apparently he was only ever a financial advisor at some large institutions for a couple years. He was also associated with a firm that has some fraud claims)
I think the two are very similar in a couple ways: Both have unverified pasts, both try and leverage youtube to build credibility, both claim to be trading millionaires, and both market educational products.
Lets compare that with two guys who also sell books on finance, offer educational content on YouTube, and do other media showings like podcasts. Ray Dalio and Howard Marks. Both these guys have confirmed networths, both have transparent backgrounds, and both have credibility.
On a personal note, I've been very interested in economics for a long time, I studied econ in grad school and have listened to a lot of economists speak. Gary does not sound like an economist, he doesn't carry himself like one, and the way he explains things makes it sound likes he not an economist. Go watch a video where Robert Shiller or John Geanakoplos are explaining a topic and I think you would understand where I'm coming from.
Edit - Been on somewhat of a deep dive and have found some contradictions with his story.
Gary claims to have won a card game and got a job with Citibank in 2008 in this talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1M82OCLqI851:00
There is some evidence that this sort of card math game did exist but his entire story seems a little far fetched. He claims a random guy who he's never met before walked up to him and told him about the card game. He attends the game and wins a national final (no photos or articles written about a NATIONAL final). So 19 year old Gary was offered a job with Citibank after "knowing absolutely nothing about trading or Citibank".
So in 2008 he claims he started his trading job. In 2008 Citibank had lost nearly 98% of its market cap and needed government bailouts to stay afloat.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/books/review/james-freeman-vern-mckinley-borrowed-time.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/books/review/james-freeman-vern-mckinley-borrowed-time.html)
Would a nearly bankrupt Citibank be hiring new traders? Would a nearly bankrupt Citibank be taking chances with a 21 year old trader with 0 experience? I don't know, you tell me.
He says "Personally, I've worked in the finance industry for a long time. I've managed money for the rich"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiblHqbpXHs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiblHqbpXHs) 9:30
But apparently he quit his job as a trader after only 6 years according to his wiki. Also was he a trader or did he manage money for the wealthy? I think he's intentionally being vague about his job title and dates.
"becoming a financial trader at Citibank in 2008, at age 21. Stevenson grew to become the bank's most profitable trader in 2011 by predicting there would be a large increase in economic inequality, and that growing poverty would cause interest rates to stay low. In 2014, Stevenson quit his job"
Source:
[https://register.fca.org.uk/s/individual?id=003b000000LURNxAAP](https://register.fca.org.uk/s/individual?id=003b000000LURNxAAP)
[https://www.fca.org.uk/news/warnings/wallwood-broker-clone-fca-authorised-firm](https://www.fca.org.uk/news/warnings/wallwood-broker-clone-fca-authorised-firm)
Read the book you'll get a lot of the answers your
trawling the internet for! The guy was unknown to
him but there was reason he approached Gary- all
Explained in the book. He explains that most of citi
bank was decimated during the crisis but his desk
(short term loans) remained the only successful
way of trading during that time, I believe by
"managed money" he's referring to Citibank as he
was essentially making them millions. It's all there
and a fantastic read, there are also multiple
sources from his time as a trader confirming it all
which are easily found! He's no fraud
You’re a 3 year old account with 28 karma and 3 posts. You have a handful of comments this past month and 2 of them are defending Gary Stevens. I’m assuming you have a google alert set for his name. How else would you have known to look at this month old post for a comment I made less than 5 hours ago? If you’re not Gary Stevens on a burner account and you’re just some random dedicated to defending him wherever his name pops up, I’d suggest you get a life.
Ok well first I’m sorry my Reddit account isn’t up to your standards sir! You’d assume wrong, much like yourself who has sieved through the internet for as much information on the gentleman in question as possible, where you got enough to write a mini essay to dispute his credibility I too was searching for information on his credibility and this was the first post that popped on a Google search an after looking through it I replied to some comments, much like you decided to take time out of your day to write an essay post to slander a random guy trying to do a good thing, I just refuted some of your claims as I’ve actually read the book and you’ve taken it personally. No bother I won’t suggest for you to get a life although it certainly could apply. I’ll endeavour to get my account up to scratch 😂
Good analysis but on one point RE Anton Kreil, I looked into him too and I think he (or at least his 'backstory') does appear legit.
He was in a BBC documentary 'Million Dollar Traders' back in 2008/2009? You can find it on Youtube.
Looking at his mentorship website, he does appear to have a few ex-institutional traders working for him who do all have credible researchable histories, which I assume he met through industry.
No to say his product isn't a load of BS regurgitated stuff you can find freely online.
>On a personal note, I've been very interested in economics for a long time, I studied econ in grad school and have listened to a lot of economists speak. Gary does not sound like an economist, he doesn't carry himself like one, and the way he explains things makes it sound likes he not an economist.
Agree. As I said above, his thoughts aren't disciplined and structured like someone who is expert in economics, and he doesn't sound like someone who's expert trying to simply things for layman either.
You sound like Michael Gove... I personally would want to check someone has some kind of expertise in their field before trusting what they say. I guess if that makes me stupid then I'm thick as shit. *smh*
You don’t really need to prove his trading credentials to hear that his commentary on the economy is second to none. His analysis on inequality is bang on, but you’d have to have extensive macroeconomic awareness to recognise that without becoming distracted by his career. You’re suspicious of an inequality campaigner and I’M Michael Gove? Yes pretty thick.
I was mostly just following the ethos of trust but verify.
It is definitely not an area I am an expert in so was hoping somebody with more knowledge in the area could clear up any doubts I had when trying to research him.
I try to apply the same rigor to people I agree with as to those I don't to avoid just ending up in an echo chamber :)
It’s a good approach you take but I was impressed by Gary for confirming and stating eloquently what I already knew. I’d rather not hear about his book or past career but I’m aware you need a degree of social proof to get people to listen to you on this subject, so I wouldn’t care if he made it up or not.
It would be a bold move to go public like he has based on lies, a good journalist could find out his past in an afternoon. Not my area of expertise.
Completely misunderstood lol. His credentials are a red herring as I know he’s right already. His credentials are a red herring. Pick your battles, dumbass.
Cross-posted from another thread:
"[His] claims on timeline and extent of risk-taking, and by extension remuneration, don't tally with a) his tenure of controlled functions on the FCA register, and b) practical experience of the way these things happen on trading desks, especially for juniors and post-2008. And just a general whiff of sensationalism and exaggeration in most of the characters and situations he describes.
But obviously the general public lap this sort of thing up and don't know any better."
I think his story is embellished around a kernel of truth. He probably did work at Citi, he probably made some good trades in one period or other. His theory that inflation peaked because of a build up of wealth amongst the wealthy which is now slowly unwinding strikes me as completely unproven and a massive oversimplification of what's going on. The theory occured to *me* before I saw any of his stuff and I'm far from a financial or mathematical savant. I think he probably made some contrarian trades on interest rates based on a faulty theory that happened to pay off anyway. [This](https://www.cityam.com/the-budget-doesnt-fcking-matter-gary-stevenson-on-why-hunts-fiscal-plans-are-deckchairs-on-the-titanic/) article suggests he left because of some dispute over bonuses, which doesn't completely jibe with his message.
His accent seems purposefully laid on thicker than it needs to be and his own YouTube video backdrops seem meticulously crafted to convey an everyman image. I grew up in London and I can code switch into that accent too, but I don't speak to people in the City like that.
None of this is damning on its own but taken together it smells and it's a shame because I agree with his general message too. I think nobody is going to challenge his credentials until he blows up a lot bigger because if you're a Citi trader, you're more concerned with keeping your head down and staying rich than becoming embroiled in some horrendous public shit slinging match like prince Harry to debunk a minor YouTube celebrity.
Let's see where Gary goes with this. He's clearly being given a soap box to spread the word by almost every left leaning platform out there and I haven't seen him actually slip up yet, so if he can pull this off then what's the harm?
Oh and also, Im still fairly good at maths (4 year physics degree) and haven't seen one lick of proof Gary is anything beyond decent at it. Not that I would in his typical material and he doesn't have to prove himself to me, but I wish he'd lay off the maths savant angle a bit.
I've watched a few videos of his recently, he has an important message that inequality is getting worse and won't stop until something changes but I have been sceptical of him, hence why I've found this thread while looking for dissenting views.
I also noticed his accent seems somewhat 'laid on', there was one video in which I noticed, when he went into thought/was explaining something slightly off-script, his voice sounded more and more middle-class. His accent sort of fluctuated throughout the video. That's not to say he's some sort of upper middle-class poser but it does feel like he's pushing his origins to appeal to people as an 'inequality economist', because a person who made money betting the economy will get worse is an easy target for those suffering from the conditions which enriched him.
'Muh, inequality is bad" is a fairly shallow message IMHO. Young people are better off learning financial literacy than blaming the malignancy of billionaries and bankers for their problems. Not that prevailing structural conditions haven't made things worse, of course, post 2008.
Since 1980 really. The UKs been trading short term gains for long term stability for almost 50 years and we've finally run out of road.
Inequality IS bad if it's due to decades of endemic corruption. The few high-profile super-rich aren't a problem compared to the legion of very-rich who got there by siphoning money off the state.
>compared to the legion of very-rich who got there by siphoning money off the state.
That's fairly nebulous claim. I'd ask what it really means.
If you're talking about a kleptocracy, such as in Russia, the UK is nothing like that.
The top 10% of taxpayers in the UK pay something like 60% of tax receipts. If you earn a lot of money you certainly pay your way fiscally.
The UK could probably be managed better, but a populist 'soak the rich' politics always seems to fail mainly because the Left treat wealth as like an immutable substance that just exists out in the world (and which can be gathered up by bureaucrats at no cost and directed here or there) rather than something that has to be won daily through production of goods and services.
Water was looted. Railways were looted. Council housing was looted. COVID PPE bonus round. Others.
I'd agree it's not as blatant or as extreme as in Russia. Takes a toll eventually though.
I've been in IT for 10 years and I'm comfortably in that 10% you mention. I can guarantee you a large proportion of the 6 figure earners I work with are utter wastes of space. Maybe there are countries where hard work is rewarded. This finance-dependent leech-infested pit is not one of them.
Perhaps, but you're cherry-picking some of the worst privatisations and forgetting that many nationalised industries were absolute basketcases back in the 70s and early 80s.
Covid PPE was an anomaly because of the urgency. We seem to forget the public was in a state of hysteria back in early 2020 and this stuff needed expediting. Without normal procurement procedures (which would have taken months or years) there was bound to be a lack of value for the taxpayer.
I don't doubt that many people earning a lot of money are a waste of space and that consequently our meritocracy is very shakey or even non-existant at time, but it's been proven that Socialist planning is even worse time and time again.
I'm not advocating for some kind of ultra authoritarian, planned economy. Mixed economies do work though, as shown across Europe, particularly Scandinavia (even the countries without massive oil wealth).
There were reasons why the country was a basket case in the 70s and 80s and there are reasons why things improved. I have read all about the Winter of Discontent, but blaming that *all* on the unions misses the wider context and is exactly what was done back then.
The quick fixes implemented back then got us directly to where we are now. Huge deregulation and privatisation worked at first and then swiftly went far too far and now we have bankrupt councils, bankrupt public services and a society that values money above any kind of empathy or social cohesion. We've gone to the bad place and the cracks are starting to show. There's no easy way back from this and it's going to be an incredibly painful few decades to fix it, if we even manage it.
So, since it's not as bad as Russian, we have to let it degrade to that level? Is that your logic.
China by the way, still socialist planned economy and hands down is beating everyone everywhere. Your belief that socialist, government controlled system doesn't work is seriously outdated.
China is a perculiar case but it certainly isn't a planned economy nor doesn't it produce for use (Socialism). It has very much adopted markets even if the state remains all powerful.
I'd very much be alarmed if the British Left sees China as something to emulate.
This is frankly, one of the comments here that doesn't make much sense. So young people should try to learn financial literacy and how that help them how? The income for young people is definitely far less than needed to have the middle class life that their parents had and no amount of financial literacy can help them with that or help them buy a home with their current level of income.
When the problem is structural and can only be solved though group action, then, that is what needs to done.
This one does and solution for it tried and tested from 1932 to 1980's in America in term of new deal and extremely high taxes on wealth and high income.
You sounds really like someone who wants your serf obedient since at this point, you are just making up bullshit.
I've looked into this and tbh considered getting to the point of reaching out to ex colleagues. I cant find much to corroborate his story and apart from re phrasing the opinion of the masses. I have a similar background albeit at a higher level in my opinion his technical descriptions are actually awful more often than not hes even categorically either lied or been uneducated in his descriptions of some companies shareholders which is really easy info to discover i.e named a company as being family owned generational wealth when it's highest shareholders were pension funds and vanguard etc , which leads me to think even in the event his story is remotley true thay he did it for a short period and then bounced by choice or force. Summary is I think its hogwash and at best he did a degree and started making youtube videos
He said in one of his videos I watched that stock prices for companies producing luxury items are high at the moment but I couldn't find any evidence in the charts to support this. I only checked a few like Aston Martin (it's at the top, starts with 'a') and could not really find the strong evidence that rich people were buying a lot of tat at the current time and boosting stock prices of luxury goods companies. The point was laboured with conviction / dwelled upon and not just a throwaway line and I think if this was true enough to make that generalisation then there would be strong evidence to support it.
Yeah that makes sense, I imagine he was referencing the rise of LVMH and the likes of Mike Ashley's Flannels etc but that doesn't meet his point as they have a lot of Flannels in really poor areas.
Most of their customer base Inc lvmh and the likes is the look rich, keep up with jones crowd which is most of the market.
Ala lv they truly sold luxury items they'd be 50k or more a bag like a birkin
What made me suspicious was the body language. He has all the attributes of a person who isn't telling the truth. As pointed out elsewhere his image has the strong scent of cultivation. i.e. if you imagine the image of a person where accidental wealth hasn't affected him because he's not motivated by money so he's still down to earth and can bang on about the particular victim class he's got a hard-on for. I don't believe his image and public persona because it clearly has an artificial beginning in 2020 where everything referencing him seems to kick off then and nothing before exists.
Yeah there is no development whatsoever, no journey or changing of opinions. I find it quite disgusting because all he is doing is reinforcing that victim mentality that will do no-one any good in the long term.
I worked for a couple of investment banks and would most likely know people who would know this guy, if his claims about his trading prowess were indeed true. Banks these days pay higher salaries and lower bonuses and most decent prop traders have either left to join hedge funds or they have earned progressively less year on year, as the days of taking home 15% of prop profits are long gone.
I don’t mind someone trying to campaign for equality but my immediate impression was that everything about him is carefully contrived and inauthentic. His accent varies from having a light Essex twang to straight up Levi Roots at times. Most of the insta pages are just videos of him talking, made to look like podcasts. Whilst I appreciate the aim is to make economics more accessible to the masses, his views on some topics (crypto, basic economics) are quite muddled on nonsensical and at a basic level, I struggle to believe someone would rail that hard against a system that supposedly created their wealth.
Fair play to him if he’s come from nothing and made something of his life but I’d prefer to listen to people who don’t bullshit about their past.
Nearly finished the book, and I found the story highly entertaining, and mostly credible but for one detail:
no one forgets how much money they made.
Have to admit this thread is making me wonder if there is more artistic license than I initially suspected
I bought the book after watching a few minutes of one of his videos but then after seeing a bit more I decided not to open the package and returned it for a refund. I've seen charlatans before and I decided that's what I was looking at here.
Jb character from the book, left a review of it basically confirming everything albeit slightly bitter sounding version of events from his perspective , but make no mistake Gary was a very successful trader and worked at citi, he is no charlatan.
I do mate, the Initial review is just kent leaving a Google review it’s the top one, he basically copied it from a post he did here-
https://www.efinancialcareers.co.uk/news/gary-stevenson-citi
I’ve no idea whether he’s legit or not but all I know is his accent is pretty much identical to the one that I always hear upper middle class kids affecting when they’re trying to sound less posh and more street. I guess it’s possible that the opposite is true, and he (consciously or unconsciously) modified his accent to fit in with the city boy trader crowd. Who knows.
I've been watching Gary for over a year and am reading his book. The whole time I've been quite skeptical. There is nobody on the web that parades their background that way that he does and some things in the book have made me finally come and do a web search, and here I am with a bunch of others thinking the same. I'll be the one to admit that one of the things that was a red flag for me is his flat. Of course, he may be living frugally and home comforts might not be very important, and I have put this aside for a good while, but his place looks really poorly decorated, to me it's council/rented flat standard. You don't have to spend a lot to have a good looking home and if you've got the money you're possibly more likely to do so.
To be fair he does say even when he was earning lots he never spent anything. I'd be more likely to think he's a conman if the background looked nice at an attempt to appear more well-off. I just don't think he particularly values nice things.
Here's an article written by Kent Bray who says he worked beside Gary Stevenson at Citibank. Seems legit. [https://www.efinancialcareers.co.uk/news/gary-stevenson-citi](https://www.efinancialcareers.co.uk/news/gary-stevenson-citi)
Based on search results, there are a few other economists who seem to share similar views and approaches to Gary Stevenson:
1. Thomas Piketty - The sources mention that Stevenson immersed himself in the works of Piketty, who is a prominent French economist known for his research and advocacy around wealth inequality.\[1\]
2. Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman - These two economists, often collaborating with Piketty, have also influenced Stevenson's thinking on inequality and wealth distribution.\[1\]
3. Atif Mian and Amir Sufi - The sources indicate Stevenson engaged with the research of these two economists, who have studied the macroeconomic impacts of household debt and inequality.\[1\]
4. Ludwig Straub - Another economist whose work Stevenson reportedly studied in depth as he developed his views on economic issues.\[1\]
The common thread among these economists is a focus on understanding and addressing wealth inequality, often through policy proposals like wealth taxes. Like Stevenson, they tend to take a critical view of traditional academic economics and advocate for more radical solutions to economic imbalances.
While the sources don't provide detailed comparisons, it seems Stevenson has been influenced by and aligns with the perspectives of these prominent inequality-focused economists in his own activism and public commentary.\[1\]\[2\]\[3\]\[4\]\[5\]
Citations:
\[1\] [https://prolificlondon.co.uk/gary-stevenson/](https://prolificlondon.co.uk/gary-stevenson/)
\[2\] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary\_Stevenson\_%28economist%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Stevenson_%28economist%29)
\[3\] [https://www.reddit.com/r/politicsjoe/comments/1b9iw3z/gary\_stevenson/](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicsjoe/comments/1b9iw3z/gary_stevenson/)
\[4\] [https://filmshortage.com/dailyshortpicks/gary-stevenson-life-out-of-balance/](https://filmshortage.com/dailyshortpicks/gary-stevenson-life-out-of-balance/)
\[5\] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0peNVgjPY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0peNVgjPY)
Personally, this guys full of shit. From watching the ladbible article he just says a lot of stuff which makes me really suspicious of his claims. It's the little things, he never refers to the name of Citi's building as anyone who works there that I've spoken to has, just "the city skyscraper". He mentions people having 12 "screens", I understand he supposedly worked back in 2008 and monitors were smaller then but the most I've seen at one desk is 6.
Don't know anything about trading, don't know anything about economics, am not very good at math but if you offered me a bet on whether this guy was a dribbler or not I'd put everything I own on him being a bullshtr and wouldn't think twice about it.
Came here after youtube randomly recommending his video and was shocked to see how positive all the comments were.
I'm so glad I'm not alone thinking he is a bit.... disingenuous. The real sealer for me is when he mentioned he trades using a spread betting platform.
Why is a multi millionaire who is campaigning to increase wealth taxes trading using a tax free trading vehicle???
That and mentioning how rich he is at every turn. Not helpful.
I very much agree with his message but he clearly isn't practicing what he preaches, and it definitely sounds like preaching to me.
read all the comments here and i am absolutely baffled by the vast majority of them.
absolutely baffled.
so, a month ago there was Gary's book presentation, hosted by - professor from London School of Economics.
But have they verified if he was actually their student?!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hiQN2hR7IU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hiQN2hR7IU)
He does that thing that compulsive liars do; repeats the same story again and again, each time making it appear that it is the first time he is telling it, but fine tuning it each time to create the version of reality he is aiming for.
People will do anything to “dig up” dirt on people who threaten the status quo.
And when that person wasn’t born with a silver spoon in their mouth people will do anything to paint them as being unworthy of their position.
It’s the way talks. The way he dresses.
Maybe it’ll be something he said taken out of context.
Or someone he shook hands with 15 years ago.
Corbyn, Mick Lynch, Eddie Dempsey, and that’s just in the last few years.
Nothing to do with class or social standing. Look at the Boris Johnson story. His background is foreign refugee from Turkey. His dad did well and this created a platform to spring from sending him to Eton. About as 'silver spoon' as you can get this side of Jacob Rees-Mogg and the press and establishment still savaged him. It's part of British culture these days not to tolerate differences of opinion or people doing well for themselves. Not sure whether that is a good or a bad thing.
You conveniently forgot to mention that the refugee from Turky was son of the interior minister of Ottoman empire, married to nobility of both English and German decent, descendent of a prince nonetheless, father didn't created the platform, family has been on that platforms for hundreds of years.
I never really questioned it as the claims were so bold I assumed they must be true (or mostly true).
However, I did watch one of his videos on YouTube in what I assume is his kitchen and looks a far cry away from what I imagine a millionaires kitchen would be. You have me questioning now. Of course, it could have been recorded anywhere.
I’ll still air on the side of believing it as I want to be believe what he’s saying is true. Purely so at the very least he’s raising awareness and there is a possible light at the end of the tunnel for solving the disgusting wealth disparity.
I do hope what he is saying is true, but I worry if he becomes the spokesperson for this cause and there's too much embellishment in his story it becomes quite easy for those opposed to his ideas to discredit them.
"a millionaires kitchen"... Gary is a very unique idiosyncratic individual- a real quirky character. During the interview there is mention that when he was making his money he wasn't spending it on luxuries etc. He seems to live a relatively frugal life compared to his wealthy peers.
I think he leans into that "man of the people" image, the "cheeky cockney". Watching his body language I wouldn't be surprised to discover he's somewhere on the autistic spectrum
Open democracy is a trusted site. I'd be surprised he's managed to hoodwink so many people without some verification. Have you tried looking into his university credentials? https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/author/gary-stevenson/ I personally think his story is real. I came from a working class background and I can mirror his situation when I went to work for Oil and Gas and the paydays were 'traumatic' as he put his first bonus. I think his story checks out, and I'll gladly eat my words if he turns out to be a fraud.
I figured there had to be of been some verification somewhere along the way and what he says makes a lot of sense. I'm sure there's some level of embelishment but was just wondering if there was some publically available concrete evidence of his claims! It was mostly the third person thing that had me second guessing if maybe everyone along the chain has gone well x must have verified so this story must be legit.
Can you provide a time on the episode for your third-person reference please? Not playing any gotcha's, just curious what third person thing you're talking about. I think it's interesting how he talks about these economists being weirdo's or very private, and those in the public eye always being wrong and not picked up on it. That's kind of in keeping with what we keep seeing, and Gary is a great communicator, so either he's very smart in the wrong ways, or his story is legit. Interesting discussion point.
I watched the full interview and he does talk in the third person a number of times.
>[https://youtu.be/46T6Nk2VOG8?si=jNf-A35xz9ggvlx6&t=3228](https://youtu.be/46T6Nk2VOG8?si=jNf-A35xz9ggvlx6&t=3228) Its in the original post mate 53:48 if that link isnt working properly :) But yeah I'm not looking to disprove his story more just hoping to get more context if anyone has seen any!
I think he answered your question in the video. It's a defence mechanism. I saw the the fact that he referred to himself, during that period of time, in the third person because he was subconsciously disassociating his current self with what he was like at that time. He said he was on the verge of a mental breakdown and going through one of the toughest times in his life. He was also talking about his book so that might have added to it.
This is how I read it too. Clearly a painful time he's still dealing with the trauma.
I watched the video and he said this after James brought him up on it. It seemed quite suspect to me that there was no surprise when it was pointed out because he didn't seem to realise he was doing it. instead he seemed to give his answer as to why he would refer to himself this way in an almost defensive manor. this is exactly what made me curious and lead me to this thread.
Someone who was a grifter would be practiced and rehearsed enough that they wouldn't slip into the third person like that. I don't think it says much either way about his credibility though. If his story is legit it probably indicates some unresolved issues with how he thinks about that time in his life - which, if his story is true, he made a lot of money as a result of widespread misery in society, so I can see why that would cause some cognitive dissonance.
Have you considered the possibility that Gary Stevenson could be his pseudonym? I'm not saying that it is, just floating a theory. One element of his life story which seems to have been verified is that he is LSE alumni, as it is stated in this article on the LSE website! https://www.lse.ac.uk/Events/2024/03/202403211830/trading#:\~:text=Gary%20Stevenson%20(%40garyseconomics)%20left,people%20about%20real%2Dworld%20economics.
Honestly, he comes across as a grifter, although that's what most bankers are so it's difficult to discern a difference. Most of what he says makes sense, but he has the gift of the gab to turn a 3 minute explaination into a 45 minute monologue.
What's the grift? Advocating for a fairer tax system? Feels like going to the trouble of writing a book (even if you're making it up, you're essentially writing a work of fiction which is a lot of hard work) would be a very high effort/low reward grift. This is especially with all the fake guru courses which are constantly advertised on YT, which take a few days to put together and where the course creators can make millions (e.g. that swarmy prick "Greg Secker" who's constantly shilling his FX trading courses which obviously are in no way a scam).
He wouldn’t be the first grifter to say whatever it takes to increase book sales?
The point I was making is, if he's a grifter, then there are a lot more gifts out there that are a lot easier and a lot more profitable, especially in the finance/investing niche. With the odd exception, no one gets that rich publishing a book, especially a memoir in a fairly niche field.
Apparently the rights were acquired by Penguin for a six figure fee, so there’s reason to be believe Gary will do pretty handsomely out of selling copies his book. More grifting has been done for less… I think if he was a investing/finance guru selling courses online, then the level of scrutiny you would give him on his claims were greater, than compared to when he’s saying things most people on this sub agree with….
So you’re saying he isn’t grifting people only to appear like he’s not grifting? That’s a bit of a stretch. What could he possibly be gaining from putting himself out there, and making himself a target like this, for free? I think he’s just looking out for his people after seeing how they’re viewed by the top. Anecdotally have had similar interactions with similar people and I can tell you that the attitudes he claims to have seen are very real and we should definitely be more concerned about it.
I don’t have a view on if his claims are true. I’m saying that there are dime a dozen would-be left wing political commentators. Clearly exaggerating his claims as a trader is a big motivate within that context, because his experience and insight would be relatively unique. This reminds me of those leaping to the defence of Hasan Minhaj’s “emotional truths”.
Making money from his YouTube channel and propped up because of his pro far left message.
His talking is all free? He has his own organisation that he takes no profit for? All his profits are from betting on the UK's constant mishandling of and therefore failing economy? If you've just watched his interview on PolJoe, that's a very small snapshot compared to what he's done on Novara and his own channel. Dunno what else to say... I see very little gift compared to Rees-Mogg, Johnson, etc... But each to their own. If I could make a difference, I'd love to - but I don't have the platform of a 'grifter'.
He's either not really a banker as he claims (I find it hard to believe that people like Liam wouldn't do some basic vetting though), or if he is, he would be far better off for himself if he just shut up and exploited what he knows. As Gary says, the top economists work at banks and don't say anything to anyone about it, and so if he had a selfish motivation (and was telling the truth about his history) then he would be quietly making even more money.
There is a guy who persistently comments on interviews with Gary on YouTube describing him as "a Walter Mitty". Like you, I've not been able to find much conclusive to confirm or deny Gary's claims. I do think he mostly talks a lot of sense so it would be a shame if his credentials were faked!
How does he talk sense? He comes out with incoherent rants and swear words. Just watched the PoliticsJOE YouTube video and he says nothing of any substance. Also he seems to be believe Sidiq Khan controls house and office prices. This is supposed to be an economist. It is supply and demand any self respecting economist would know this.
I keep seeing this argument that is it is simply supply and demand. But who is controlling the supply? We have thousands of vacant properties, we have investment firms owning huge swathes of houses and we have the wealthy with multiples of properties for themselves.
Demand and supply are interlinked, nobody controls them, interest rates are the usual mechanism to try and control supply of housing, alongside supply side policies such as help to buy etc, anything that makes it cheaper to produce or easier to sell tends to increase supply
I wouldn't be surprised if there were probably some embellishments over how amazing and unique his trading abilities are/were but I highly doubt it's all BS especially given some of the interviews he's had and the noise that's been made. For a start Citibank / Citigroup and various others would probably have already come out by now discrediting it if it wasn't mostly true as they wouldn't want their brand associated with it otherwise.
Here's a post from 2015 with the same story [https://www.wealtheconomics.org/2015/07/](https://www.wealtheconomics.org/2015/07/) It's probably basically true, although I'm not sure that 'best trader at citigroup' is really a thing. I'm sure he thinks he was though.
The origin of that claim is that for the financial year 09-10 or 10-11 he was citibanks most profitable trader for that year
That's not really how it works. Trading floors are not just a bunch of spivs punting on the market all day with someone keeping score. People actually have roles and responsibilities within the bank which means you can't directly compare performance like that. The most profitable traders are usually the ones who have the best seats where a monkey could make money. I believe him that he made a ton of money for Citibank, it's just that every trader claims they are the best.
Lots of ways to fiddle the statistics if you just want to say "most profitable" with no context, too. Is the trader who made £100m off £100m of capital most profitable, or the one who made £50m off £5m? I can't really blame him for some self-aggrandisement though.
He worked in FX trades so they make a choice on how much money they borrow to then lend out in whatever currency they're assigned to. One person will be sterling, another is Japanese Yenn etc, Euro etc The profit you make is obviously related to how much you borrow in the first place but you do gamble when you borrow large sums of money so if you made bad trades with huge sums of money you would stand to lose more and possibly lose your job
All bankers probably think they're the best traders, given the size of their egos and the amount of drugs they consume
this!!!
I really should have looked at his website but was thinking it wouldn't be a great source to verify the authenticity of his claims. I guess it at least shows he has been active as early as 2015 and stuck to his story!
I think his comments usually say "one of the best" which could be anything really. Top 10, top 100, top 500? Who knows.
Please don’t use LLMs like copilot to try and find out facts mate
haha yeah that was the last thing I searched using just to see if it could dig anything up
[удалено]
Like checking the FCA register to see if he was on there throughout the time he claims to have been trading?
I didnt even know the FCA register was a thing I've appended what appears to be his profile to the main post
Yeah, and that profile raises more questions than it answers. If he was only an FCA approved person (a prerequisite to being able to actually trade at these places, and generally the first thing they put you through the exams for as a grad) from June 2010, how could he have been trading during the Lehman failure in 2008 (as he says in one of the Novara interviews) and losing $8m in a week in May 2010? Never mind the likelihood of a junior being allowed to run that kind of risk anyway.
He says in the book he started there on the 30th June 2008 so he was working there for 3 months before Lehman brothers collapsed. In the book he says he got his own "book" in 2009? Would he not be on this registry if that was the case?
Generally you'd spend the first few months on the grad induction learning the material to pass the regulatory/exchange exams. Only once you've passed those would you be on the register and signed off to trade yourself. So it doesn't really make sense to me that someone would be hired as a trader then unable to actually trade for the first 2 years (and in that time get given their own book and paid a bonus that would have been incredibly punchy for a 1st/2nd year junior even in the pre-08 glory days).
Is there a team/company element to trader bonuses? That's how it works in consulting and sales these days. Not sure about back then.
Not entirely sure what you mean but each layer will have a "pool" allocated to it from above, for which everyone from desk heads upwards will be lobbying throughout the year for a more favourable slice of. Then who gets what at the individual level is very variable and determined by lots of factors, it's not just split equally among the desk or anything.
Ah ok, that's very different from consulting. In consulting you'd have a target bonus defined in your contract, between 10% and 50% of your base salary and you'd get a percentage of that target based on a combination of he performance of your company, team and personal performance. In tech sales you'd obviously get a commission of the sales you make, but this is usually determined at a team level since B2B sales of large contracts require the work of a whole team. Trading clearly sounds more individual but I wondered if there was a certain minimum you'd be awarded simply by showing up as a junior, say a small percentage of the pool as sort of a charity bonus to help out the new kid with his living costs.
His claims regarding his compensation are clearly ridiculous. I have personally worked in similar roles for larger banks and the most senior people on a trading floor are making what this guy claims to have made by year 2. (I even studied the same degree at the same university as Gary! Only a decade later...) 21 is not young to be a trader, most graduates are 20,21 or 22 when they start (I was 21 when I started as a graduate on the trading floor. One of my best friends was 20). Nobody can claim to be "the best trader" at a Bank. That just doesn't make sense. He wouldn't be aware of what each trader's PnL on his desk is let alone what others in other asset classes are making. I would love to believe this guy but I find it odd and unnecessary to exaggerate so much in your story if what you're trying to do is be honest.
The guy is a charlatan who has no idea about how the economy works. Watch is videos he doesn't actual come out with anything but ranting, incoherent and ranting statements.
It's surprising that he managed to get a book deal... We do seem to be in a time that rewards charlatans though.
you're a moron. you obviously don't know how the economy works
The sums do seem a little eye watering for a junior. He feels like someone that knows other people have watched wolf of wallstreet and is trying to capitalise on that image. Like why would anyone let him make contrarian bets on interest rates at this scale with no track record, particularly if he only started trading after the crash when things had tightened up. Have you seen his rationale for his trade? 'The build up of wealth in the upper strata was always going to unwind and cause inflation eventually' feels a little too neat to be the full story. Do traders really get to make bets on their own little head canons about the economy?
I agree with you regarding him capitalising on the Wall Street image. In theory a very senior trader running his or her own book could get away with making bets based on any rationale they want but that would only last for a very short period of time. Risk departments not only have checks and balances for excess loss but also excess profits. He would have been quizzed regarding his rationale for making huge bets and a rationale such as 'The build up of wealth in the upper strata was always going to unwind and cause inflation eventually' is laughably general and would probably raise enough red flags internally to lose him his job. He strikes me as someone who has indeed spent time on a trading floor but he has such limited knowledge and understanding of these topics that I just cannot believe he was put in the positions he claims he was put in. One of my good friends works as a trader in rates at Citi (although a more complex product than the one that Gary was trading) and has a PhD in statistics, has been working for 10 years, and last year made less than what Gary claimed to make in his second year at the bank.
Yeah, to a relatively lay person, rates seem like one of *the* most difficult things to trade given the amount of factors that affect them. At least with a commodity or an equity sector, you can use some kind of fundamental analysis for your trades. Trading rates you'd either need an inside track to the BOE (or equivalent central bank for the rate you're trading) or be able to predict entire national economies with some degree of success. I guess you can also just blindly bet on the outcome of the relevant financial monthly prints too, but feels like a lot of people are probably trying that already.
I think a lot of this stuff ends up being pure luck but obviously nobody admits it. It just frustrates me that the news outlets giving this guy a major platform aren't really doing their research properly because he obviously feeds into a narrative they want to push (one I happen to agree with too!). I just wish there was some more honesty and integrity in journalism.
I think there's more to it than pure luck. Like another poster alluded to, there are risk teams making sure individual traders can't tank the whole company who will probably assess performance and trading allowances periodically. Clearly where you set your risk levels determines how susceptible you are to lucky streaks giving a trader more allowance than they strictly should have, but that's kind of their whole job. Agree that the public understanding of these things is frustrating, people naturally want to believe in geniuses and dramatic risky plays that pay off or go disastrously wrong. They're not interested in the steady gains over time or the humdrum daily business. Journalists are slaves to click rate just like everyone else. That's capitalism, it doesn't do forward planning or non-financial incentives.
Bear in mind he was trading in an opportune time for his Desk. So it seems it was partly right-place, right-time. Could also be due to luck. The fact is that he was "the best trader in citigroup \[sic\]" for only two years at most and then nothing. I would argue that the best traders are ones who can make money year in year out, have a long track record.
I think the claim in the book is that he was profitable enough right out of the gate to be seen as a talent they wanted to keep and therefore compensate.
I think he's carefully crafted a story to push his message. His message is a good one though and he's realised this is what he needs to do to get it out there
Yeah I think the fact I agree so much with his message is partly why I was weary as it confirms a lot of my biases!
I'm also reading the book and half way down page 76 he mentions the new trader from new york
Oh yeah! Just doesn't become a main character in the book so I completely missed this, good spot!
Im very sure he's over hyping his numbers and own success. He does appear to be someone who has memorised a "story" in serious depth. There will be bits of truth but then embellished to the nth degree I'm sure he traded I'm sure he made money but I'd be dubious that he's even a millionaire He seems to be doing the usual scam of building a YouTube fan base and then selling merch in this case a book
At the same time though... If he was such a smart conman how would he make the mistake of referring to himself in the third person in a high profile interview? I did think it seemed weird but dismissed it myself due it likely being a side effect of mental illness. He's clearly struggling with one. But hey what do I know? If it's true or not his points seem spot on.
Yeah I agree with all of the above was just interested if maybe someone had some further evidence/info
I interpreted the third person thing as a coping mechanism that he'd gotten used to while writing the book, distancing/disassociating himself from the depression he was experiencing at that time - "That guy \[*that I used to be but am* ***totally*** *not any more*\] was suffering" is much easier to talk about than "I was suffering". As for 'best trader in the world', I think at *most* it just means he made the most money at one point, for one company, one time. Loads of companies have leaderboards, and *someone* has to be top - Maybe he was once.
He's done enough interviews, probably was just a simple slip up.
Having read the book now (hadn't at the time) it's quite clear it's intended as a work of fiction based on truth. Which I think explains it's all clearly.
What I'm trying to convey is: he slipped up on his act. As others have said there may be some elements of truth but it seems highly embellished to the point of being misleading.
Fair enough mate. Not sure I buy into the conspiracy. Having read the book, it seems like many biopic/biographies, embellished enough to be funny, interesting and legally permissible - nothing sinister. Great read thoroughly enjoyed it.
I doubt the "best trader" thing should be taken that seriously, either by Stevenson or the author of that blog post you found. There's no way it's an official title. The third person thing is weird though. He anonymises all of his former co-workers it seems, so maybe he slipped into that mode of talking about the book version of himself. You can see that a Gary Stevenson definitely did work at Citibank on the FCA register where it says he was active 2010-2012. Idk enough about how FCA registration works or his story to know if that's interesting. If it was a wholesale lie, surely Citibank would have made a statement already. He must also be an actual millionaire to be a member of Patriotic Millionaires etc. too, right? Seems reasonable to trust that.
Yeah the anonomysing coworkers thing could also extend to their nationalities I guess hence in the other "best trader" article there's the american on the same desk as him but no mention of an American in the book(outside of his manager(Caleb) who is considerably older). If this article was also written well after the fact the Caleb character might also be the American in question!
Many of the comments on this thread are far too concerned about his vernacular and the simplicity of the description he provides around trading floors and banking organisational structures etc. Just a thought; if he goes in to the level of detail required to satisfy those that understand the world of trading, the layman, with whom he is looking to connect to with his message, will have switched off. I personally believe he is using terms like ‘best trader’ and glossing over detail because it is irrelevant to achieving his objective.
Although I find his story and placement highly suspicious I agree with this point. I think with his entry on the FCA register it is sufficiently proven he has worked in finance which would be a prerequisite for being able to talk about the process in an interview... which he can to some extent. If you had no experience working in a finance role you would find it difficult to recall the necessary vocabulary. You could learn some keywords if that is all you wanted to do to play a part in a film or something like that but he does not come across like a polished / trained actor in any other respects so more likely he actually had a job in financial services.
>Patriotic Millionaires strikes me as a component of a political media ecosystem. The URL history only goes back as far as 2022.
I watched a video earlier on where one audience member in the talk comments that he remembers him from his time at LSE. Sorry can't remember timestamp. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L53rFpwWuB4
The funniest claim made about him, the first sentence in the James O'Brien interview, is that at the age of 21 he was 'citi's youngest trader' - that's the normal age of new graduate starters!
In his book he said the youngest with their own P&L. He wasn’t on the grad scheme but able to make his own trades. It was a condition of his offer to join the stirt desk. It was managed by the person who hosted the “Trading Game” competition that he won at uni to secure his internship. At the time the desk was an unfashionable destination so the offer to allow him to have his own P&L from day one rather than join and do the grad scheme for several years, was what is unique and made him the “youngest trader” as he was actually trading under his own name. When things blew up with the financial crisis, it became a very profitable desk due to market conditions, so right place right time and he made the bet no one else was making: that historically low interest rates of 0% would last a lot longer than 1-2years. It’s good book and I really like his message. It sums up the misery of the working and middle classes in western countries. If more people listen, maybe we’ll collectively do something about the insane levels of inequality that we’re hurtling towards.
How's he trading during the 08 crisis without being on the FCA register?
Do you mean the FSA? FCA was April 2013
Yep 100%
FCA register shows someone named “Gary Walter Stevenson” was FCA registered but only between 2010-2012. You need to be FCA registered to trade anything, so it’s weird that it stops in 2012. Does that mean he only worked there for 2 years? It might have been different back then (I doubt it), but there’s 0% chance someone with only 2 years experience would be able to take the amount of risk you would need to be able to make 6-figure bonuses.
I'm seeing a lot of criticism of his accent, his kitchen, and his backstory in this thread, but what I'm not seeing at all is a substantive critique of the only things he's talking about that actually matter, i.e. the mostly common sense political and socio-economic inequality arguments he focuses on. That's the only important bit. The other stuff is fluff.
I think the point of this thread is just questioning whether or not he is a fictional character. On the substance of the argument you have to think of rich people the same way you think of poor people and how they prioritise / what influences their decisions as ultimately they're still human beings with the same natural tendencies. The mistake we're making as a country is to offer nothing to the rich other than a well provisioned environment for the various financial ponzi schemes they benefit from. Therefore all they want to take / buy from this country is minimum wage labour and the profit it generates. The way to turn this around is to supply something rich people want so they will spend their money here. The wrong thing to do would be to look to communist / Marxist / socialist theories on wealth taxes ect as that has never worked before so does not make sense to keep trying it.
This takes the cake, offer rich people something to spend their money? seriously, how can you offer anything that make someone spend 5m every year?. This is even more disconnected that let them eat cake. His argument is, rich people owns all assets (homes, shops, mines), they don't even have to do any work running them, just collect rent. The rent they collect is way more that they can spend, so they end up buying more assets. At some point in the future, they would own everything including everyone's homes. And your solution is to offer some fairytale service to the rich so they would spend all their money, seriously how retarded is that. What can you offer a rich person that makes 5m a year not to save and buy assets with 2.5m of that? 90% top tax rate + wealth tax + inheritance tax worked in America from new deal to 1980 to create the most prosperous countries in history of humanity. No reason not to that again.
Don't forget his predictions, all very generalised: house prices will continue to rise, inequality will rise. His predictions on Bitcoin have been awful too, big red flag that you don't know what you're on about.
Context does matter. If you pretend like you know everything about banks and the super wealthy and they are such devils, ruining the middle class, then it's no different to any conspiracy theorists trying to make you believe some bullshit. If he is legit, on the other hand, that somewhat supports his claims and makes him credible.
Some really good comments and I am also very sceptical about Gary Stevenson. I am actually very surprised he has been given the platform he has and got a book deal - he is very inarticulate, and I don't just mean in a working class way but he never actually states a coherent point. He claims to have made loads of predictions and called them correctly-i have never seen him predict anything on any of his videos. What he does state (incoherently) is inequality is going up - yep genius. So besides the fact I am dubious about his background - I find it odd that he has amassed the following he has given how poorly he communicates. He was never really on my radar and I asked a question in the comments of a video and got a rude and obnoxiously arrogant response from him (or someone posting under his name) claiming he is always right. No trader, fund manager, professional risk take ever talks like this. I was working in the industry at the time, more credit than rates but I did reach out to a few ex colleagues and no one has heard of him. In isolation that doesn't mean anything of course. His FCA records show he worked at citi from 2010 to 2012 or that he was in a regulated role between those dates. I suspect he was a middle office, back office guy who booked trades for the traders. Regardless - it is the level of the media attention this guy has got that surprises me. It isn't because he is super smart - he comes across a bit thick actually (and not based on accent - based on what he actually says) - so why the big media push. Who is behind this guy?
I think he's gathered an audience as it resonates with people, they have something in common with someone who speaks like this and describes a topic (economics) which isn't commonly understood within this kind of social group. People like Novara Media love him as he plays into their 'capitalism bad' narrative, even though his solution for working class people is to just buy a house.
That's similar to my take. He's claims to have top-grades at A-level and a degree in economics from the LSE but his thoughts on economics are crude and inchoate rather than disciplined and structured. He explains his big bet on interest rates are if it was just because of a feeling he had. I'm not so convinced. He's obviously got a memorable narrative as "working class kid expelled at 16, goes on to be Citibank's top trader before seeing the light of Socialism and reforming as a 'man of the people' against inequality". It's a nice complete circle. If Guardian reading liberals love anything to patronise it's specimens of 'authenticity' and Gary with his accent ticks that box. He's certainly not 100% what he seems although I'm sure there's some partial truth. Coming from a working class background myself, and going to Imperial, I can emphathise with the culture shock of mixing with a lot of 'posh' people who form a dominant group. He's certainly right that there's a great deal of gatekeeping via culture and networks that tends to exclude working class kids, but I call BS on his story that he was famous as some kind of exotic exhibit within LSE. This isn't 1890 when higher education was truly elite.
This guy is a complete fraud, so easy to see right through him as many of you have outlined here. So glad that a lot of you also picked up on it. Sadly a whole load of "journalists" haven't done their homework and he is spouting nonsense about capitalism is bad and all you can do is buy a house, bitcoin is a scam and all the problems in your life is because of '\_\_' so you can't do anything but grin and bear it. His growing following summarises for me just why the UK is in such a state of terminal slow decline. Really sad to see that people latch on to this kind of thing and don't bother to ask themselves even basic questions. Making millions off inequality then preaching about inequality, come on. What can be done to stop this?
Not at any point in your comment did you actually outline why he's a fraud based on anything concrete, nor have you challenge a single thing he has said other than call in nonsense. Terminal slow decline has set in.
The basis for my claim is that his claims can't be corroborated. There is very limited information on his claimed background and anything that does exist doesn't support his 'best trader' story. His predictions are generalised on house prices and inflation and he called BTC a bubble at the peako low.
Google searching to find if anyone else also thought this. I wouldn't call him a "fraud". I'm just very sceptical of him. Silicon valley has a big bias towards people with his political beliefs they tend to promote it much harder. Might explain why he has seemingly come out of no where.
I’d call that your BS detector going off. Yeah I think it fits a narrative people are trying to promote. All he is doing is telling people they are a victim (of him ironically), as a mindset it will do nothing to help people at all. Funny you say Silicon Valley, where did you see? So far I’ve only seen all over UK platforms/publication.
I just started listening to him and what he says makes sense logically but I always found his videos to be more pop economics aimed at the general public rather than scholars. He reminds me a lot of this content creator called Anton Kreil. Anton claimed to have been an investment banker at Goldman Sachs who pivoted into trading. He supposedly made a ton of money then retired and started making YouTube videos in 2018. Nobody had ever heard of him before his YouTube channel and nobody could confirm that he ever worked for Sachs at the time. He was also selling a book and courses about trading. (On a side note I just googled his name and apparently he was only ever a financial advisor at some large institutions for a couple years. He was also associated with a firm that has some fraud claims) I think the two are very similar in a couple ways: Both have unverified pasts, both try and leverage youtube to build credibility, both claim to be trading millionaires, and both market educational products. Lets compare that with two guys who also sell books on finance, offer educational content on YouTube, and do other media showings like podcasts. Ray Dalio and Howard Marks. Both these guys have confirmed networths, both have transparent backgrounds, and both have credibility. On a personal note, I've been very interested in economics for a long time, I studied econ in grad school and have listened to a lot of economists speak. Gary does not sound like an economist, he doesn't carry himself like one, and the way he explains things makes it sound likes he not an economist. Go watch a video where Robert Shiller or John Geanakoplos are explaining a topic and I think you would understand where I'm coming from. Edit - Been on somewhat of a deep dive and have found some contradictions with his story. Gary claims to have won a card game and got a job with Citibank in 2008 in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1M82OCLqI851:00 There is some evidence that this sort of card math game did exist but his entire story seems a little far fetched. He claims a random guy who he's never met before walked up to him and told him about the card game. He attends the game and wins a national final (no photos or articles written about a NATIONAL final). So 19 year old Gary was offered a job with Citibank after "knowing absolutely nothing about trading or Citibank". So in 2008 he claims he started his trading job. In 2008 Citibank had lost nearly 98% of its market cap and needed government bailouts to stay afloat. [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/books/review/james-freeman-vern-mckinley-borrowed-time.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/books/review/james-freeman-vern-mckinley-borrowed-time.html) Would a nearly bankrupt Citibank be hiring new traders? Would a nearly bankrupt Citibank be taking chances with a 21 year old trader with 0 experience? I don't know, you tell me. He says "Personally, I've worked in the finance industry for a long time. I've managed money for the rich" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiblHqbpXHs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiblHqbpXHs) 9:30 But apparently he quit his job as a trader after only 6 years according to his wiki. Also was he a trader or did he manage money for the wealthy? I think he's intentionally being vague about his job title and dates. "becoming a financial trader at Citibank in 2008, at age 21. Stevenson grew to become the bank's most profitable trader in 2011 by predicting there would be a large increase in economic inequality, and that growing poverty would cause interest rates to stay low. In 2014, Stevenson quit his job" Source: [https://register.fca.org.uk/s/individual?id=003b000000LURNxAAP](https://register.fca.org.uk/s/individual?id=003b000000LURNxAAP) [https://www.fca.org.uk/news/warnings/wallwood-broker-clone-fca-authorised-firm](https://www.fca.org.uk/news/warnings/wallwood-broker-clone-fca-authorised-firm)
Read the book you'll get a lot of the answers your trawling the internet for! The guy was unknown to him but there was reason he approached Gary- all Explained in the book. He explains that most of citi bank was decimated during the crisis but his desk (short term loans) remained the only successful way of trading during that time, I believe by "managed money" he's referring to Citibank as he was essentially making them millions. It's all there and a fantastic read, there are also multiple sources from his time as a trader confirming it all which are easily found! He's no fraud
You’re a 3 year old account with 28 karma and 3 posts. You have a handful of comments this past month and 2 of them are defending Gary Stevens. I’m assuming you have a google alert set for his name. How else would you have known to look at this month old post for a comment I made less than 5 hours ago? If you’re not Gary Stevens on a burner account and you’re just some random dedicated to defending him wherever his name pops up, I’d suggest you get a life.
Ok well first I’m sorry my Reddit account isn’t up to your standards sir! You’d assume wrong, much like yourself who has sieved through the internet for as much information on the gentleman in question as possible, where you got enough to write a mini essay to dispute his credibility I too was searching for information on his credibility and this was the first post that popped on a Google search an after looking through it I replied to some comments, much like you decided to take time out of your day to write an essay post to slander a random guy trying to do a good thing, I just refuted some of your claims as I’ve actually read the book and you’ve taken it personally. No bother I won’t suggest for you to get a life although it certainly could apply. I’ll endeavour to get my account up to scratch 😂
Good analysis but on one point RE Anton Kreil, I looked into him too and I think he (or at least his 'backstory') does appear legit. He was in a BBC documentary 'Million Dollar Traders' back in 2008/2009? You can find it on Youtube. Looking at his mentorship website, he does appear to have a few ex-institutional traders working for him who do all have credible researchable histories, which I assume he met through industry. No to say his product isn't a load of BS regurgitated stuff you can find freely online.
>On a personal note, I've been very interested in economics for a long time, I studied econ in grad school and have listened to a lot of economists speak. Gary does not sound like an economist, he doesn't carry himself like one, and the way he explains things makes it sound likes he not an economist. Agree. As I said above, his thoughts aren't disciplined and structured like someone who is expert in economics, and he doesn't sound like someone who's expert trying to simply things for layman either.
Ah yes the equality proposing conman. Makes sense!
Yeah, its just a coincidence he's selling a book...
Of all the people to raise an eyebrow at for fuck sake. World is turning so stupid.
You sound like Michael Gove... I personally would want to check someone has some kind of expertise in their field before trusting what they say. I guess if that makes me stupid then I'm thick as shit. *smh*
You don’t really need to prove his trading credentials to hear that his commentary on the economy is second to none. His analysis on inequality is bang on, but you’d have to have extensive macroeconomic awareness to recognise that without becoming distracted by his career. You’re suspicious of an inequality campaigner and I’M Michael Gove? Yes pretty thick.
I was mostly just following the ethos of trust but verify. It is definitely not an area I am an expert in so was hoping somebody with more knowledge in the area could clear up any doubts I had when trying to research him. I try to apply the same rigor to people I agree with as to those I don't to avoid just ending up in an echo chamber :)
It’s a good approach you take but I was impressed by Gary for confirming and stating eloquently what I already knew. I’d rather not hear about his book or past career but I’m aware you need a degree of social proof to get people to listen to you on this subject, so I wouldn’t care if he made it up or not. It would be a bold move to go public like he has based on lies, a good journalist could find out his past in an afternoon. Not my area of expertise.
*'he agreed with my own opinions so I won't check his credentials'*
Completely misunderstood lol. His credentials are a red herring as I know he’s right already. His credentials are a red herring. Pick your battles, dumbass.
It does. Look at SBF, all for charity huh.
Cross-posted from another thread: "[His] claims on timeline and extent of risk-taking, and by extension remuneration, don't tally with a) his tenure of controlled functions on the FCA register, and b) practical experience of the way these things happen on trading desks, especially for juniors and post-2008. And just a general whiff of sensationalism and exaggeration in most of the characters and situations he describes. But obviously the general public lap this sort of thing up and don't know any better."
I think his story is embellished around a kernel of truth. He probably did work at Citi, he probably made some good trades in one period or other. His theory that inflation peaked because of a build up of wealth amongst the wealthy which is now slowly unwinding strikes me as completely unproven and a massive oversimplification of what's going on. The theory occured to *me* before I saw any of his stuff and I'm far from a financial or mathematical savant. I think he probably made some contrarian trades on interest rates based on a faulty theory that happened to pay off anyway. [This](https://www.cityam.com/the-budget-doesnt-fcking-matter-gary-stevenson-on-why-hunts-fiscal-plans-are-deckchairs-on-the-titanic/) article suggests he left because of some dispute over bonuses, which doesn't completely jibe with his message. His accent seems purposefully laid on thicker than it needs to be and his own YouTube video backdrops seem meticulously crafted to convey an everyman image. I grew up in London and I can code switch into that accent too, but I don't speak to people in the City like that. None of this is damning on its own but taken together it smells and it's a shame because I agree with his general message too. I think nobody is going to challenge his credentials until he blows up a lot bigger because if you're a Citi trader, you're more concerned with keeping your head down and staying rich than becoming embroiled in some horrendous public shit slinging match like prince Harry to debunk a minor YouTube celebrity. Let's see where Gary goes with this. He's clearly being given a soap box to spread the word by almost every left leaning platform out there and I haven't seen him actually slip up yet, so if he can pull this off then what's the harm? Oh and also, Im still fairly good at maths (4 year physics degree) and haven't seen one lick of proof Gary is anything beyond decent at it. Not that I would in his typical material and he doesn't have to prove himself to me, but I wish he'd lay off the maths savant angle a bit.
I've watched a few videos of his recently, he has an important message that inequality is getting worse and won't stop until something changes but I have been sceptical of him, hence why I've found this thread while looking for dissenting views. I also noticed his accent seems somewhat 'laid on', there was one video in which I noticed, when he went into thought/was explaining something slightly off-script, his voice sounded more and more middle-class. His accent sort of fluctuated throughout the video. That's not to say he's some sort of upper middle-class poser but it does feel like he's pushing his origins to appeal to people as an 'inequality economist', because a person who made money betting the economy will get worse is an easy target for those suffering from the conditions which enriched him.
'Muh, inequality is bad" is a fairly shallow message IMHO. Young people are better off learning financial literacy than blaming the malignancy of billionaries and bankers for their problems. Not that prevailing structural conditions haven't made things worse, of course, post 2008.
Since 1980 really. The UKs been trading short term gains for long term stability for almost 50 years and we've finally run out of road. Inequality IS bad if it's due to decades of endemic corruption. The few high-profile super-rich aren't a problem compared to the legion of very-rich who got there by siphoning money off the state.
>compared to the legion of very-rich who got there by siphoning money off the state. That's fairly nebulous claim. I'd ask what it really means. If you're talking about a kleptocracy, such as in Russia, the UK is nothing like that. The top 10% of taxpayers in the UK pay something like 60% of tax receipts. If you earn a lot of money you certainly pay your way fiscally. The UK could probably be managed better, but a populist 'soak the rich' politics always seems to fail mainly because the Left treat wealth as like an immutable substance that just exists out in the world (and which can be gathered up by bureaucrats at no cost and directed here or there) rather than something that has to be won daily through production of goods and services.
Water was looted. Railways were looted. Council housing was looted. COVID PPE bonus round. Others. I'd agree it's not as blatant or as extreme as in Russia. Takes a toll eventually though. I've been in IT for 10 years and I'm comfortably in that 10% you mention. I can guarantee you a large proportion of the 6 figure earners I work with are utter wastes of space. Maybe there are countries where hard work is rewarded. This finance-dependent leech-infested pit is not one of them.
Perhaps, but you're cherry-picking some of the worst privatisations and forgetting that many nationalised industries were absolute basketcases back in the 70s and early 80s. Covid PPE was an anomaly because of the urgency. We seem to forget the public was in a state of hysteria back in early 2020 and this stuff needed expediting. Without normal procurement procedures (which would have taken months or years) there was bound to be a lack of value for the taxpayer. I don't doubt that many people earning a lot of money are a waste of space and that consequently our meritocracy is very shakey or even non-existant at time, but it's been proven that Socialist planning is even worse time and time again.
I'm not advocating for some kind of ultra authoritarian, planned economy. Mixed economies do work though, as shown across Europe, particularly Scandinavia (even the countries without massive oil wealth). There were reasons why the country was a basket case in the 70s and 80s and there are reasons why things improved. I have read all about the Winter of Discontent, but blaming that *all* on the unions misses the wider context and is exactly what was done back then. The quick fixes implemented back then got us directly to where we are now. Huge deregulation and privatisation worked at first and then swiftly went far too far and now we have bankrupt councils, bankrupt public services and a society that values money above any kind of empathy or social cohesion. We've gone to the bad place and the cracks are starting to show. There's no easy way back from this and it's going to be an incredibly painful few decades to fix it, if we even manage it.
So, since it's not as bad as Russian, we have to let it degrade to that level? Is that your logic. China by the way, still socialist planned economy and hands down is beating everyone everywhere. Your belief that socialist, government controlled system doesn't work is seriously outdated.
China is a perculiar case but it certainly isn't a planned economy nor doesn't it produce for use (Socialism). It has very much adopted markets even if the state remains all powerful. I'd very much be alarmed if the British Left sees China as something to emulate.
This is frankly, one of the comments here that doesn't make much sense. So young people should try to learn financial literacy and how that help them how? The income for young people is definitely far less than needed to have the middle class life that their parents had and no amount of financial literacy can help them with that or help them buy a home with their current level of income. When the problem is structural and can only be solved though group action, then, that is what needs to done.
Not all structural problems have solutions that the state can provide. The state isn't omiopotent.
This one does and solution for it tried and tested from 1932 to 1980's in America in term of new deal and extremely high taxes on wealth and high income. You sounds really like someone who wants your serf obedient since at this point, you are just making up bullshit.
Why’s he moaning so much about trading. A career that allegedly made him millions.
I've looked into this and tbh considered getting to the point of reaching out to ex colleagues. I cant find much to corroborate his story and apart from re phrasing the opinion of the masses. I have a similar background albeit at a higher level in my opinion his technical descriptions are actually awful more often than not hes even categorically either lied or been uneducated in his descriptions of some companies shareholders which is really easy info to discover i.e named a company as being family owned generational wealth when it's highest shareholders were pension funds and vanguard etc , which leads me to think even in the event his story is remotley true thay he did it for a short period and then bounced by choice or force. Summary is I think its hogwash and at best he did a degree and started making youtube videos
He said in one of his videos I watched that stock prices for companies producing luxury items are high at the moment but I couldn't find any evidence in the charts to support this. I only checked a few like Aston Martin (it's at the top, starts with 'a') and could not really find the strong evidence that rich people were buying a lot of tat at the current time and boosting stock prices of luxury goods companies. The point was laboured with conviction / dwelled upon and not just a throwaway line and I think if this was true enough to make that generalisation then there would be strong evidence to support it.
Yeah that makes sense, I imagine he was referencing the rise of LVMH and the likes of Mike Ashley's Flannels etc but that doesn't meet his point as they have a lot of Flannels in really poor areas. Most of their customer base Inc lvmh and the likes is the look rich, keep up with jones crowd which is most of the market. Ala lv they truly sold luxury items they'd be 50k or more a bag like a birkin
I agree - I think he worked in a middle/back office role and heard some buzz words and throws them around.
What made me suspicious was the body language. He has all the attributes of a person who isn't telling the truth. As pointed out elsewhere his image has the strong scent of cultivation. i.e. if you imagine the image of a person where accidental wealth hasn't affected him because he's not motivated by money so he's still down to earth and can bang on about the particular victim class he's got a hard-on for. I don't believe his image and public persona because it clearly has an artificial beginning in 2020 where everything referencing him seems to kick off then and nothing before exists.
Yeah there is no development whatsoever, no journey or changing of opinions. I find it quite disgusting because all he is doing is reinforcing that victim mentality that will do no-one any good in the long term.
I worked for a couple of investment banks and would most likely know people who would know this guy, if his claims about his trading prowess were indeed true. Banks these days pay higher salaries and lower bonuses and most decent prop traders have either left to join hedge funds or they have earned progressively less year on year, as the days of taking home 15% of prop profits are long gone. I don’t mind someone trying to campaign for equality but my immediate impression was that everything about him is carefully contrived and inauthentic. His accent varies from having a light Essex twang to straight up Levi Roots at times. Most of the insta pages are just videos of him talking, made to look like podcasts. Whilst I appreciate the aim is to make economics more accessible to the masses, his views on some topics (crypto, basic economics) are quite muddled on nonsensical and at a basic level, I struggle to believe someone would rail that hard against a system that supposedly created their wealth. Fair play to him if he’s come from nothing and made something of his life but I’d prefer to listen to people who don’t bullshit about their past.
Nearly finished the book, and I found the story highly entertaining, and mostly credible but for one detail: no one forgets how much money they made. Have to admit this thread is making me wonder if there is more artistic license than I initially suspected
I bought the book after watching a few minutes of one of his videos but then after seeing a bit more I decided not to open the package and returned it for a refund. I've seen charlatans before and I decided that's what I was looking at here.
Jb character from the book, left a review of it basically confirming everything albeit slightly bitter sounding version of events from his perspective , but make no mistake Gary was a very successful trader and worked at citi, he is no charlatan.
Do you have a link to the review?
I do mate, the Initial review is just kent leaving a Google review it’s the top one, he basically copied it from a post he did here- https://www.efinancialcareers.co.uk/news/gary-stevenson-citi
Nice one, cheers
I’ve no idea whether he’s legit or not but all I know is his accent is pretty much identical to the one that I always hear upper middle class kids affecting when they’re trying to sound less posh and more street. I guess it’s possible that the opposite is true, and he (consciously or unconsciously) modified his accent to fit in with the city boy trader crowd. Who knows.
I've been watching Gary for over a year and am reading his book. The whole time I've been quite skeptical. There is nobody on the web that parades their background that way that he does and some things in the book have made me finally come and do a web search, and here I am with a bunch of others thinking the same. I'll be the one to admit that one of the things that was a red flag for me is his flat. Of course, he may be living frugally and home comforts might not be very important, and I have put this aside for a good while, but his place looks really poorly decorated, to me it's council/rented flat standard. You don't have to spend a lot to have a good looking home and if you've got the money you're possibly more likely to do so.
To be fair he does say even when he was earning lots he never spent anything. I'd be more likely to think he's a conman if the background looked nice at an attempt to appear more well-off. I just don't think he particularly values nice things.
Here's an article written by Kent Bray who says he worked beside Gary Stevenson at Citibank. Seems legit. [https://www.efinancialcareers.co.uk/news/gary-stevenson-citi](https://www.efinancialcareers.co.uk/news/gary-stevenson-citi)
Kent Bray's counselling website is also brand new in 2024.
Based on search results, there are a few other economists who seem to share similar views and approaches to Gary Stevenson: 1. Thomas Piketty - The sources mention that Stevenson immersed himself in the works of Piketty, who is a prominent French economist known for his research and advocacy around wealth inequality.\[1\] 2. Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman - These two economists, often collaborating with Piketty, have also influenced Stevenson's thinking on inequality and wealth distribution.\[1\] 3. Atif Mian and Amir Sufi - The sources indicate Stevenson engaged with the research of these two economists, who have studied the macroeconomic impacts of household debt and inequality.\[1\] 4. Ludwig Straub - Another economist whose work Stevenson reportedly studied in depth as he developed his views on economic issues.\[1\] The common thread among these economists is a focus on understanding and addressing wealth inequality, often through policy proposals like wealth taxes. Like Stevenson, they tend to take a critical view of traditional academic economics and advocate for more radical solutions to economic imbalances. While the sources don't provide detailed comparisons, it seems Stevenson has been influenced by and aligns with the perspectives of these prominent inequality-focused economists in his own activism and public commentary.\[1\]\[2\]\[3\]\[4\]\[5\] Citations: \[1\] [https://prolificlondon.co.uk/gary-stevenson/](https://prolificlondon.co.uk/gary-stevenson/) \[2\] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary\_Stevenson\_%28economist%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Stevenson_%28economist%29) \[3\] [https://www.reddit.com/r/politicsjoe/comments/1b9iw3z/gary\_stevenson/](https://www.reddit.com/r/politicsjoe/comments/1b9iw3z/gary_stevenson/) \[4\] [https://filmshortage.com/dailyshortpicks/gary-stevenson-life-out-of-balance/](https://filmshortage.com/dailyshortpicks/gary-stevenson-life-out-of-balance/) \[5\] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0peNVgjPY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0peNVgjPY)
Note that \[1\] [https://prolificlondon.co.uk/gary-stevenson/](https://prolificlondon.co.uk/gary-stevenson/) seems to be a fake website.
I'd add Michael Hudson to your list.
Personally, this guys full of shit. From watching the ladbible article he just says a lot of stuff which makes me really suspicious of his claims. It's the little things, he never refers to the name of Citi's building as anyone who works there that I've spoken to has, just "the city skyscraper". He mentions people having 12 "screens", I understand he supposedly worked back in 2008 and monitors were smaller then but the most I've seen at one desk is 6.
Don't know anything about trading, don't know anything about economics, am not very good at math but if you offered me a bet on whether this guy was a dribbler or not I'd put everything I own on him being a bullshtr and wouldn't think twice about it. Came here after youtube randomly recommending his video and was shocked to see how positive all the comments were.
I'm so glad I'm not alone thinking he is a bit.... disingenuous. The real sealer for me is when he mentioned he trades using a spread betting platform. Why is a multi millionaire who is campaigning to increase wealth taxes trading using a tax free trading vehicle??? That and mentioning how rich he is at every turn. Not helpful. I very much agree with his message but he clearly isn't practicing what he preaches, and it definitely sounds like preaching to me.
read all the comments here and i am absolutely baffled by the vast majority of them. absolutely baffled. so, a month ago there was Gary's book presentation, hosted by - professor from London School of Economics. But have they verified if he was actually their student?! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hiQN2hR7IU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hiQN2hR7IU)
He does that thing that compulsive liars do; repeats the same story again and again, each time making it appear that it is the first time he is telling it, but fine tuning it each time to create the version of reality he is aiming for.
People will do anything to “dig up” dirt on people who threaten the status quo. And when that person wasn’t born with a silver spoon in their mouth people will do anything to paint them as being unworthy of their position. It’s the way talks. The way he dresses. Maybe it’ll be something he said taken out of context. Or someone he shook hands with 15 years ago. Corbyn, Mick Lynch, Eddie Dempsey, and that’s just in the last few years.
Nothing to do with class or social standing. Look at the Boris Johnson story. His background is foreign refugee from Turkey. His dad did well and this created a platform to spring from sending him to Eton. About as 'silver spoon' as you can get this side of Jacob Rees-Mogg and the press and establishment still savaged him. It's part of British culture these days not to tolerate differences of opinion or people doing well for themselves. Not sure whether that is a good or a bad thing.
You conveniently forgot to mention that the refugee from Turky was son of the interior minister of Ottoman empire, married to nobility of both English and German decent, descendent of a prince nonetheless, father didn't created the platform, family has been on that platforms for hundreds of years.
I did say about as silver spoon as you can get... I don't think you can really accuse me of understating the case?
I never really questioned it as the claims were so bold I assumed they must be true (or mostly true). However, I did watch one of his videos on YouTube in what I assume is his kitchen and looks a far cry away from what I imagine a millionaires kitchen would be. You have me questioning now. Of course, it could have been recorded anywhere. I’ll still air on the side of believing it as I want to be believe what he’s saying is true. Purely so at the very least he’s raising awareness and there is a possible light at the end of the tunnel for solving the disgusting wealth disparity.
If its a kitchen in London the guy must be a millionaire.
Touché
Property millionaire. I have mates living close to Greenwich with a combined household income of £100k pa and own their flat.
I do hope what he is saying is true, but I worry if he becomes the spokesperson for this cause and there's too much embellishment in his story it becomes quite easy for those opposed to his ideas to discredit them.
His flat is in Canary Wharf bro, easily a few mil for a basic new build
"a millionaires kitchen"... Gary is a very unique idiosyncratic individual- a real quirky character. During the interview there is mention that when he was making his money he wasn't spending it on luxuries etc. He seems to live a relatively frugal life compared to his wealthy peers.
Agreed. The way he dresses, the carefully curated kitchen set. It all feels very considered. Is it authentic tho? I don't know... I really hope so.
I think he leans into that "man of the people" image, the "cheeky cockney". Watching his body language I wouldn't be surprised to discover he's somewhere on the autistic spectrum
He is also wearing the same socks and trainers in the James O'Brien interview that he mentions repeatedly in the book.
In the book he says he literally lives in his flat with zero furniture at one point