I don’t disagree that there’s opportunity for bad actors. This exists for everyone. But the NYT is trying to imply with no evidence that there is a habitual fir

I don’t disagree that there’s opportunity for bad actors. This exists for everyone. But the NYT is trying to imply with no evidence that there is a habitual firm policy of leveraging client secrets for insider trading at the firm’s hedge fund. That doesn’t make sense. If you’re going to commit fraud, you don’t do it in a fund to be allocated across thousands of partners, you do it for something that’s actually going to matter for you in some way. Like the guy who got caught. The only evidence of badness within this they could find was a pharma company invested in by an outside firm. The NYT has also released another article about why they’re writing these hit pieces. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/reader-center/mckinsey-hedge-fund-reporting-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/reader-center/mckinsey-he... Basically it boils down to them having a hunch that a big private company is bad. And have they really found anything? No, not really. They just keep churning out pieces that say this could be bad if the firm has no internal controls though they can’t find anything to suggest it’s true, or one off studies that are linked to bad outcomes. Their reporting isn’t factually incorrect, but it’s being written with their own stated bias to find bad things. They’re not hearing leads and digging further. Given that this is true, their investigation has found basically nothing.