Is there insider information? 15 minutes before Trump posted, the crude oil futures market experienced $580 million in abnormal trading.

Former U.S. President Trump claimed that the United States and Iran had engaged in “productive dialogue,” but this statement was immediately denied by Iran. Just about 15 minutes before this “Rashomon” unfolded, the crude oil futures market witnessed an unusual large transaction with a nominal value of up to $580 million, which led market participants to associate it with insider trading.

On the evening of March 23, the global financial market was once again rocked by a social media post from U.S. President Trump.

Trump announced on Truth Social that the U.S. and Iran had held “very good and productive dialogue” and that plans to strike Iranian energy infrastructure would be postponed by five days.

Subsequently, European and American stock markets immediately rose, international oil prices fell, and precious metals quickly rebounded.

However, this statement was soon firmly denied by Iran, with Iranian Islamic Consultative Assembly Speaker Ghalibaf posting on social media that this was “fake news,” intended to “manipulate the financial and oil markets.”

Just about 15 minutes before this “Rashomon” unfolded, the crude oil futures market experienced an unusual large transaction with a nominal value of up to $580 million, and S&P 500 futures also saw a nearly simultaneous surge in volume.

The sensitive timing, cross-asset synchronization, and the subsequent precise announcement of news quickly raised questions of “insider trading” on Wall Street.

White House spokesman Kush Desai promptly denied the allegations, stating that any unverified insinuation was “baseless and irresponsible reporting.”

Strange Transactions

Between 6:49 and 6:50 a.m. New York time on March 23, within just one minute, about 6,200 Brent crude and WTI crude futures contracts changed hands, with a nominal value of up to $580 million.

According to calculations by the Financial Times based on Bloomberg data, this batch of trades concentrated in a burst within 27 seconds before 6:50. Almost simultaneously, the trading volume of S&P 500 e-Mini futures at the CME also saw an isolated spike, with prices jumping in seconds. However, at that time, there had been no major news released that could trigger such severe volatility.

About 15 minutes later, at 7:04 a.m. New York time, Trump posted on social media stating that the U.S. and Iran had had “very good and productive dialogue” over the past two days, announcing the postponement of plans to strike Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure by five days.

Upon the news, the global energy market plummeted, with Brent crude dropping more than 13% at one point, falling below $100 a barrel; U.S. stock index futures surged, with S&P 500 futures pre-market gains exceeding 2.5%.

Trump’s remarks were subsequently categorically denied by Iran. Iranian Islamic Consultative Assembly Speaker Ghalibaf stated on social media that “there were no negotiations with the United States,” and pointed out that the so-called negotiation news was “false information,” aimed at “manipulating the financial and oil markets to help the U.S. and Israel escape their current predicament.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Baghaei also emphasized that while Iran had received some messages relayed by friendly countries in recent days, “there had been no negotiations with the United States.”

This unusual transaction of $580 million led market participants to associate it with insider trading. A hedge fund portfolio manager with 25 years of market experience noted, “From my intuitive observation of the market, this is truly unusual. There were no important data on Monday morning, nor any noteworthy speeches from Federal Reserve officials, and for a trading day without event risk, this is an extraordinarily large transaction… Someone just made a lot of money.”

Even if the single transaction itself may not be illegal, the combination of characteristics such as “cross-asset, simultaneous timing, and proximity to major policy statements” is already enough to trigger regulatory scrutiny. However, according to foreign media reports, there is currently no public evidence that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the CME is conducting a formal investigation into this matter.

Overdrawing Credibility

In the face of overwhelming skepticism, the White House spokesperson stated in a statement: “The White House does not tolerate any government officials profiting illegally from insider information, and any insinuation of officials engaging in such activities without evidence is baseless and irresponsible reporting.”

This response attempted to cool down the situation, but this is not the first time that unusual transactions have been observed in the market prior to significant statements from Trump. In various issues such as the trade war, Federal Reserve personnel changes, and the Greenland dispute, Trump’s “capriciousness” has precisely triggered market declines followed by rebounds, creating arbitrage opportunities for insiders or related parties familiar with his behavior patterns.

In April of last year, about four hours before Trump announced tariff policy adjustments, he posted on social media, “This is a great time to buy!” His media company’s stock surged 22.67% that day, and Trump’s personal stock wealth increased by $415 million in a single day, prompting some Democratic lawmakers to call for congressional investigations.

This time, although there is no clear evidence pointing to White House officials directly participating in the transactions, the market has formed a unique pricing logic based on Trump’s “capricious” speaking style.

For Wall Street, whether Trump’s statements are true may not be important. The market’s significant rebound is not because investors blindly trust the president’s “ceasefire” remarks, but rather because they view it as a guarantee: the president’s extreme aversion to bad market data will ultimately prevent him from taking more extreme military actions.

RBC Wealth Management senior portfolio strategist Tom Garretson analyzed: “Trump has clearly been trying to suppress oil prices.”

BCA Research chief strategist Marko Papic stated: “If this is not resolved within the next 7 to 10 days, we will face a global economic shutdown. Today’s statement indicates that Trump realizes the real economy may be on the brink of falling off a cliff.”

Daniel Alpert, managing partner at Westwood Capital, pointed out that the market is not trading based on facts but is trading based on the expectations of others. Even if investors suspect this is a lie, as long as they believe others will view it positively and buy in, they will follow suit.

However, the cost of Trump’s unpredictability is becoming apparent. An increasing number of institutional investors are beginning to worry that Trump is overextending the credibility of the U.S. presidency in global financial markets.

Michael Kantrowitz, chief investment strategist at Piper Sandler, noted that the truth depends on people’s perceptions, and Trump’s unpredictability will only exacerbate uncertainty.

Marko Kolanovic, former chief quantitative analyst at JPMorgan, pointed out that in a war scenario, “TACO trading” may fail.

“TACO trading,” which stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out,” refers to investors betting that Trump will ultimately choose to back down during extreme market volatility or policy-induced panic, thus pushing risk assets to rebound.

Marko believes that tariffs are administrative policies that can be reversed with a tweet; however, once war breaks out, it gains its own momentum and involves powerful forces far beyond any single leader’s real-time control.

Mizuho Bank strategist Jordan Rochester wrote in a report: "The hardest part is not predicting war, but predicting how the White House will communicate. We are faced with a confused market, uncertain whether this is a credible signal of an impending endgame or just another moment of ‘very thorough, almost certain’.” This uncertainty means that every market fluctuation triggered by Trump’s statements feels more like a gamble based on information asymmetry rather than an investment based on fundamental analysis.

Reporter: Li Xizi

Text Editor: Wang Zhexi