[neictscek]

Now I know #1 is bullshit, but #2 made me curious - are you aware of any math hotshots like yourself whose job is largely to sit and monitor trades, lending, or other transactions by competitors solely to infer just how said competitors' own internal risk analysis works, i.e. essentially "reverse engineer" their business methods, thereby circumventing the UTSA? My first instinct is of course since wherever there's an incentive there's somebody profiting off of it, but I can't find any specific examples to point to.

Yes, of course. There are entire funds devoted to that.

It's not really for risk analysis, however; I'm aware of reverse engineering strategy groups for statistical arbitrage and high-freq. trading as well as to play games with index funds (the index funds don't actually buy and hold the entire index; they dynamically manage a smaller representative subset of the index. If too many companies are following similar strats to reproduce the index and somebody can figure this out then there is money to be made)

Also, thank God somebody's overturned State Street. That was a ridiculous decision...

[NarunapyCalry]

Yes, of course. There are entire funds devoted to that.

It's not really for risk analysis, however; I'm aware of reverse engineering strategy groups for statistical arbitrage and high-freq. trading as well as to play games with index funds (the index funds don't actually buy and hold the entire index; they dynamically manage a smaller representative subset of the index. If too many companies are following similar strats to reproduce the index and somebody can figure this out then there is money to be made)

...There's one black-box fund run by some physicists in London (?) that I think booked 16 billion in 2007 based off of index fund games. Can't remember their name

Thank you sir; throwing in those vectors googled just what I need.

Also, thank God somebody's overturned State Street. That was a ridiculous decision...

Out of curiosity, what are your reasons to think so? The impact on innovation, or just the fact that its standard is no standard at all, or something else?