To prevent top officers from leaving Langley headquarters for better paying jobs, the CIA apparently allows some members of its intelligence to moonlight at hedge funds and top financial firms.
In an interesting POLITICO article, we find out that both Goldman Sachs and SAC capital have hired a consulting firm called BIA (Business Intelligence Advisors) for a service known as “Tactical behaviour Assessment.”
TBA is like lie detection for corporate executives, who don’t need to be hooked up to heart rate monitors for BIA consultants to test them for lying.
In 2006, SAC Capital Advisors hired the BIA for a presentation on “deception detection,” to help train their hedge fund managers to spot a lying executive.
Apparently one of the presenters spent 20 years with the CIA, specializing in polygraph, interviewing, and deception detection. Another had more than 25 years of interrogation experience.
Here’s what “deception detection” involves:
Agents look for the physical indicators of lying. They watch for a person shifting anchor points. If the person is leaning forward on one elbow, does he switch to the other one? Interrogators watch for grooming gestures such as adjusting clothes, hair or eyeglasses. They look to see if the person picks at his fingernails or scratches himself. They watch for the person to clean his surroundings — does he straighten the paper clips on the table or line up the pens?
In one conference call with UTStarcom, it worked.
An “enormous hedge fund” had hired BIA analysts to find out whether UTStarcom was telling the whole truth about UTStarcom’s financial health on a quarterly conference call.
According to BIA, they weren’t. BIA predicted “poor third-quarter results, and it is also highly unlikely they will achieve profitability in the fourth quarter,” and they were spot on.
There’s no word on where any CIA officers are currently working obviously, but the CIA’s official statement is vague enough, “If any officer requests permission for outside employment, those requests are reviewed not just for legality, but for propriety.”