4 ms·
> The news doesn't seem to have been that bad for Intel's stock That's a red herring. Krzanich had no idea how badly the news would impact the stock. He may ha
by saguro 9y ago
> The news doesn't seem to have been that bad for Intel's stock
That's a red herring. Krzanich had no idea how badly the news would impact the stock. He may have well overestimated it in his mind and chose to sell. Just because he didn't make huge gains from the possible insider trading, doesn't preclude the possibility of insider trading occurring.
So the whole argument here is:
1) Krzanich couldn't be possibly stupid enough to do this.
2) He didn't make a ton of money so it's a stupid plan, he could't possibly be stupid enough to do this.
Weak.
- katastic 9y ago"Intel CEO stupid enough to not know how stocks work, but smart enough to keep 20 year secret vulnerability that would destroy stocks." Yeah... those don't exactly work out together.
- baddox 9y agoCan’t you attribute criminal intent to any action if you’re willing to assume limitless ignorance?
- ckastner 9y ago> Krzanich couldn't be possibly stupid enough to do this. Seeing as he made to the the role of CEO of Intel Corp., I find that to be a very convincing argument. I have to concede that there's precedent even for CEOs of huge corporations to be that stupid and/or criminal, most notably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kozlowski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kozlowski.
- saguro 9y agoThe plea of stupidity in high profile insider trading cases is a smoke screen - that was my point. Highly successful executives engage in insider trading quite frequently (see link). When they do, they take a calculated risk. You can be quite sure that none of them are stupid in any sense of the word. They take a measured risk and some succeed and some fail, depending on luck, skill, ambitions, and how big/rich they already are. From what little I know, doing it in a an open manner is actually the best best way to go about insider trading. If you attempt to skirt around it by doing anything shady like having friends/relatives execute the trades for you, the evidence is undeniable once discovered. If you go about it 'openly' and instead rely on blurry interpretation or your ability to plead ignorance or put the timeline into question, it's a lot harder to nail you. There are many cases of brazen broad-daylight insider trading, such as Donald Trump right now. Only the ones that end in successful legal action go on to be considered stupid. Even when they do get caught, a lot of the time the penalties are relatively lax, like suspended or weekend sentences for first time offenders. So no, just because he is successful as an executive at a major corporation doesn't at all make it 'stupid' for him to engage in insider trading. That line of reasoning is a diversion from the facts of the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_SEC_enforcement_actions_(2009–12) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_SEC_enforcement_...
- noobermin 9y agoIt could have a lot to do with CEO's doing all sorts of similar things while getting away scott-free.
- sokoloff 9y agoKozlowski is surely guilty of state sales tax evasion and seems to fit the pattern of did it "because 'Screw the state!' and I think I can get away with it". Most of the rest of his story seems more like sour grapes than any criminal conduct to the detriment of Tyco investors. Peter Chang is probably a better model for insider trading criminal CEO (as opposed to merely CEO criminal).
- fortythirteen 9y agoNever underestimate anyone's ability to freak out and be a selfish dumbass.