4 ms·

Carl Icahn dumps $31M in steel-related stocks before White House tariff talks

108 points by blondie9x 9y ago

curiousgal 9y ago
Didn't Martha Stewart go to prison over something like that?
- tachyoff 9y ago
  She wasn’t powerful enough to avoid the consequences.
  - joe_the_user 9y ago
    The parent's point deserves consideration Martha Stewart wound up being prosecuted for "obstruction of justice" and "conspiracy", the go-to offenses when prosecutions otherwise hit a wall. Stewart's prosecution came at time when insider trading appeared common and when regulators were looking for a visible victory. A celebrity prosecution gets a lot of press without actually angering people with real power. Stewart was a mere millionaire, not a multimillionaire or billionaire. Edit: Well, I stand corrected, she was a multimillionaire at the time. Still it's hard not to see her as relatively small potatoes in the world of stocks. https://www.thoughtco.com/martha-stewarts-insider-trading-case-1146196 https://www.thoughtco.com/martha-stewarts-insider-trading-ca...
    - paulcole 9y ago
      Stewart was worth 10s of millions, probably closer to 100. I don’t get how that isn’t a multimillionaire.
- tristanj 9y ago
  Technically no. Martha Stewart went to prison for making false statements, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. She was never charged with insider trading.
- mikestew 9y ago
  To summarize, Martha Stewart went to prison for lying to Federal authorities. [0] Securities fraud was not part of what she was found guilty of, AFAIK. I dunno, much like someone here said about Icahn, you think she's risking prison for a loss of less than $50K? I don't have nearly her money, and I wouldn't. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Sentence
  - joe_the_user 9y ago
    Icahn, unlike Stewart, is a professional stock speculator. There's every reason to think a speculator makes their money "running their connections". Moreover, if anything, Stewart's manifestly unfair and abusive case shows prosecutors choose their examples based not on how dirty the target is but rather how convenient they are. Those who go down, don't go down based on how much they break or skirt the law but based on their connections to power failing.
    - pasbesoin 9y ago
      I really dislike this aspect of our system, where participants (e.g. prosecutors) have so much motivation to build a personal career, over purpose to serve justice evenly, or sometimes even at all.
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    I was really surprised when I discovered this. Intentionally lying to a federal agent about anything material is grounds for criminal charges. Technically even a postal inspector. The police can lie to you all they want, but if you lie to a FBI agent in a line of questioning, it's not covered under the 1st amendment. It's not considered freedom of speech.
    - dreamcompiler 9y ago
      Right. Any time a federal official asks you a question other than "How's the weather?" your response should always be "I cannot comment before consulting with my attorney."
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
JudasGoat 9y ago
I suspect with the present government He is "too big to fail".
sehugg 9y ago
Not the first time he's been accused: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-icahn-insider-trading-20170509-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-icahn-insider-trading-...
- cyphunk 9y ago
  that is a year old. I'd be curious the result of that accusation. I'm happy to prove Icahn is an evil __whatever__ but also it's a good chance to calibrate my desire to avoid silly liberal witch hunts, which as a self-identified libtard I have sometimes mistakenly joined.
bertjk 9y ago
Title should say "steel-related stocks", not "steel stocks". Steel companies are doing great as a result of the news. The stocks he dumped were for those companies whose business depended heavily on cheap steel supplies.
- justAnotherNET 9y ago
  True, but this title suites the site’s bias. I bet it’ll be left up for a long time.
- lambdasquirrel 9y ago
  There’s a lot of this that reeks of the Great Leap Forward, e.g. when Mao had the peasants kill sparrows because they ate grain seed after plantings. The U.S. economy may be more resilient than post-war China’s... but one can’t help but wonder how this will turn out.
  - tdeck 9y ago
    Mao also had people melt down their woks to produce "backyard steel". Predictably the result was unusable and everyone was out a wok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_furnace?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_furnace?wprov=sfla1
  - nyolfen 9y ago
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXTHmjpU0AA38Fw.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXTHmjpU0AA38Fw.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXTHoeAUMAA-gCE.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXTHoeAUMAA-gCE.jpg
vinhboy 9y ago
Do you really think he would risk something like this for a measly $31M investment? The guy is worth like $17B. Maybe this is why I am not rich. I just don't have the right mindset.
- EggsOnToast 9y ago
  I've always wondered if after a certain point the numbers quit mattering and it's more about the principle of doing good, which is to say optimal not necessarily ethical, business.
- InclinedPlane 9y ago
  Answer to the first: absolutely yes. Answer to the second: yup, rich people typically look for how to game every system and gain every advantage they can.
- scottmf 9y ago
  As another comment pointed out, it’s not the first time he’s been accused. This administration is the most corrupt we’ve seen in a long time[1]. It wouldn’t be at all surprising. And I can’t see anyone doing anything about it. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/never-have-we-seen-such-chaos-and-corruption/2018/03/01/f64c5c2e-1d8f-11e8-9de1-147dd2df3829_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/never-have-we-seen-s...
  - adamrezich 9y ago
    Without even clicking your link, just looking at the URL: why cite an opinion piece as evidence of something?
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    > This administration is the most corrupt we’ve seen in a long time I don't think this is true. We had the Bay of Pigs, the 1973 CIA backed coupe in Chile, the Iranian Contras ... Every administration from the time I was born and from the time my parents were born has been hopelessly corrupt. Obama won a noble prize and then became the first president to spend every day of his term at war (or I guess every day in office in an extended military engagement since America has not technically been at war in a long time because we like changing the names of things to pretend they're not true). That and he predator droned a bunch of people, passed a useless health care act, etc. I'm not saying the current administration isn't corrupt. It is, and it's not just the puppet on top. It's all the industry that funnels money into legislative and executive branches. Neither Bush nor Obama went after the corrupt housing industry that caused so many people to lose their homes. Citizens united didn't cause the corruption. Corruption has been legal for decades.
ghufran_syed 9y ago
This isn't really meaningful unless we know what proportion this is of his portfolio, what other trades he did over the last year, and what other positions he still has - all of which the SEC has access to. So I'll believe it when there is an actual court case

108 points by blondie9x 9y ago

curiousgal 9y ago

Didn't Martha Stewart go to prison over something like that?

tachyoff 9y ago
She wasn’t powerful enough to avoid the consequences.
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  The parent's point deserves consideration Martha Stewart wound up being prosecuted for "obstruction of justice" and "conspiracy", the go-to offenses when prosecutions otherwise hit a wall. Stewart's prosecution came at time when insider trading appeared common and when regulators were looking for a visible victory. A celebrity prosecution gets a lot of press without actually angering people with real power. Stewart was a mere millionaire, not a multimillionaire or billionaire. Edit: Well, I stand corrected, she was a multimillionaire at the time. Still it's hard not to see her as relatively small potatoes in the world of stocks. https://www.thoughtco.com/martha-stewarts-insider-trading-case-1146196 https://www.thoughtco.com/martha-stewarts-insider-trading-ca...
  - paulcole 9y ago
    Stewart was worth 10s of millions, probably closer to 100. I don’t get how that isn’t a multimillionaire.
tristanj 9y ago
Technically no. Martha Stewart went to prison for making false statements, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. She was never charged with insider trading.
mikestew 9y ago
To summarize, Martha Stewart went to prison for lying to Federal authorities. [0] Securities fraud was not part of what she was found guilty of, AFAIK. I dunno, much like someone here said about Icahn, you think she's risking prison for a loss of less than $50K? I don't have nearly her money, and I wouldn't. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Sentence
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  Icahn, unlike Stewart, is a professional stock speculator. There's every reason to think a speculator makes their money "running their connections". Moreover, if anything, Stewart's manifestly unfair and abusive case shows prosecutors choose their examples based not on how dirty the target is but rather how convenient they are. Those who go down, don't go down based on how much they break or skirt the law but based on their connections to power failing.
  - pasbesoin 9y ago
    I really dislike this aspect of our system, where participants (e.g. prosecutors) have so much motivation to build a personal career, over purpose to serve justice evenly, or sometimes even at all.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  I was really surprised when I discovered this. Intentionally lying to a federal agent about anything material is grounds for criminal charges. Technically even a postal inspector. The police can lie to you all they want, but if you lie to a FBI agent in a line of questioning, it's not covered under the 1st amendment. It's not considered freedom of speech.
  - dreamcompiler 9y ago
    Right. Any time a federal official asks you a question other than "How's the weather?" your response should always be "I cannot comment before consulting with my attorney."
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

JudasGoat 9y ago

I suspect with the present government He is "too big to fail".

sehugg 9y ago

Not the first time he's been accused: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-icahn-insider-trading-20170509-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-icahn-insider-trading-...

cyphunk 9y ago
that is a year old. I'd be curious the result of that accusation. I'm happy to prove Icahn is an evil __whatever__ but also it's a good chance to calibrate my desire to avoid silly liberal witch hunts, which as a self-identified libtard I have sometimes mistakenly joined.

bertjk 9y ago

Title should say "steel-related stocks", not "steel stocks". Steel companies are doing great as a result of the news. The stocks he dumped were for those companies whose business depended heavily on cheap steel supplies.

justAnotherNET 9y ago
True, but this title suites the site’s bias. I bet it’ll be left up for a long time.
lambdasquirrel 9y ago
There’s a lot of this that reeks of the Great Leap Forward, e.g. when Mao had the peasants kill sparrows because they ate grain seed after plantings. The U.S. economy may be more resilient than post-war China’s... but one can’t help but wonder how this will turn out.
- tdeck 9y ago
  Mao also had people melt down their woks to produce "backyard steel". Predictably the result was unusable and everyone was out a wok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_furnace?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_furnace?wprov=sfla1
- nyolfen 9y ago
  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXTHmjpU0AA38Fw.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXTHmjpU0AA38Fw.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXTHoeAUMAA-gCE.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXTHoeAUMAA-gCE.jpg

vinhboy 9y ago

Do you really think he would risk something like this for a measly $31M investment? The guy is worth like $17B. Maybe this is why I am not rich. I just don't have the right mindset.

EggsOnToast 9y ago
I've always wondered if after a certain point the numbers quit mattering and it's more about the principle of doing good, which is to say optimal not necessarily ethical, business.
InclinedPlane 9y ago
Answer to the first: absolutely yes. Answer to the second: yup, rich people typically look for how to game every system and gain every advantage they can.
scottmf 9y ago
As another comment pointed out, it’s not the first time he’s been accused. This administration is the most corrupt we’ve seen in a long time[1]. It wouldn’t be at all surprising. And I can’t see anyone doing anything about it. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/never-have-we-seen-such-chaos-and-corruption/2018/03/01/f64c5c2e-1d8f-11e8-9de1-147dd2df3829_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/never-have-we-seen-s...
- adamrezich 9y ago
  Without even clicking your link, just looking at the URL: why cite an opinion piece as evidence of something?
- djsumdog 9y ago
  > This administration is the most corrupt we’ve seen in a long time I don't think this is true. We had the Bay of Pigs, the 1973 CIA backed coupe in Chile, the Iranian Contras ... Every administration from the time I was born and from the time my parents were born has been hopelessly corrupt. Obama won a noble prize and then became the first president to spend every day of his term at war (or I guess every day in office in an extended military engagement since America has not technically been at war in a long time because we like changing the names of things to pretend they're not true). That and he predator droned a bunch of people, passed a useless health care act, etc. I'm not saying the current administration isn't corrupt. It is, and it's not just the puppet on top. It's all the industry that funnels money into legislative and executive branches. Neither Bush nor Obama went after the corrupt housing industry that caused so many people to lose their homes. Citizens united didn't cause the corruption. Corruption has been legal for decades.

ghufran_syed 9y ago

This isn't really meaningful unless we know what proportion this is of his portfolio, what other trades he did over the last year, and what other positions he still has - all of which the SEC has access to. So I'll believe it when there is an actual court case