4 ms·
What punishment would that be? People inside the company sold right before the dip. That is a fact. Seems like you are arguing they should be free of conseque
by supercanuck 9y ago
What punishment would that be?
People inside the company sold right before the dip. That is a fact.
Seems like you are arguing they should be free of consequences. We judge people on their actions all the time, it is difficult to know their intentions.
Other people have to be on the otherside of that trade. It’s publically good to know there are possible untrustworthy actors in a company, especially when it is extremely difficult to prove white collar crimes
- Domenic_S 9y agoSelling before a dip is not a crime.
- supercanuck 9y agoI feel like I'm being misunderstood. My point is that if you are a leader in a company and you sell before the dip which is based on some pretty negative event, you should not necessarily go to prison or have freedom's taken from you. BUT, I don't think that means you shouldn't be subject to some reputational consequence. Should we trust your statements when you get on that investor call? Isn't your prior actions relevant?
- mulmen 9y agoI don't see the benefit to this system. If we assassinate reputation based on coincidence then we have introduced an unnecessary element of chance. I would much rather base my opinion on facts. If the CEO lied to shareholders on a call or used inside knowledge to sell shares illegally then the reputation damage will come from the conviction. In the absence of this evidence I see no benefit in assuming guilt or otherwise damaging the CEOs reputation.
- saagarjha 9y ago> I don't think that means you shouldn't be subject to some reputational consequence. Why not? What if they were just unlucky? Why do you get to decided whether their reputation suffers?
- s73v3r_ 9y agoWhen you know of something like the revealing of a huge breach, it is.