4 ms·
I 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
by supercanuck 9y ago
I 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?