8 ms·
It seems not entirely unreasonable for the SEC to enforce a situation where cheating means you and also possibly everybody else loses. It's a bit like a coach s
by ecuzzillo 19y ago
It seems not entirely unreasonable for the SEC to enforce a situation where cheating means you and also possibly everybody else loses. It's a bit like a coach saying, if you don't shut up, everybody does fifty pushups; you're more motivated to shut up that way.
- Sam_Odio 19y agoyou're more motivated to shut up that way. You're not asking them to shut up. You're asking them to stop stealing from the shareholders. That's what options backdating is - stealing from the company's shareholders. And by fining companies, the SEC is hurting those shareholders. It's important for the shareholders (you and me) to realize that. It's like telling a thief: If the police catch you stealing: they're going to fine the victims as punishment. What kind of motivation is that?
- ecuzzillo 19y agoWell, if it's a choice between that and not punishing cheating period, it might be better to do that. It's a difficult situation, but in general, I'd rather have a system that always punished cheating than one that didn't punish cheating when doing so would have collateral damage, because the latter system means basically that so long as you are important to the company, you're perfectly allowed to cheat.
- Sam_Odio 19y agoYou're definitely right. Like I said in my first post post, Jobs shouldn't be above the law just because he is valuable to Apple. But try to punish the cheaters, not those who are being cheated. Don't fine the company - fine and/or jail those committing the fraud.