4 ms·

Maybe not legally, but morally it's certainly equivalent to insider trading.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
I don't even think it's a moral issue. If anything, these Amazon employees purchased before speculators could front run them. Working for Amazon is hard enough without generating fake outrage. Your concern should be with any elected official who offered Amazon concessions to locate in NYC. When their reelection comes up, it should be expressed that New Yorker's subsidized a trillion dollar company.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  Believe me, that is a concern of mine as well :)
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  > Your concern should be with any elected official who offered Amazon concessions to locate in NYC. Yes! In fact, all (or at least most) of the cities who "bidded" for the Amazon HQ2('s), did so by keeping the bid secret from their taxpayers. THAT is sketchy and vastly more harmful than a couple Amazon exec's getting a little greedy with condo real-estate.
wbl 8y ago
Who is the victim here?
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  The previous owner of the condo?
  - p0rkbelly 8y ago
    How does that make them a victim? They weren't forced to sell at any price. That's real estate and the article says they are net new construction. Also, Amazon has thousands of employees in NYC already. LIC is close to Midtown Manhattan, a few subway stops away and is a neighborhood full of new construction. It makes sense for any employees to buy there regardless of any situation...doesn't? Since when is "Buying a nice apartment in a desirable neighborhood near work" a suspicious or criminal thing? Geez.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      "How is the buyer of a stock shorted based on insider information a victim? They weren't forced to buy at any price."
      - pbalau 8y ago
        You buy stock to sell it later and make money. Most people do that. You buy and apartament to live in. Most people do that. Ffs
      - wbl 8y ago
        They in fact got a better price then would have happened absent the shorting.
      - ryanlol 8y ago
        By this logic, would it not be immoral to engage in any trades when there exist information asymmetry? There will always be "victims" who do not make a profit because they made a bad investment. A person losing money due to insider trading has almost certainly invested in a company that was not worth what they thought it was. If they’re a victim, then whose victim are they really? I have a hard time blaming the insider trader.
- lbriner 8y ago
  Most people who don't make 10s of 1000s on property purchases just because they have inside information and have to work for a living?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- francisofascii 8y ago
  The victim is a mix. The previous owners, the people would have bought there if the Amazon's employees did not, and the people who now are going to buy in that neighborhood in the future.
jessaustin 8y ago
There's nothing "morally" wrong with insider trading. The purpose of insider trading regulations is to limit the spread of information about the firm. Executives who keep pertinent information from the investing public are conspiracies against their own employers. Defection from such a conspiracy may be disloyalty to the management chain, but it is loyalty to the shareholders.
ryanlol 8y ago
> morally it's certainly equivalent to insider trading So it's the right thing to do? Insider trading helps everyone by adding more information to the markets.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  No it doesn't. The information necessarily comes out anyway, otherwise there would be no advantage to insider trading.

I don't even think it's a moral issue. If anything, these Amazon employees purchased before speculators could front run them. Working for Amazon is hard enough without generating fake outrage. Your concern should be with any elected official who offered Amazon concessions to locate in NYC. When their reelection comes up, it should be expressed that New Yorker's subsidized a trillion dollar company.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
Believe me, that is a concern of mine as well :)
crispyambulance 8y ago
> Your concern should be with any elected official who offered Amazon concessions to locate in NYC. Yes! In fact, all (or at least most) of the cities who "bidded" for the Amazon HQ2('s), did so by keeping the bid secret from their taxpayers. THAT is sketchy and vastly more harmful than a couple Amazon exec's getting a little greedy with condo real-estate.

wbl 8y ago

Who is the victim here?

jakelazaroff 8y ago
The previous owner of the condo?
- p0rkbelly 8y ago
  How does that make them a victim? They weren't forced to sell at any price. That's real estate and the article says they are net new construction. Also, Amazon has thousands of employees in NYC already. LIC is close to Midtown Manhattan, a few subway stops away and is a neighborhood full of new construction. It makes sense for any employees to buy there regardless of any situation...doesn't? Since when is "Buying a nice apartment in a desirable neighborhood near work" a suspicious or criminal thing? Geez.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    "How is the buyer of a stock shorted based on insider information a victim? They weren't forced to buy at any price."
    - pbalau 8y ago
      You buy stock to sell it later and make money. Most people do that. You buy and apartament to live in. Most people do that. Ffs
    - wbl 8y ago
      They in fact got a better price then would have happened absent the shorting.
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      By this logic, would it not be immoral to engage in any trades when there exist information asymmetry? There will always be "victims" who do not make a profit because they made a bad investment. A person losing money due to insider trading has almost certainly invested in a company that was not worth what they thought it was. If they’re a victim, then whose victim are they really? I have a hard time blaming the insider trader.
lbriner 8y ago
Most people who don't make 10s of 1000s on property purchases just because they have inside information and have to work for a living?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
francisofascii 8y ago
The victim is a mix. The previous owners, the people would have bought there if the Amazon's employees did not, and the people who now are going to buy in that neighborhood in the future.

jessaustin 8y ago

There's nothing "morally" wrong with insider trading. The purpose of insider trading regulations is to limit the spread of information about the firm. Executives who keep pertinent information from the investing public are conspiracies against their own employers. Defection from such a conspiracy may be disloyalty to the management chain, but it is loyalty to the shareholders.

ryanlol 8y ago

> morally it's certainly equivalent to insider trading So it's the right thing to do? Insider trading helps everyone by adding more information to the markets.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
No it doesn't. The information necessarily comes out anyway, otherwise there would be no advantage to insider trading.