6 ms·

It appears that there is probably not any insider trading going on in this case. However, does anyone else have a thought of "what motivation does a multi billi

It appears that there is probably not any insider trading going on in this case. However, does anyone else have a thought of "what motivation does a multi billionaire have to insider trade?" when reading headlines like this? It's confusing why you would try to eek out that little bit of extra value, there is no incentive.

robdachshund 7y ago
Ask intels last CEO
elliekelly 7y ago
This is a derivative suit (civil, not criminal) brought by a shareholder alleging Zuckerberg violated his fiduciary duties to shareholders in a number of ways. One of the alleged ways is insider trading. This is very different from the DOJ alleging criminal insider trading/market manipulation. While this isn't a criminal insider trading case and delayed disclosure is not the typical insider trading allegation it's also not a stretch by means. Complaint for anyone interested: https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/394/4694/Feuer-v.-Zuckerberg-Complaint.pdf https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/394...
- anticensor 7y ago
  He is the biggest shareholder and has the supermajority of voting shares, how can he violate his own benefit? He can only violate fiduiciary duties towards smaller shares.
  - elliekelly 7y ago
    You've actually just made me realize I overstated his duty to shareholders in my original comment but it's too late to edit. My apologies. A director doesn't owe a fiduciary duty (which is the highest standard of care one person can owe another) but a duty of "care and loyalty" which is a step below a fiduciary. The outcome is the same though. A director's "duty of loyalty" means that he or she cannot personally benefit at the expense of the corporation or it's shareholders. The number of shares he owns and the voting power is irrelevant as the duty applies to all shareholders.
tombert 7y ago
Presumably the same reason that multi-billion dollar corporations (and people for that matter) spend a lot of time and resources lobbying the government to pay lower taxes. Once you've hit the billion-dollar mark, you effectively have infinite money for most tangible purposes, and yet the drive to get more money continues. No idea if Zuckerberg is guilty, but I don't think "well he's already loaded" is a very good reason to assume innocence.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > Once you've hit the billion-dollar mark, you effectively have infinite money for most tangible purposes, and yet the drive to get more money continues. There is an amount of wealth (and I think it's substantially less than a billion dollars), past which gaining more wealth won't improve your standard of living at all. However, most people who hit that continue to strive to increase their wealth. I think that this is because the sort of person you have to be in order to accumulate a large amount of wealth is the sort of person who isn't interested in the wealth in the way ordinary people are. They are interested in increasing their power, and in our society, wealth is power. I also think that past a certain point, many wealthy people are effectively engaging in a competitive game with other wealthy people, and the amount of money you are worth is nothing more or less than your current score in that game.
  - ryan_j_naughton 7y ago
    >There is an amount of wealth (and I think it's substantially less than a billion dollars), past which gaining more wealth won't improve your standard of living at all. That is based on a very narrow definition of standard of living. If you include the "goods" that are social status among your wealthy friends while you're on your Mega-yachts around the isle of Capri then power is itself a part of your standard of living. Standard of living should be any good or service you have access to based on your income/wealth. Those goods don't have to be material goods but can be conceptual / philosophical goods. Thus, reshaping whole industries, singlehandedly pushing the boundary on the privatization of space, etc can all be thought of as part of one's standard of living for the world's super elite.
pfortuny 7y ago
You have a concave utility function in mind. As history shows, it is NEVER concave.
username223 7y ago
The wealthy are not like you and I. Money is no longer used for buying stuff, but just for keeping score. Bezos is worth more than Zuck, so if Zuck can delay some information long enough for his scheduled stock sales to be worth a bit more, it will get him that much closer to Bezos. He probably didn't expect to be caught, and doesn't expect to be fined more than he gained. Meanwhile, FB stock has been flat for a year, and they have already reached every person in the world plus a few hundred million bots, and can't figure out another business. The multi-billion-dollar fines won't kill them, but they cut into profits enough. It's a good time to cash out.
SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
I earn more than enough money for my needs. But when an opportunity comes along to make some more? Sure, why the hell not. OK, I'm not quite a billionaire (ha!) but I don't see why this mindset doesn't persist as net worth increases.
kerng 7y ago
Its human nature, the desire to have more and that what we have isn't enough. A motivation could be as simple as Gates and Bezos have more and rank higher - and maybe Zuckerberg doesnt like that.
rconti 7y ago
Same reason billionaires buy supercars and register them in Montana to save a few bucks on taxes, because it's so unfair that the government wants a large chunk of their reg fees for a car they drive so rarely, but the rest of us with far less money play by the rules.
- geddy 7y ago
  Well, they probably didn't become billionaires by spending extra money when they didn't have to. Even Bill Gates has a budget.

robdachshund 7y ago

Ask intels last CEO

elliekelly 7y ago

This is a derivative suit (civil, not criminal) brought by a shareholder alleging Zuckerberg violated his fiduciary duties to shareholders in a number of ways. One of the alleged ways is insider trading. This is very different from the DOJ alleging criminal insider trading/market manipulation. While this isn't a criminal insider trading case and delayed disclosure is not the typical insider trading allegation it's also not a stretch by means. Complaint for anyone interested: https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/394/4694/Feuer-v.-Zuckerberg-Complaint.pdf https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/394...

anticensor 7y ago
He is the biggest shareholder and has the supermajority of voting shares, how can he violate his own benefit? He can only violate fiduiciary duties towards smaller shares.
- elliekelly 7y ago
  You've actually just made me realize I overstated his duty to shareholders in my original comment but it's too late to edit. My apologies. A director doesn't owe a fiduciary duty (which is the highest standard of care one person can owe another) but a duty of "care and loyalty" which is a step below a fiduciary. The outcome is the same though. A director's "duty of loyalty" means that he or she cannot personally benefit at the expense of the corporation or it's shareholders. The number of shares he owns and the voting power is irrelevant as the duty applies to all shareholders.

tombert 7y ago

Presumably the same reason that multi-billion dollar corporations (and people for that matter) spend a lot of time and resources lobbying the government to pay lower taxes. Once you've hit the billion-dollar mark, you effectively have infinite money for most tangible purposes, and yet the drive to get more money continues. No idea if Zuckerberg is guilty, but I don't think "well he's already loaded" is a very good reason to assume innocence.

JohnFen 7y ago
> Once you've hit the billion-dollar mark, you effectively have infinite money for most tangible purposes, and yet the drive to get more money continues. There is an amount of wealth (and I think it's substantially less than a billion dollars), past which gaining more wealth won't improve your standard of living at all. However, most people who hit that continue to strive to increase their wealth. I think that this is because the sort of person you have to be in order to accumulate a large amount of wealth is the sort of person who isn't interested in the wealth in the way ordinary people are. They are interested in increasing their power, and in our society, wealth is power. I also think that past a certain point, many wealthy people are effectively engaging in a competitive game with other wealthy people, and the amount of money you are worth is nothing more or less than your current score in that game.
- ryan_j_naughton 7y ago
  >There is an amount of wealth (and I think it's substantially less than a billion dollars), past which gaining more wealth won't improve your standard of living at all. That is based on a very narrow definition of standard of living. If you include the "goods" that are social status among your wealthy friends while you're on your Mega-yachts around the isle of Capri then power is itself a part of your standard of living. Standard of living should be any good or service you have access to based on your income/wealth. Those goods don't have to be material goods but can be conceptual / philosophical goods. Thus, reshaping whole industries, singlehandedly pushing the boundary on the privatization of space, etc can all be thought of as part of one's standard of living for the world's super elite.

pfortuny 7y ago

You have a concave utility function in mind. As history shows, it is NEVER concave.

username223 7y ago

The wealthy are not like you and I. Money is no longer used for buying stuff, but just for keeping score. Bezos is worth more than Zuck, so if Zuck can delay some information long enough for his scheduled stock sales to be worth a bit more, it will get him that much closer to Bezos. He probably didn't expect to be caught, and doesn't expect to be fined more than he gained. Meanwhile, FB stock has been flat for a year, and they have already reached every person in the world plus a few hundred million bots, and can't figure out another business. The multi-billion-dollar fines won't kill them, but they cut into profits enough. It's a good time to cash out.

SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago

I earn more than enough money for my needs. But when an opportunity comes along to make some more? Sure, why the hell not. OK, I'm not quite a billionaire (ha!) but I don't see why this mindset doesn't persist as net worth increases.

kerng 7y ago

Its human nature, the desire to have more and that what we have isn't enough. A motivation could be as simple as Gates and Bezos have more and rank higher - and maybe Zuckerberg doesnt like that.

rconti 7y ago

Same reason billionaires buy supercars and register them in Montana to save a few bucks on taxes, because it's so unfair that the government wants a large chunk of their reg fees for a car they drive so rarely, but the rest of us with far less money play by the rules.

geddy 7y ago
Well, they probably didn't become billionaires by spending extra money when they didn't have to. Even Bill Gates has a budget.