3 ms·
Toward the middle, referring to author's very trusted counsel: > “Ben, I’ve gone over the law six times and there’s no way that this practice is strictly withi
by jancsika 6y ago
Toward the middle, referring to author's very trusted counsel:
> “Ben, I’ve gone over the law six times and there’s no way that this practice is strictly within the bounds of the law. I’m not sure how PwC justified it, but I recommend against it.”
Toward the end, about the CFO's sentence ostensibly for breaking the law referred to above at another company:
> Once the SEC decided that most technology company stock option procedures were not as desired, the jail sentences were handed out arbitrarily.
Emphasis mine. I don't think that word means what author thinks it means.
- lolc 6y ago> I don't think that word means what author thinks it means. I read that to mean the court didn't look at individual cases with much consideration and just handed out jail sentences to everybody involved. What do you think the author meant to say?
- ugh123 6y agoI think thats what he meant, but I doubt thats actually what happened. While the illegal accounting theme was similar across the industry, each individual case is unique and carry their own evidence. Michelle likely had less she could deny personally than others, and also probably had shittier lawyers than others.
- phnofive 6y agoThe enforcement and form of securities laws is beyond me, but I think Ben’s point is that Michelle went to prison for a crime she didn’t know she was committing and had checked [citation needed] with PwC. I agree it’s not arbitrary, but it does seem a bit unfair.
- jimmaswell 6y agoSEC seems almost as bad as the ATF sometimes.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> I think Ben’s point is that Michelle went to prison for a crime she didn’t know she was committing and had checked [citation needed] with PwC. The article is written that way, but that view contradicts all the facts. As summarized in the other comments: - Really large numbers of executives were guilty of the same conduct described in the article. They didn't go to jail. - Michelle was not charged with anything related to the conduct described in the article. She was charged with evading her personal taxes. It seems unlikely that she had PwC audit her personal taxes. So the main point of the article seems to be that Ben Horowitz wrote it without bothering to learn what had happened.
- phnofive 6y agoHa, got me as well. I mean, literally: > Michelle ultimately served 3½ months in jail for her part in the other company’s stock option practice So this is just a lie?
- bpodgursky 6y agoThe point is that most tech company were doing things wrong by the letter of the law. But instead of going through and rounding up every CFO in the Bay area, they picked a couple to send to jail to make examples of. The choice of who to jail was basically arbitrary, given that almost everyone was guilty.
- kube-system 6y agoThere's nothing wrong with the way the author used the word, although this may be the lesser-common use of the way you're used to. see #2: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary