3 ms·
Well, when they indict on the remaining 18 then we can update our models. Until then, the SEC is only alleging that 7 were securities.
by hailwren 4y ago
Well, when they indict on the remaining 18 then we can update our models. Until then, the SEC is only alleging that 7 were securities.
- mannykannot 4y agoTrue, but your model should already reflect the fact that this is a not an uncommon pattern.
- InefficientRed 4y agoThat's a horrible prior. This isn't about the SEC at all. Arresting on a subset of eventual charges is something that nearly all prosecutors do, and for a large set of very good strategic reasons. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many examples of high-profile cases where the original arrest was based on all possible charges.
- hailwren 4y agoYeah, I'm not arguing they don't do that. This is one of those cases where arguing the negative without clearly stating your argument makes things easy but not particularly useful. What argument are you presenting instead? Because he was charged for 7 instances of security fraud we should assume that all 25 are securities fraud? Regardless of whether the SEC eventually charges all 25, they've clearly decided to differentiate them all on some metric (otherwise, they would've charged them all at the same time).