3 ms·

Just because he might be guilty of possibly believing he was above the law, doesn't necessarily mean all of his ideas are untrue. It's possible he's just a hypo

by condor 18y ago

Just because he might be guilty of possibly believing he was above the law, doesn't necessarily mean all of his ideas are untrue. It's possible he's just a hypocrite.

ryanwaggoner 18y ago
It's also possible that he's innocent.
- nadim 18y ago
  My understanding of the SEC has evolved since I just finished the Snowball Warren Buffet book (http://www.amazon.com/Snowball-Warren-Buffett-Business-Life/dp/0553805096 http://www.amazon.com/Snowball-Warren-Buffett-Business-Life/...). There is a section that discusses his run in with the SEC and there is a behind the scenes discussion before charges are pressed (in WB's case, not pressed). I think Cuban has already had a chance to defend himself behind the scenes, and despite this the SEC is still deciding to prosecute. This has example written all over it. Read the statement of facts in the PDF as well: (http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf). After reading it, chances seem slim that he's innocent.
  - calambrac 18y ago
    Aside from the timing of the trade and the fact that the calls took place, everything in that report is based on the word of the CEO of Mamma.com. I honestly don't know if that matters, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on tv. But if it does matter, if the line between legal and illegal is whether the other party told you that you were receiving private information, then it's pretty shitty that you could be found guilty based only on that other party's say-so, don't you think?
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - nadim 18y ago
      I'd say the timing is a pretty strong indicator, although you're right, this isn't the same as proof. "On June 29,2004, Cuban sold his remaining 590,000 Mamma.com shares during regular trading at an average cost per share of $13.2937. On June 29,2004, at 6:00 p.m. after the markets had closed, Mamma.com publicly announced the PIPE offering."
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    Lester Munson gives his take: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=munson_lester&id=3708545 http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=munson...
- bootload 18y ago
  "... It's also possible that he's (Mark Cuban) innocent. ..." Yes, until proven guilty.
rationalbeaver 18y ago
From his blog: "If you are going to trade stocks, you just have to follow one rule and remember one thing. That rule is always have a definite knowledge advantage about the company you are trading, and always remember that every stock transaction has a sucker, and you have to know whether its you or the person on the other side of the trade. No one buys a stock from your, or sells one to you knowing they are leaving money on the table." Sounds to me like he was taking his own advice. He just didn't mention that Rule #2 of trading stocks is to not get caught with your better-than-average information.
- tomsaffell 18y ago
  >..That rule is always have a definite knowledge advantage.. >..to not get caught with your better-than-average information.. The difference between information and knowledge is crucial here, though I think the word 'knowledge' is slightly misleading. If we assume that by 'knowledge' he meant 'something that is more than merely a function of information', i.e. belief/ wisdom then his statement holds. I think most traders would like to think that this is the case (whether the are right or not), because it justifies their existence / management fees. If you read it as 'information = knowledge' then it looks very suspicious. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, because if he had meant 'information' then his post would have been unfeasibly implicating.
jamiequint 18y ago
This isn't as uncommon as people might think. A number of fairly well known people come to mind: Karl Popper, Marcel Proust.
akkartik 18y ago
His blog is about making money. I haven't heard him say anything about ethics. How is he a hypocrite?

by condor 18y ago

Just because he might be guilty of possibly believing he was above the law, doesn't necessarily mean all of his ideas are untrue. It's possible he's just a hypocrite.

ryanwaggoner 18y ago

It's also possible that he's innocent.

nadim 18y ago
My understanding of the SEC has evolved since I just finished the Snowball Warren Buffet book (http://www.amazon.com/Snowball-Warren-Buffett-Business-Life/dp/0553805096 http://www.amazon.com/Snowball-Warren-Buffett-Business-Life/...). There is a section that discusses his run in with the SEC and there is a behind the scenes discussion before charges are pressed (in WB's case, not pressed). I think Cuban has already had a chance to defend himself behind the scenes, and despite this the SEC is still deciding to prosecute. This has example written all over it. Read the statement of facts in the PDF as well: (http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2008/comp20810.pdf). After reading it, chances seem slim that he's innocent.
- calambrac 18y ago
  Aside from the timing of the trade and the fact that the calls took place, everything in that report is based on the word of the CEO of Mamma.com. I honestly don't know if that matters, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on tv. But if it does matter, if the line between legal and illegal is whether the other party told you that you were receiving private information, then it's pretty shitty that you could be found guilty based only on that other party's say-so, don't you think?
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - nadim 18y ago
    I'd say the timing is a pretty strong indicator, although you're right, this isn't the same as proof. "On June 29,2004, Cuban sold his remaining 590,000 Mamma.com shares during regular trading at an average cost per share of $13.2937. On June 29,2004, at 6:00 p.m. after the markets had closed, Mamma.com publicly announced the PIPE offering."
- fallentimes 18y ago
  Lester Munson gives his take: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=munson_lester&id=3708545 http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=munson...
bootload 18y ago
"... It's also possible that he's (Mark Cuban) innocent. ..." Yes, until proven guilty.

rationalbeaver 18y ago

From his blog: "If you are going to trade stocks, you just have to follow one rule and remember one thing. That rule is always have a definite knowledge advantage about the company you are trading, and always remember that every stock transaction has a sucker, and you have to know whether its you or the person on the other side of the trade. No one buys a stock from your, or sells one to you knowing they are leaving money on the table." Sounds to me like he was taking his own advice. He just didn't mention that Rule #2 of trading stocks is to not get caught with your better-than-average information.

tomsaffell 18y ago
>..That rule is always have a definite knowledge advantage.. >..to not get caught with your better-than-average information.. The difference between information and knowledge is crucial here, though I think the word 'knowledge' is slightly misleading. If we assume that by 'knowledge' he meant 'something that is more than merely a function of information', i.e. belief/ wisdom then his statement holds. I think most traders would like to think that this is the case (whether the are right or not), because it justifies their existence / management fees. If you read it as 'information = knowledge' then it looks very suspicious. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, because if he had meant 'information' then his post would have been unfeasibly implicating.

jamiequint 18y ago

This isn't as uncommon as people might think. A number of fairly well known people come to mind: Karl Popper, Marcel Proust.

akkartik 18y ago

His blog is about making money. I haven't heard him say anything about ethics. How is he a hypocrite?