6 ms·

The guy only earned $107k. I understand it’s their job to enforce the law but the SEC really seems to only go after small timers.

NohatCoder 2y ago
Yeah, if he had made $107M instead he would have had the lawyer power to go free.
- pavlov 2y ago
  In April 2022, Elon Musk bought 9.2% of Twitter. He was legally required to file a disclosure notice when his ownership exceeded 5%, but he didn’t. This allowed him to keep buying billions worth of stock for cheaper because the price immediately went up when his ownership became public. Obvious violation of securities laws, with hundreds of millions in profit. Who knows if he’ll ever be held accountable. Musk seems to delight in mocking the SEC.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Obvious violation of securities laws, with hundreds of millions in profit. Who knows if he’ll ever be held accountable It’s in court [1] and under investigation [2]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-suggests-late-twitter-disclosure-was-mistake-seeks-end-lawsuit-2024-07-05/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-suggests-late-twitte... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/musk-agrees-to-testify-in-secs-probe-of-twitter-deal-00160615 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/musk-agrees-to-test...
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the SEC really seems to only go after small timers Insider trading is a fuckwit sport. The N != NP asymmetry of executing an insider trade, profitably and discreetly, against the simplicity of looking for weird trades ex post facto leads most with money to conclude it isn’t worth it. The meme about the lawlessness of finance tends to be held by those furthest from it.
- rschneid 2y ago
  I humbly submit to you hypothesis that the lawlessness of finance is so pervasive that it has effectively become legalized through intellectual and regulatory capture. If you're interested in supporting evidence for this idea, check out how Enron sought and acquired SEC 'approval' for their ponzi instruments....
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the lawlessness of finance is so pervasive that it has effectively become legalized through intellectual and regulatory capture Right, this is the popular narrative, and it’s why numpties think they can get away with trading out-of-the-money calls on tenders. > check out how Enron sought and acquired SEC 'approval' for their ponzi instruments Source? Because the SEC doesn’t approve (or deny) corporate instruments. It regulates disclosure.
    - rschneid 2y ago
      Well official disclosure in finance is very similar to assigning value, since many of the instruments that actually trade are derivative or abstract representations of actual assets with 'real' value. My only point is that the notion of 'legal' can get very fuzzy when you're talking about an industry with so many private/self-interested entities that rival or exceed intellectual/manpower of the agencies responsible for regulation. If you want to learn more about the SEC's role or dereliction of duty in the Enron case you could start here: https://www.investopedia.com/updates/enron-scandal-summary/#toc-hiding-loss-with-mtm https://www.investopedia.com/updates/enron-scandal-summary/#... Google could lead you to more evidence, if you wish to explore the hypothesis further...
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > many of the instruments that actually trade are derivative or abstract representations of actual assets with 'real' value They’re all derivative. > the notion of 'legal' can get very fuzzy when you're talking about an industry with so many private/self-interested entities Sure. You’re describing ambiguity outside securities trading. > more about the SEC's role or dereliction of duty in the Enron case I asked for one example of something the SEC had a mandate to do that it didn’t.
shrubble 2y ago
Congress exempts itself from insider trading laws. There is a 'Nancy Pelosi stock tracker' Twitter account that tracks Congressional buying and selling of stocks.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Congress exempts itself from insider trading laws Not true [1]. (Enforcement leaves much to be desired.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
  - rschneid 2y ago
    Pretending to be subject to a law however in practice never prosecuting opens the door to inconsistent (aka selective) enforcement. How is this not the worst of both worlds? What a weird gotcha....
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > subject to a law however in practice never prosecuting opens the door to inconsistent (aka selective) enforcement Enforcement opens the door to selective enforcement. A lack of enforcement precludes it. And the STOCK Act has been enforced [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_trading_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_t...
      - rschneid 2y ago
        You've got it backwards mate, a lack of enforcement isn't an agreement or resolution or much of anything reliable or solid or sound. This vacuum of enforcement actually ENABLES selective enforcement because a lack of enforcement isn't an official stance but technically at odds with the written law: It's an implicit status quo that could be changed any time and when it does, you could become retroactively liable for behavior that was acceptable under the prior status quo. That is precisely the conditions of selective enforcement: the choice of the enforcer. Under these inconsistent regulatory modalities you may insidiously lose valuable rights like: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
mamonster 2y ago
Most big timers also come out super bad, it's just you don't hear about these cases because it is almost never so dumb(the option trade this guy did is not hard to catch at all). IIRC only Steve Cohen managed to battle back from catching an insider case.

NohatCoder 2y ago

Yeah, if he had made $107M instead he would have had the lawyer power to go free.

pavlov 2y ago
In April 2022, Elon Musk bought 9.2% of Twitter. He was legally required to file a disclosure notice when his ownership exceeded 5%, but he didn’t. This allowed him to keep buying billions worth of stock for cheaper because the price immediately went up when his ownership became public. Obvious violation of securities laws, with hundreds of millions in profit. Who knows if he’ll ever be held accountable. Musk seems to delight in mocking the SEC.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Obvious violation of securities laws, with hundreds of millions in profit. Who knows if he’ll ever be held accountable It’s in court [1] and under investigation [2]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-suggests-late-twitter-disclosure-was-mistake-seeks-end-lawsuit-2024-07-05/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-suggests-late-twitte... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/musk-agrees-to-testify-in-secs-probe-of-twitter-deal-00160615 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/30/musk-agrees-to-test...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> the SEC really seems to only go after small timers Insider trading is a fuckwit sport. The N != NP asymmetry of executing an insider trade, profitably and discreetly, against the simplicity of looking for weird trades ex post facto leads most with money to conclude it isn’t worth it. The meme about the lawlessness of finance tends to be held by those furthest from it.

rschneid 2y ago
I humbly submit to you hypothesis that the lawlessness of finance is so pervasive that it has effectively become legalized through intellectual and regulatory capture. If you're interested in supporting evidence for this idea, check out how Enron sought and acquired SEC 'approval' for their ponzi instruments....
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the lawlessness of finance is so pervasive that it has effectively become legalized through intellectual and regulatory capture Right, this is the popular narrative, and it’s why numpties think they can get away with trading out-of-the-money calls on tenders. > check out how Enron sought and acquired SEC 'approval' for their ponzi instruments Source? Because the SEC doesn’t approve (or deny) corporate instruments. It regulates disclosure.
  - rschneid 2y ago
    Well official disclosure in finance is very similar to assigning value, since many of the instruments that actually trade are derivative or abstract representations of actual assets with 'real' value. My only point is that the notion of 'legal' can get very fuzzy when you're talking about an industry with so many private/self-interested entities that rival or exceed intellectual/manpower of the agencies responsible for regulation. If you want to learn more about the SEC's role or dereliction of duty in the Enron case you could start here: https://www.investopedia.com/updates/enron-scandal-summary/#toc-hiding-loss-with-mtm https://www.investopedia.com/updates/enron-scandal-summary/#... Google could lead you to more evidence, if you wish to explore the hypothesis further...
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > many of the instruments that actually trade are derivative or abstract representations of actual assets with 'real' value They’re all derivative. > the notion of 'legal' can get very fuzzy when you're talking about an industry with so many private/self-interested entities Sure. You’re describing ambiguity outside securities trading. > more about the SEC's role or dereliction of duty in the Enron case I asked for one example of something the SEC had a mandate to do that it didn’t.

shrubble 2y ago

Congress exempts itself from insider trading laws. There is a 'Nancy Pelosi stock tracker' Twitter account that tracks Congressional buying and selling of stocks.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Congress exempts itself from insider trading laws Not true [1]. (Enforcement leaves much to be desired.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
- rschneid 2y ago
  Pretending to be subject to a law however in practice never prosecuting opens the door to inconsistent (aka selective) enforcement. How is this not the worst of both worlds? What a weird gotcha....
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > subject to a law however in practice never prosecuting opens the door to inconsistent (aka selective) enforcement Enforcement opens the door to selective enforcement. A lack of enforcement precludes it. And the STOCK Act has been enforced [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_trading_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_t...
    - rschneid 2y ago
      You've got it backwards mate, a lack of enforcement isn't an agreement or resolution or much of anything reliable or solid or sound. This vacuum of enforcement actually ENABLES selective enforcement because a lack of enforcement isn't an official stance but technically at odds with the written law: It's an implicit status quo that could be changed any time and when it does, you could become retroactively liable for behavior that was acceptable under the prior status quo. That is precisely the conditions of selective enforcement: the choice of the enforcer. Under these inconsistent regulatory modalities you may insidiously lose valuable rights like: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

mamonster 2y ago

Most big timers also come out super bad, it's just you don't hear about these cases because it is almost never so dumb(the option trade this guy did is not hard to catch at all). IIRC only Steve Cohen managed to battle back from catching an insider case.