3 ms·
It doesn't matter if he lost money on the trades, what matters is that he had a position in Boeing that was impacting his ability to make an impartial ruling.
by Taek 2y ago
It doesn't matter if he lost money on the trades, what matters is that he had a position in Boeing that was impacting his ability to make an impartial ruling.
- jncfhnb 2y agoIt matters in principal that these things should be avoided. And he didn’t handle it right. But you’d be fooling yourself if the facts of this story suggest it had any meaningful impact on his ruling.
- sanex 2y agoHe sold the stocks as soon as he found the conflict of interest and reported it.
- pdonis 2y ago> what matters is that he had a position in Boeing Only if he knew about it and kept the position. Which, according to the disclosure he filed, he didn't.
- donmcronald 2y agoThe article says they sold the stocks a year before the ruling. Assuming he didn't re-buy any, what would he gain from making a ruling while he's not holding any of the stock?
- throw_a_grenade 2y agoI could be seen the other way around: theoretically he gould have known that the ruling would make the price drop so selling before ruling (which he did) would be better for his wealth than selling after the ruling. I have no idea if that is meaningful if done a year before actual ruling and in the amount he held.
- caseyy 2y agoI don’t know if it necessarily impacts the ruling. I have long positions in companies I overall hate. There can be other factors that affect judgement more is my key point. Money isn’t everything. It was a conflict of interest if the judge knew and was trading those stocks at the time. But it seems like that wasn’t the case.