4 ms·

But that's the point - he wasn't doing anything that other CEOs weren't doing too, except he got targeted by the government and was imprisoned for six years.

by Asooka 1y ago

ecb_penguin 1y ago
> But that's the point - he wasn't doing anything that other CEOs weren't doing too 1. Millions of business executives go their entire life without insider trading 2. Lots of people commit crimes and are not caught. It doesn't mean you're excused when you are caught.
- deknos 1y ago
  > 1. Millions of business executives go their entire life without insider trading Citation needed. At some point at some position you will be ALWAYS vulnerable. that's for the people at the top and at the bottom. both are very vulnerable. the people at the top have MUCH to loose. the people at the bottom can be stopped to have anything to loose and still be tortured.
  - ecb_penguin 1y ago
    > Citation needed That's not how things work.... It's also a weird way to have a conversation or discussion. I can't prove a negative that millions of people didn't do something. > At some point at some position you will be ALWAYS vulnerable. It costs $50 to become a CEO. It does not make you vulnerable nor likely to commit federal crimes.
gruez 1y ago
>he wasn't doing anything that other CEOs weren't doing too Source? Are you making the claim that "other CEOs" (all? most? many?) trade on material nonpublic information? CEOs basically always have material nonpublic information on them, even without secret government contracts. That's why there's rule 10b5-1, to allow them to pre-declare their trades ahead of time to avoid such allegations.
- dullcrisp 1y ago
  And also the implicit claim that this is fine and normal and that insider trading laws shouldn’t be enforced against CEOs?
  - tavavex 1y ago
    I feel like we're reading two different posts. In my interpretation, the post describes the whole accusation as a logical contradiction. It's not your normal insider trading - it's an accusation based on the fact that the CEO did any stock transactions while knowing classified information that also related to his company. What was he supposed to do to make this right? Tell the general public the classified information? Avoid doing anything with his company's shares indefinitely (or at least, for the decades until said information is declassified)? The defense here goes beyond "everyone does this so this is fine" (though I wouldn't be surprised if others did in fact do this).
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Avoid doing anything with his company's shares indefinitely (or at least, for the decades until said information is declassified)? Wouldn't the contracts eventually show up on the financial statements?
    - dullcrisp 1y ago
      You got me, I just came to the comments to learn what felonies I’m committing so I may be missing some nuance. But I do believe that doing stock transactions while knowing material non-public information is the definition of insider trading that you’re taught if you ever work at a public company. As for how exactly you’re supposed to handle that if you’re the CEO I’m not sure but I don’t think the answer is “just do the insider trading, everyone does it.”
    - jlund-molfese 1y ago
      Isn't this type of situation what blind trusts are supposed to be for? Although they'd obviously be inconvenient.
vajrabum 1y ago
The feds don’t generally indict unless it’s a slam dunk. That means two things. Lots of people walk and they will go after someone if they have the evidence. As a small investor I’m glad they get at least a few. Insider trading is a kind of stealing where the victims don’t generally even know they’ve been robbed and at the high end the amounts are large.
- deknos 1y ago
  > The feds don’t generally indict unless it’s a slam dunk. You do not need to. You can ruin reputation. You can starve them in court proceedings and rituals.
xyst 1y ago
This comment is also unsubstantiated stating "he wasn’t doing anything that other CEOs weren’t doing". Where’s the proof? If this is true, then ask yourself. Why the fuck isn’t the government [in the 2000s] doing their job? Why aren’t the people demanding executives be held accountable? 6 years in club fed for a $52M+ profit in insider trading is peanuts. The neoliberal/neoclassical economy we live is wild.

But that's the point - he wasn't doing anything that other CEOs weren't doing too, except he got targeted by the government and was imprisoned for six years.

by Asooka 1y ago

But that's the point - he wasn't doing anything that other CEOs weren't doing too, except he got targeted by the government and was imprisoned for six years.

ecb_penguin 1y ago

> But that's the point - he wasn't doing anything that other CEOs weren't doing too 1. Millions of business executives go their entire life without insider trading 2. Lots of people commit crimes and are not caught. It doesn't mean you're excused when you are caught.

deknos 1y ago
> 1. Millions of business executives go their entire life without insider trading Citation needed. At some point at some position you will be ALWAYS vulnerable. that's for the people at the top and at the bottom. both are very vulnerable. the people at the top have MUCH to loose. the people at the bottom can be stopped to have anything to loose and still be tortured.
- ecb_penguin 1y ago
  > Citation needed That's not how things work.... It's also a weird way to have a conversation or discussion. I can't prove a negative that millions of people didn't do something. > At some point at some position you will be ALWAYS vulnerable. It costs $50 to become a CEO. It does not make you vulnerable nor likely to commit federal crimes.

gruez 1y ago

>he wasn't doing anything that other CEOs weren't doing too Source? Are you making the claim that "other CEOs" (all? most? many?) trade on material nonpublic information? CEOs basically always have material nonpublic information on them, even without secret government contracts. That's why there's rule 10b5-1, to allow them to pre-declare their trades ahead of time to avoid such allegations.

dullcrisp 1y ago
And also the implicit claim that this is fine and normal and that insider trading laws shouldn’t be enforced against CEOs?
- tavavex 1y ago
  I feel like we're reading two different posts. In my interpretation, the post describes the whole accusation as a logical contradiction. It's not your normal insider trading - it's an accusation based on the fact that the CEO did any stock transactions while knowing classified information that also related to his company. What was he supposed to do to make this right? Tell the general public the classified information? Avoid doing anything with his company's shares indefinitely (or at least, for the decades until said information is declassified)? The defense here goes beyond "everyone does this so this is fine" (though I wouldn't be surprised if others did in fact do this).
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Avoid doing anything with his company's shares indefinitely (or at least, for the decades until said information is declassified)? Wouldn't the contracts eventually show up on the financial statements?
  - dullcrisp 1y ago
    You got me, I just came to the comments to learn what felonies I’m committing so I may be missing some nuance. But I do believe that doing stock transactions while knowing material non-public information is the definition of insider trading that you’re taught if you ever work at a public company. As for how exactly you’re supposed to handle that if you’re the CEO I’m not sure but I don’t think the answer is “just do the insider trading, everyone does it.”
  - jlund-molfese 1y ago
    Isn't this type of situation what blind trusts are supposed to be for? Although they'd obviously be inconvenient.

vajrabum 1y ago

The feds don’t generally indict unless it’s a slam dunk. That means two things. Lots of people walk and they will go after someone if they have the evidence. As a small investor I’m glad they get at least a few. Insider trading is a kind of stealing where the victims don’t generally even know they’ve been robbed and at the high end the amounts are large.

deknos 1y ago
> The feds don’t generally indict unless it’s a slam dunk. You do not need to. You can ruin reputation. You can starve them in court proceedings and rituals.

xyst 1y ago

This comment is also unsubstantiated stating "he wasn’t doing anything that other CEOs weren’t doing". Where’s the proof? If this is true, then ask yourself. Why the fuck isn’t the government [in the 2000s] doing their job? Why aren’t the people demanding executives be held accountable? 6 years in club fed for a $52M+ profit in insider trading is peanuts. The neoliberal/neoclassical economy we live is wild.