3 ms·
And also the implicit claim that this is fine and normal and that insider trading laws shouldn’t be enforced against CEOs?
by dullcrisp 2y ago
And also the implicit claim that this is fine and normal and that insider trading laws shouldn’t be enforced against CEOs?
- tavavex 2y agoI 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 2y 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 2y agoYou 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 2y agoIsn't this type of situation what blind trusts are supposed to be for? Although they'd obviously be inconvenient.