Hacker News Reader

Comment by ptero | Hacker News Reader

Actually it is the state that has to prove mischief. They still enjoy presumption of innocence.

I agree the timing is suspicious, but the amounts are pretty small. Even if the stock drops 20% long term due to this (which IMO is highly unlikely), a high ranking executive risking a jail term to avoid losing 50k of stock is (again IMO), absolutely irrational.

View on HN

Martha Stewart's insider trading saved her ~$45k. At the time she worth around $600m. I agree, not rational.

She wasn't actually convicted of insider trading.

After a highly publicized six-week jury trial, Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators

all which was related to ~$45k? Hardly rational.

Sometimes narcissists can't help themselves. (See our president) They lie because it's what they do.

They usually get people for panicking when they're investigated. You never want to talk to federal investigators without a lawyer and you want to be very sure as to whether you actually remember things or not. People often play that safe by not remembering much of anything, but that can also bite you if you remember later.

So basically the semantics of an investigation rather than a crime. The type of thing the state resorts to if they still want to prosecute you even if they don't have a good case against you for the original crime?

Take the "making false statements to federal investigators" one for example, the "false statements" don't have to be at all related to the investigation (or eventual prosecution) at hand, they could have nothing to do with her personal financial matters, they just have to something you say that was not true during the course of the investigation.

Or "conspiracy" and "obstruction", both have a long history of providing law enforcement and prosecutors plenty of leeway to take punitive measures regardless of the feasability of the original case.

Very similar to the long history of 'resisting arrest' and 'assaulting a police officer' being used on a more localized level whenever a citizen did not show total obedience to police, regardless if they committed a crime or not.

Did she just do it the once, or was she just caught the once?

>I agree the timing is suspicious

More so considering that prior to the sale John Gamble (the CFO) hadn't sold a single share in the three years that he has been with the firm.

That's incorrect. For example, Gamble sold $1.9 million worth of stock in May.

https://finance.yahoo.com/screener/insider/GAMBLE%20JOHN%20W...

http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/insiders/gamble-john-w-jr-60842...

You are correct. I mistakenly thought the incident was in May, but I see now that it's the August trades that are in question. His only sales were in May and August of this year.

>high ranking executive risking a jail term to avoid losing 50k of stock is (again IMO), absolutely irrational.

You act as if this is a real senario and would have a non-negligible probability of occurring.

Depends on what one considers negligible. But I think govt attorneys made an example of Martha Stewart exactly to highlight the nonzero chances of jail if one, no matter how rich, ignores public securities laws.

There is a non-negligible possibility of this occurring. Insider trading is ridiculously easy to prosecute (the market is closely monitored) and the government regularly seeks prison time for executives. Rich people go to jail all the time for it.

> Rich people go to jail all the time for it.

Is that true? What do you mean by "all the time"?

Yes. At least they were smart enough not to buy options. :-)

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-06-17/there-mig...

Somebody opened a huge options position on EFX a couple weeks ago. No way to tell who, of course, but it certainly looks suspicious. I posted the chart here: https://twitter.com/dimfeld/status/905952247682547716

So, I struggle understanding options jargon, maybe you can help -- from your tweet: is 2500 alot? 2500 of what - stock that borrowed? $135 is lower than yesterday's price, but higher than today's open @ 125 - does that mean someone who bought the puts can cash out at $10 profit this morning?

thanks.

Someone bought 2500 put options. Each option gives the owner the ability to sell 100 shares at the strike price of the option.

If whoever owns those options exercises them today (And covers their short position at a price of $125) they will make ~$2.5m on a ~$200k bet.

Exactly - it's the most "efficient" way to make money if you have inside information, because you only have to put a small amount of money down on the option relative to the payoff.

This is why the options market is the first place regulators look on insider trading.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com