Hacker News Reader

Comment by xyst | Hacker News Reader

The "case study" [1] in the author’s post is unsubstantiated. The author of the "case study" (it’s a short e-mail depicting a conviction of a C-level executive) even tries to parallel it with Aaron Schwartz conviction which is disgusting to me.

The C-level executive and his lackeys were committing _insider trading_ and profited from it. You getting caught with your pants down is not government overreach, it’s blatant greed. This does not have any similarity to Aaron Schwartz wrongful conviction.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20130614024309/https://mailman.s...

View on HN

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.

>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.

And also the implicit claim that this is fine and normal and that insider trading laws shouldn’t be enforced against CEOs?

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).

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.”

Isn't this type of situation what blind trusts are supposed to be for? Although they'd obviously be inconvenient.

>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?

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

Aaron wasn't convicted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com