SVB CEO and other execs caught red handed with insider trading.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
I don't really agree with calling it insider trading in this front, insider trading would be an insider from the company telling outsiders who aren't with the company what they're doing on purpose.
I think if your company is failing and you know it, you shouldn't be forced to lose everything. Like with Martha Stewart. If you're told you're going to lose money, why is it morally and legally required that you just lose it like some destined future?
Downvote if you want, but provide some reasoning why you should be forced to go down with the ship.
You can't be serious - insider trading is if "an insider" - someone on the inside - trades on information only people on the inside know. Like. This.
It doesn't just mean an insider tells an outsider something they trade on like the Pelosi's do.
If they told everyone last week the bank was going down, they could've likely traded shares legally without it being insider trading (barring some stupid unforseen regulatory thing saying they can't) but in reality nobody would buy them because it was failing.
It's the CEO. It's automatically knowing. Why should they not use the information they have to save themselves?
I don't get it. Do you think that Martha Stewart was guilty of insider trading because she was told information and opted to save herself instead of treating it like a preordained event?
Sorry (not really), I just think it's incredibly stupid to treat it this way unless they deliberately drove the business into the ground. It's unreasonable to expect someone to just sit there knowing they are going to lose an ass load of money.