[HN Gopher] Twilio employees, associates charged with insider tr... ___________________________________________________________________ Twilio employees, associates charged with insider trading by SEC Author : pcbro141 Score : 179 points Date : 2022-03-28 19:59 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.sec.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.sec.gov) | throwaytwilios wrote: | tempsy wrote: | I can't understand the rationale behind blowing up your life and | career in which you made $300k+/year for a tiny $1m gain split | between 3 people and their families. | | Why are people who should otherwise be much smarter than this | doing incredibly dumb things? Just greed? and entitlement? | bsder wrote: | Generally--because they're used to this kind of cheating and | have never been busted for it before. | | The problem is that people think they've graduated to "no | longer has to worry about consequences" at the $1 million | range. And that's true--unless the Feds get involved. At that | point, you need to be in the $100+ million range to get away | with crime. | | So, there is this danger area between $1 million where you get | lots of local feedback that you are above consequences and $100 | million where you actually _are_ above consequences. | | It's very easy to get complacent and trip up in that window. | (I'm remembering the Silicon Valley option backdating fiasco | and how many people it caught ...) | npteljes wrote: | And for the rush of it? And for the money itself? 300k when you | earn 300k boosts you one year ahead. It's not a small amount of | money. Also smart and wise is not the same. | pm90 wrote: | This is a total guess, but based on the fact that all the perps | names are Indian, there is a chance that they are immigrants | who are either not aware of the law or the serious consequences | involved if you get caught. If they're convicted this will | almost certainly affect their immigration status and likely get | them deported too. | | Not excusing what they did at all, but it should be noted that | the judicial systems in India and the US are very different; | its not very common to get busted for financial crimes. | | I honestly think that whenever immigrants come over they should | be required to attend a class about the law enforcement | situation in the US, and how there's very real chances of | getting prosecuted if you do crimes. | metadat wrote: | Publicly traded companies make office employees periodically | (usually annually) go through a corporate anti-corruption | training course covering inappropriate gifts and insider | trading. | | If these fellas were smart enough to be hired at Twilio, | claiming ignorance is beyond ridiculous. | | If somehow twilio decided to skip all these trainings, twilio | can be held liable and sued by their employees who get in | trouble. Do you think their savvy legal team (c'mon, it's in | Telco space, they have a legal army) could be that dumb? | Having been present during an IPO and working for publicly | traded companies, I can confidently say "No, not a chance". | sharemywin wrote: | probably thought they could get away with it | tempsy wrote: | lol well yeah. | | but the SEC literally has to run one query that shows someone | with a big gain buying stock and options before earnings and | work at said company which i'm pretty sure you're not | supposed to be doing in the first place whether you had | special info or not | [deleted] | jasonlotito wrote: | > Why are people who should otherwise be much smarter than this | | Being smart at your job doesn't mean you aren't ignorant. In | fact, I'd say the culture of equating "good at computers" | meaning you are probably "smarter than this" does more to | shield us from the truth of our own ignorance. | [deleted] | ashtonkem wrote: | It seems to be a problem common among specialists, especially | among highly valued specialists. I've heard the same | complaints about lawyers and doctors, for example, so it | doesn't seem to be specific to the "good with computers" | crowd. | rossdavidh wrote: | My wife owns a small retail clothing store. It is her | experience that the people who attempt to steal, are not | generally lower income, they are often among the most well-to- | do members of the population that goes through her store. Very | different stakes, and very different age group (she mostly | sells to teenagers and twentysomethings), but same psychology, | I think. "I'm not the sort of person who gets arrested and sent | to prison". Which is true until suddenly it isn't. | ethbr0 wrote: | I call this the "National Park effect". | | Being constantly coddled in some way dulls your ability to | recognize when circumstances have changed, and those | safeguards are no longer present. | | See: tourists who wander off in National Parks with no cell | service, with no water or survival gear, and then think it's | a good idea to pet a bison | | The concept of laying bleeding, miles from the nearest road, | with broken bones, as night falls and the temperature drops | is so foreign to their experience that it just isn't an | imagined possibility. | nebula8804 wrote: | >Being constantly coddled in some way dulls your ability to | recognize when circumstances have changed, and those | safeguards are no longer present. | | It will be interesting to see this happen nationwide if the | music were to stop(or slow down) in the US economy as some | are predicting. | ethbr0 wrote: | That's what the 2008 crisis was at its root -- too many | people, at all levels, who'd forgotten to be alert for | danger and mistakenly assumed that the recent past served | as fundamental bounds of future possibility. | guidovranken wrote: | > On several occasions between late March and early May 2020, | before Twilio's public earnings announcement, Sure, Lagudu and | Chotu Pulagam used internal chat channels to discuss in Telugu | whether Twilio might exceed market expectations in its quarterly | report of earnings, due in May 2020. They concluded that Twilio's | stock price would "rise for sure" after the quarterly results | were announced publicly. | | https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2022/comp-pr2022-5... | | I assume "internal chat channels" means the company Slack so this | wasn't well planned at all. I wonder if they were even aware they | were committing a felony at that stage. | ffggvv wrote: | probably or they wouldnt have used telugu. maybe assuming it | would be harder to get caught | stavros wrote: | Why wouldn't they have used their native language in a secure | channel? | runako wrote: | I'm sure the SEC has an array of tools with which to comb through | the data, but I would bet that the vast majority of these cases | against non-professional traders are flagged by identifying | retail brokerage accounts where the notional value of options | outstanding is | | 1) larger than some % of the the portfolio size (e.g. > 50%) | | 2) with exposure concentrated on 1-3 stocks | | 3) with no similarly-sized follow-up trades in other names (e.g. | they didn't just figure out a new methodology and begin applying | it across different companies) | | Due diligence follow-up to determine that one or more of the | yokels works for the company in question, and LinkedIn will get | you more of the perps. | | The only surprising thing to me is that the SEC likely hasn't had | to tune this filter for decades. | corentin88 wrote: | It's more likely to me that they talked about it internally (to | colleagues?) and someone reported it to HR, the police or SEC | directly. | tempsy wrote: | uhm it's not even that difficult. they just see if you traded | in your own account for a company you work for around earnings. | | i'm pretty sure you're not supposed to do it at all but maybe | dependent on the situation. | ethbr0 wrote: | You're not supposed to do that at all. You could argue you | didn't possess any material non-public information, but since | essentially every internal document you access is non-public | information, that's probably not an argument you want to deal | with. | | Just trade your own company's shares in the windows _after_ | earnings releases. Or set up a pre-defined share sale plan in | one of these windows, covering the future, and don 't touch | it. | mgfist wrote: | Many companies, and (most?) tech companies have trading | black out periods that are lifted for about a month a few | days after earnings. It applies to your personal brokerage | account too, even though they can't technically enforce it. | sidewndr46 wrote: | > Or set up a pre-defined share sale plan in one of these | windows, covering the future, and don't touch it. | | The insider trading training I did at one company | specifically mentioned this is against SEC rules and is | insider trading. I am unsure if that is actually true, but | that is what the company expected us to operate as. | tempsy wrote: | i follow the market pretty closely and executives and | board members often have pre-defined sales plans that | will sell shares right before earnings. | | not sure if it's open to employees. personally don't | think it's fair but it seems to be legal as is. | toast0 wrote: | Setting up a 10b5-1 plan with your broker when you don't | have material, non-public information, and your broker | follows the plan is _the_ way to trade in employer stock | with a solid footing if you regularly have material non- | public information. (Such as, in this case, a major | change in business metrics). | | Your company may not permit regular employees to setup a | 10b5-1 plan, I think they need signof by corporate legal; | and in that case, any trading that happens in your | account could be considered insider trading based on your | knowledge when the trade executes (or possibly when it's | entered/while it's open... details are sort of fuzzy), | regardless of if you or your agent made the trade, or | even if the trade was automatic due to margin or | something. | ethbr0 wrote: | IANAL, but a 10b5-1 plan (thanks for reminding me of the | naming!) is an affirmative defense, that removes insider | trading liability if a trade satisfies all of its | conditions. | | Effectively, (1) the plan is created when one does not | have material nonpublic information, (2) that it... | | _" - Specified the amount of securities to be purchased | or sold, price, and date; | | - Provided a written formula or algorithm, or computer | program, for determining amounts, prices, and dates; or | | - Did not permit the person to exercise any subsequent | influence over how, when, or whether to effect purchases | or sales; provided, in addition, that any other person | who exercised such influence was not aware of the | material nonpublic information when doing so."_ [0] | | ... and (3) that the trade as executed did not attempt to | subvert (2). | | So it's not really something you need to have your | corporate legal agree to for it to be valid (although | legal may require or encourage you to do so, to limit | exposure of company officers botching it). You simply | have to set up a plan that satisfies the test with your | broker, then claim it as your defense if the SEC comes | after you. | | A note on a napkin saying "Sell 5,000 shares 3 days | before every earnings call, as long as the RSI is >50" | would seem to suffice, provided you didn't subsequently | meddle. | | [0] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/15/ | 2022-01... | sidewndr46 wrote: | The training I went through explicitly laid out this | scenario and explicitly classified it as insider trading | if material nonpublic information is found that would | make those trades desirable to execute. I've never heard | of the SEC prosecuting someone for losing money due to | insider trading. | | Again, this probably isn't the case legally. But it was | enough for an extremely powerful corporation to deem it | as such. | ethbr0 wrote: | You'd have to look up recent case law, as with all SEC | rules, which may be what your company is referring to. | | But that's the explicit design of 10b5-1: that it | provides coverage if all its requirements are satisfied. | | The SEC can charge you for making favorable trades | according to a predefined plan, but they're going to have | an uphill battle convicting you, if you kept your broker | at arms length and didn't alter your plan beyond what was | initially communicated. | joshuamorton wrote: | I think the issue may be that a 10b5-1 is the only way to | do this without avoiding liability. Just having your | broker make trades for you, even if they're "scheduled", | isn't enough. | RC_ITR wrote: | >The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced | insider trading charges against three software engineers | employed at Twilio, Inc., a San Francisco-based cloud | computing communications company, and four family members and | friends for allegedly generating more than $1 million in | collective profits by insider trading ahead of the company's | positive first quarter 2020 earnings announcement on May 6, | 2020. | | This, along with the 'Tipper/Tippee' language implies that | the named engineers did not in fact trade in their own | accounts. | tempsy wrote: | i mean it's not clear it could have been all of them. not | really the point i'm making..yes it could have been done | exclusively using family that the government clearly knows | you're linked to. maybe more difficult with friends. | RC_ITR wrote: | Please read the articles before commenting on them: | | >Sure, Lagudu and Chotu Pulagam knowingly tipped off, or | used the brokerage accounts of, their family and close | friends - Dileep Kamujula, Sai Nekkalapudi, Abhishek | Dharmapurikar and Chetan Pulagam - to trade Twilio | options and stock in advance of its May 6, | usea wrote: | > Please read the articles before commenting on them: | | You don't have to read an article before commenting. | Trying to make up rules and hold other people to them is | neither kind nor constructive. | | Your interpretation of their post is not charitable. | | It's explicitly against the guidelines to accuse someone | of not reading the article. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | tempsy wrote: | ok? what is the point? they tipped off family but sharing | in the gains. | | sorry i said "their own personal account" and not "their | family" which they lazily used to try to hide the trading | activity? | toomuchtodo wrote: | > I'm sure the SEC has an array of tools with which to comb | through the data | | They have a fairly robust analytics/data science team, and will | also act on referrals from FINRA related to | suspicious/anomalous trade activity. | tempsy wrote: | isn't this what they use Palantir for? | throwoutway wrote: | I don't think so, I saw a FINRA talk 5+ years ago where | they described their home built data analytics that could | process all daily trades looking for something similar to | what the GP described | nojito wrote: | Nope. | | https://www.sec.gov/marketstructure/midas-system | spamizbad wrote: | Palantir doesn't have a product that actually does this, | contrary to whatever sales presentation you might've heard. | | (I know someone whose gov org almost found this out the | hard way after nearly flushing millions of taxpayer dollars | down the toilet) | sq_ wrote: | I've barely touched anything Palantir, but the one gov | project I worked on tangentially that used their products | did seem suspiciously like a simple database that the gov | employees/contractors were doing all the work to make | useful. | | I'm not sure if that's what they were sold, but if they | were sold on a full solution, that's definitely not what | they got... | paxys wrote: | None of Palantir's products do anything really useful. | They are instead used as glorified tech demos by their | sales teams. Then their engineers go in and build custom | solutions for whatever the client needs. The company | doesn't do too much more than standard tech consulting. | paulpauper wrote: | >>Three tech company employees along with family and friends | charged in $1 million scheme | | They should have just made YouTube livestreams pretending to be | VItalik Buterin, Elon Musk, or Michael Saylor instead. Those guys | making million every month, no arrests, no SEC. | sonicggg wrote: | According to the article, they 'concluded in a joint chat that | Twilio's stock price would "rise for sure."' | | I bet there are a lot of folks doing this out there, but they are | more careful. So they had a non-encrypted chat room about it. | It'd be funny if they found this in the company 's Slack | workspace. | | On top of that, they involved a bunch of other family members. | That's too much. | mrjaeger wrote: | From the Complaint | (https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2022/comp- | pr2022-5...): "Kamujula met with Sure on April 8, 2020 and later | that night began purchasing out-of-the-money Twilio call | options." | | Clearly not Money Stuff readers! | [deleted] | RspecMAuthortah wrote: | Not a sympathizer of these idiots who clearly thought that would | get away. But what really astonishes me is how SEC is | consistently after these retail small players when members of | congress and its different committees are brazenly involved in | insider trading and no one bats an eye. Hell even the Fed itself | and its members were involved in trades that could only be | explained by insider knowledge. | | My sense is SEC wants to send the message it is OK if big players | do it but small players beware. | paulpauper wrote: | Because it's not as obvious regarding congress. Person A gets | tip, hands to B and makes trade, is a direct link and can be | proven in court. Also, Congress has 532 people, so by | statistical certainty we should expect some to beat the market. | swyx wrote: | well, for one, members of congress are legally allowed to | insider trade. | | pretty convenient laws when you make the laws. | CharlesW wrote: | > _well, for one, members of congress are legally allowed to | insider trade._ | | Are they? | | Highlight link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#:~:te | xt=The%20law%20.... | udkl wrote: | ribs wrote: | No doubt there are lawbreakers in AP, just as they are in every | other state, in every other place. That you've heard more or | remembered more or paid more attention to those reports is of | little to no material importance for grasping what is going on | in the world or predicting what will happen next and who will | do what. | udkl wrote: | Nah, I'm aware against the bias you mention, and that's not | it. There genuinely are more fraudsters in tech from that | state. People I know from that state disproportionately tend | to be lazy and scammy. Case in point this scam. However, this | does not mean everyone there is dishonest. | paulpauper wrote: | Yet again, supposedly smart, well-paid people taking huge risks | for relatively small payouts. | charcircuit wrote: | All insider trading should be legal. Imagine the opposite case. | You know your company is doing poorly but the government forces | you to not sell your stock and take a loss. | rossdavidh wrote: | In those countries where insider trading is either explicitly | allowed or laws against it are never enforced, nobody without | inside information wants to play, because they know the game is | rigged. | vmception wrote: | Yeah? Any analysis I can read on that? Its kind of low | hanging since the US has such high trading volumes far beyond | every other market, but I cant accept that as causation | alone. | decebalus1 wrote: | As opposed to the game being always rigged but without | everyone knowing... just the insiders. | rossdavidh wrote: | Truth. | sp332 wrote: | It's only illegal if you're using secret information. The | company can't report info to some shareholders and not others. | sneak wrote: | No, it's only illegal if you are using secret information | accessed with privileged insider access. | | If you do research and deduce nonpublic (secret) data and use | that, that is fine. The classic example is inferring sales | data from customer traffic by observing the parking lot | utilization at regular intervals. | kasey_junk wrote: | This is an American interpretation of insider trading laws | which are very much not about keeping markets fair rather | they are about preventing shareholders (or those working on | their behalf) from stealing from other shareholders. | | Other jurisdictions have different presumptions about what | insider trading laws are for and may thus interpret them in | different ways. | | This was a US jurisdiction filing so the former standard | applies but on an international message board it's worth | remembering people have different intuitions about this | stuff for good reason. | charcircuit wrote: | In my example the company is not reporting to any | shareholders. You are doing trades based off of information | that you have collected yourself. | sp332 wrote: | - | notch656a wrote: | >If you're using information anyone could get with some | research, then it's not illegal. | | If I am willing to give out information gained during | employment of the company to anyone asking as part of | their research, then by this definition it's not illegal, | as anyone can get the information with some research. | ethbr0 wrote: | See fair disclosure requirements | | https://www.investor.gov/introduction- | investing/investing-ba... | notch656a wrote: | At best that would only require you to disclose to | everyone once asked by someone performing some research, | or through the outlined regulation FD mechanisms. It | still holds that using your own definition, all it takes | is some research to gain what the employee who is willing | to give up information knows, and that giving up the | information can be done in a way that avoids violating | regulation FD. | ethbr0 wrote: | If you want to play chicken with the SEC like they're a | D&D DM you're rules lawyering, be my guest. | | Because while they may not prosecute often, I'd still | rather stay off their radar. | syshum wrote: | if you are in the position of knowing secret data of a publicly | traded company, and you are uncomfortable with the position of | possibly losing money because you can not act on the secret | data, I would suggest you not hold stock for companies you know | secret data about | | No insider trading should not be legal | derekp7 wrote: | Something I was always curious about, but I lack the legal | background to find the answer. What if public information | showed that you should sell the stock, but you decide to hold | it instead (i.e., not do anything at all) because you have | insider information that the company will be doing much | better than expected? The "not selling" part (assuming you | bought stock prior to having insider knowledge) is a form of | insider trading, but I can't see how that could be enforced | (i.e., how would the SEC be able to prove that you would have | sold if you didn't have that positive insider knowledge?) | fatnoah wrote: | AFAIK, that wouldn't be considered insider trading since | there was no trade. | | However, there's an even more interesting wrinkle. In that | case, you plan trades well in advance, and then cancel them | based on insider information. In one case, that was rules | to not be insider trading either. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Rule_10b5-1 | | "After Rule 10b5-1 was enacted, the SEC staff publicly took | the position that canceling a planned trade made under the | safe harbor does not constitute insider trading, even if | the person was aware of the inside information when | canceling the trade. The SEC stated that, despite the fact | that 10b5-1(c) requires trades to be irrevocable, there can | be no liability for insider trading under Rule 10b-5 | without an actual securities transaction, based on the U.S. | Supreme Court's holding in Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug | Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975).[6]" | metadat wrote: | The game is most definitely rigged, it's not even a | secret. | smegma2 wrote: | Not a lawyer but holding should always be fine. No trading | is happening therefore it's not insider trading. | usrusr wrote: | Or more to the point: insider trading isn't quite as | victimless as some people might like to believe. | | The only victim "insider holding" could have would be | people betting against a trend caused by public | information (who would win even more if the "insider | holder" would sell with the herd), either out of pure | gambling desire or because their trades are insider | trades. Neither seems particularly worthy of protection. | syshum wrote: | not a lawyer, but inaction should never be criminalized. | wasmitnetzen wrote: | In a lot of Civil law systems, you have a Duty to | rescue[1]. Which I wholeheartedly agree with. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue | notch656a wrote: | Unfortunately it commonly is. One example is mandatory | reporters. For some licensed professions, it is a thought | crime to merely have the thought that you suspect a child | meets some criteria of neglect/abuse, while not | performing any action to relay the thought to | authorities. This can lead to unwarranted and | damaging/traumatic CPS investigations merely so a | professional can cover their ass. | vkou wrote: | This can also lead to highly warranted investigations, | given that _actual_ abuse is incredibly common. | notch656a wrote: | CPS investigators asking non-abused children traumatizing | questions (sometimes after being independently detained) | and the associated investigation into the family, only | reported as CYA to stay in compliance with mandatory | reporter laws, is child abuse performed by CPS. CPS | themselves are often the child abusers in this fashion, | and this law allows them to abuse more children. | | >This can also lead to highly warranted investigations, | given that actual abuse is incredibly common. | | Or possibly not. It could drive anyone who suspects a | professional may attribute (correctly or not) some | circumstance as abuse, to merely completely avoid letting | their family see any professionals. These laws degrade | trust even further between professionals and those | seeking them, reducing access to care. Instead of an aid, | a therapist or doctor is seen as a threat so dangerous as | to risk breaking apart your family at any time. Avoidance | at seeking professional services may decrease warranted | investigations rather than increase them. | | Anyone familiar with substance abuse patient care | understands how mandatory reporting frequently endangers | children: many drug-addicted women birth outside the | hospital system so they can keep their children. | | But of course I don't doubt compelling people to say | their thoughts out loud to authorities could lead to more | 'warranted investigations' at a dystopic cost. As with | many laws written so _someone will think of the | children_, there is some factual basis that additional | warranted investigations may be opened as a result of | creating these thought crimes. I am of the opinion, | though, that criminalizing these thoughts leads more | towards "involuntarily report anything that may risk my | license, at the cost of traumatizing innocent families" | rather than "voluntarily report genuine abuse." | [deleted] | notch656a wrote: | >I would suggest you not hold stock for companies you know | secret data about | | I imagine the way this works out for non-idiot inside | traders, is that their cousin or close friend holds the stock | instead. Insider trading is really only discoverable when | performed by the stupid or complacent. | syshum wrote: | while I agree, the cousin / close friend is pretty stupid | as well unless you are making minor moves. That would be | easily discovered as well | | However I agree with the principle that it easy to do if | you have any level of intelligence (and no i am not giving | way how I would do it ;) ) | | I dont know the full solution, but it is clear by just | looking at US Congress that more work needs to be done on | solving insider trading | epa wrote: | Insider trading is no joke. If you have access to metrics you | have access to inside information. | truthwhisperer wrote: | nova22033 wrote: | Somebody should have subscribed to the Matt Levine newsletter. | kieselguhr_kid wrote: | I work in billing software for a publicly traded software company | and this is a constant temptation. I'm never gonna do it because | I'm not gonna blow up my career for a relative pittance, but I | can't tell you how many times I've been annoyed that I couldn't | act on private information and make ~$100k or so. | | These guys are like the kids who saw the Tide Pod challenges and | decided to actually eat the pods. I bet insider trading is not as | fun when you're unemployed and bankrupt. | [deleted] | throwra620 wrote: | paulpauper wrote: | they were fooled by their smartness. They don't realize that | the govt. plays for keeps. | mynegation wrote: | [Edited to remove harsh phrasing]. Consider this: there is no | upside from this comment and quite a bit of potential (although | likely low probability) downside. | kieselguhr_kid wrote: | I think this is a fair criticism, but in all honesty a | determined attacker would probably have better vectors both | in terms of companies to trade against and in terms of people | with access to actionable information. | | Also worth noting there have been times I've thought the | price should go up and it went down, and vice versa. While I | have a good view into financials (and believe I would have | made money insider trading, on the whole), it's not complete | enough to warrant something like threats, blackmail, etc. | Eiriksmal wrote: | Being tempted and _acting_ on those temptations are two | different things. There is nothing damning in this comment. I | appreciate the author 's honesty. | mynegation wrote: | I have no reasons to imply that the commenter would be | tempted or acted at all. But there are means of coercion | other than money. | | I admit though, I watched too many spy movies and TV shows | daenz wrote: | I think you gave good advice. If someone has privileged | access/info, they shouldn't advertise it to the world. | It's just asking for trouble. | scrose wrote: | Wouldn't someone determined just look at LinkedIn? | [deleted] | rosndo wrote: | > These guys are like the kids who saw the Tide Pod challenges | and decided to actually eat the pods. I bet insider trading is | not as fun when you're unemployed and bankrupt. | | Most insider traders are never caught, _everyone_ eating tide | pods gets sick. | mtrovo wrote: | Not really a matter of most are never caught but a matter of | people doing really stupid trades because they think there's | no way SEC's paying someone to check they cleared all their | open positions to buy deep out of the money call options just | days before a big company announcement. | kilroy123 wrote: | My suspicions are many on Wall Street do it. | ffggvv wrote: | my guess is if they did everything via in person discussions | and didnt leave a paper trail of messages, they likely | wouldnt have been caught | paulpauper wrote: | they almost always get caught. The SEC is so good at | detecting this stuff especially when people do it many | times thinking they got away with it the first few times. . | sonicggg wrote: | Agree with that, it's a bad analogy. These guys that got | caught are the tip of the iceberg. They probably did | something reckless in the process. | daenz wrote: | >I bet insider trading is not as fun when you're unemployed and | bankrupt. | | Not just unemployed, likely unemployable by any reputable | company in the industry. | | Also, good on you for having integrity, but honestly what you | say is too much for the average person to be tempted with. Does | anyone have a solution for lowering that temptation and making | these scenarios less likely? | gcheong wrote: | That's the point at which you launch your bid for congress. | kieselguhr_kid wrote: | I think it's a lot to be tempted with, but it's also | relatively easy to stay in compliance: don't trade your | company's stock during black out periods, don't talk about | revenue with friends or family, and be vigilant about not | publicly discussing your information. It's not a complicated | code of ethics, fortunately. | verdverm wrote: | You can obfuscate CII (Company Identifying Information) as | much as possible. Limit the reveal to those that need to | know. Auditing, and making employees aware you can see what | they do with data might reduce the temptation because the | risk of being discovered is (perceived to be) greater. | kieselguhr_kid wrote: | Unfortunately I need to know, because if the numbers are | off I need to help fix them. I do take my responsibility to | keep revenue numbers within a small group of people very, | very seriously, because who knows if someone else would be | too tempted to act. | [deleted] | go_prodev wrote: | There's no single solution, but I think it comes down to a | combination of annual compliance training, decent | remuneration, being aware of your team's personal situations, | having auditing systems in place and monitoring employee | engagement scores as a proxy for job satisfaction and | trustworthiness. | bidirectional wrote: | Legalising insider trading is the simplest solution. | hodgesrm wrote: | It depends on your definition of the problem. The problem I | would like to solve is ensuring that everyone perceives the | market as fair, i.e., not tilted toward parties with access | to privileged information. | rosndo wrote: | This implies a truly bizarre understanding of markets and | fairness. | | Was it fair when Enron was valued at $70B? Would the | situation have been less fair had insider traders with | more information pushed the prices down earlier? | | Insider trading doesn't cost anybody anything, it simply | allows for more accurate pricing which benefits | everybody. | MichaelBurge wrote: | If insider trading is legal, you could actively destroy a | company from the inside and profit from its downfall. | | Like you could buy put options to set up a leveraged | short position, take all the company's money, set it on | fire in public(or make a stupid acquisition so you can't | easily be sued by other shareholders), watch the stock | price drop in a predictable manner, and profit from the | predictable decrease in equity. | | Sort of like how you can't buy life insurance and then | immediately commit suicide and still get paid out. | economist6373 wrote: | > If insider trading is legal, you could actively destroy | a company from the inside and profit from its downfall. | | What you are describing is an entirely different kind of | misconduct than "insider trading". | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | Yes but it is one that insider trading incentivizes | greatly. | daenz wrote: | That's an interesting perspective. So in a way, insider | trading corrects the market because the difference | between what is known and what is unknown should not | result in a vast difference in valuation. | rosndo wrote: | Exactly. It is the perspective often repeated by | economists. | | There exists little political will to legalize insider | trading because it would be hard to sell to a public that | doesn't even understand _why_ stock markets exist. To the | average person on "insider trading" is just bad stuff | evil rich people on wall street do. | | In reality the arguments in favor of banning insider | trading are actually quite weak, usually relying on very | vague ideas of fairness and public perception. | | But the idea of "fairness" in markets is an illusion | anyway, even without insider trading there will always be | those with more information. Someone could follow | corporate executives to restaurants, eavesdrop on their | conversations and trade on that basis. That wouldn't be | illegal insider trading, would it be fair? I personally | believe it would be just as fair as illegal insider | trading. | woodruffw wrote: | > Insider trading doesn't cost anybody anything, it | simply allows for more accurate pricing which benefits | everybody. | | Insider trading has an institutional cost: it's corrosive | to trust in the market. Retail investors are less likely | to make optimal investment decisions if they think that | insiders are lurking around every corner. That trust is | further diminished if retail investors believe that | insiders are not just _investing_ based on insider | information, but _speculating_ on higher-order | instruments. | | It's perfectly fair to note that our current regulations | against insider trading aren't ideal, and that the SEC | only catches a tiny fraction of all insider trading. But | the threat of enforcement _does_ serve as an important | root of trust in the market, and removing it is unlikely | to serve individual investors well. | rosndo wrote: | > Retail investors are less likely to make optimal | investment decisions if they think that insiders are | lurking around every corner. | | But the reality is that there are insiders lurking around | every corner. The argument is essentially that we should | seek to actively mislead retail investors instead of | simply acknowledging this fact. | | To me that feels dishonest. | woodruffw wrote: | I think it _would_ be dishonest to do so actively, which | is why I try to acknowledge that the SEC 's current | ability to enforce insider trading laws is relatively | weak and ineffective. | | I think it's my civic duty to not only inform others of | that fact, but _also_ to advocate for better enforcement. | economist6373 wrote: | Good enforcement is impossible. You can never | meaningfully hinder insider trading, far too many people | have access to insider information. They don't have to | make the trades themselves either. | | > I think it would be dishonest to do so actively | | That is what the government is doing via legislation. | deObfuscate wrote: | So, if I were a trader at Enron who made good money | trading electricity and gas then used that money to short | the stock based on private information, I'd be doing | everyone a service and fighting for fairness. Better yet, | I could be one of their auditors at Arthur Andersen. | daenz wrote: | I think the point that they're making is that there | wouldn't be a large opportunity to short Enron if people | were insider trading from the very beginning. The price | of the stock would be more accurate from the beginning, | because people would trade at the first sign of an | opportunity to benefit from insider information. | willcipriano wrote: | > not tilted toward parties with access to privileged | information. | | With the exception of Congress of course. | | Reverse insider trading is also fine, you can announce | buybacks right before a preplanned stock sale. | | It would be simpler to say if you aren't friends with | someone invited to Epstein island you aren't allowed to | insider trade but the plebs would get uppity. | woodruffw wrote: | > With the exception of Congress of course. | | Banning Congress from making stock trades has broad | bipartisan support[1]. Absent any evidence that the | person you're responding to _doesn 't_ support a | Congressional ban, it's probably safe to assume that they | do. | | [1]: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/588630-76-percent- | of-voter... | rosndo wrote: | Indeed, insider trading benefits everybody by adding more | information to the markets, leading to more accurate | prices. | mlazos wrote: | Prices are a function of number of market participants | and information of each participant. If insider trading | is legal, fewer people will participate in the market | because they will lose out due to information asymmetry | and this will lead to pricing inefficiencies. What's | interesting is that what others are willing to pay is key | public information as well. | daenz wrote: | To people disagreeing with this, can you give a counter | argument? On face value, what rosndo said seems to make | sense. | QuadmasterXLII wrote: | One argument would be that the people who accumulate | wealth through insider trading go on to be destructive. | mchusma wrote: | I actually agree it should be legal, but the argument is | basically one of fairness. That in the market, retail | investors compete against insiders. | | In practice. The world is unfair, and retail investors | must compete against all kinds of people with unfair | advantages. | | If insiders could legally trade, then the ability to | profit off insider trading would go down. | economist6373 wrote: | It's important to understand that the usual argument | against insider trading isn't actually about true | fairness, but rather the _impression of fairness_. These | are two different things. | | The argument that insider trading should be banned | because it is somehow disproportionately unfair is quite | weak, the argument that it creates an _impression of | unfairness_ is a much stronger one. | | I personally don't believe it is a particularly good | argument, but it is certainly the strongest version of | the argument against insider trading. | deObfuscate wrote: | Their obviously wasn't much thought put in to this. | Anywhere that a conflict of interest occurs has potential | for abuse. If the officer/employee/agent has the ability | to influence the result and profit then their is a | conflict of interest. The legal ramifications are | lessened and the cost to benefit subsequently decreases. | | Auditors are a good example. They have privileged | information and are responsible for the fairness of | financial information / disclosure. Their incentives are | already complicated by the compensation structure, i.e. | the company they attest for pays their fee and ultimately | decides whether they will work together in the future. | | In this instance, an abolishment to insider trading | regulation would ultimately undermine trust in the | financial reporting system. The auditors could | potentially place bets on their engagements and negotiate | results based on their interests. Impartiality would be | compromised. Their are safeguards in place currently, | penalties for insider trading are part of the remedy. | jwsteigerwalt wrote: | There is no solution better than the current ones. After a | company I worked with was acquired by a public company, I was | given a role that included accessing to sensitive information | in financial dbs. Along with that was a welcome email from | the chief counsel, then every quarter came emails listing | blackout dates. I nave traded in the company's stock or | options, but it would have been incredibly clear when I was | prevented from doing so. | gumby wrote: | > but honestly what you say is too much for the average | person to be tempted with. | | I think you underestimate the "average person". Most people | basically want to be good. Everything works better when that | is the case -- basic game theory. | | You see the punishment / pressure about unfairness start in | early childhood. You see it in the infrastructure where this | is overwhelmingly the case (e.g. shops with unguarded back | entrance/exits) vs where not (armed guards outside the | shops). | | And of course the news (cf the current HN conversation on | _that_ topic) focuses on the exceptions to the rules because, | on an evolutionary biology* basis we're always learning and | reinforcing on the normal case so we are interested in the | exceptions. | | * meant loosely...most EB is fanciful. | kenrose wrote: | > Does anyone have a solution for lowering that temptation | and making these scenarios less likely? | | Isn't the status quo doing a sufficient job? | | The temptation may be there, but it's abated by the downside | risk of fines, prison time, and unemployability. | supramouse wrote: | djbusby wrote: | False. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_of_Tide_Pods | | Do not eat!! | swyx wrote: | looks like the Netflix crew were at least better at it than the | Twilio crew https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28227209 | purple_ferret wrote: | Interestingly (based on their linkedin profiles), they were | promoted after the event. Some of the friends listed even got | jobs within Twilio. One even works at Google. Might not the first | time they've made such moves; just perhaps the boldest. | broknbottle wrote: | When is the announcement happening for the members of congress | that made investments in key areas after they were briefed on | covid-19 and potential impact? | | > We are a free market economy. They should be able to | participate in that | mgraczyk wrote: | All the specific allegations that I looked into were absolutely | not insider trading. The heavily scrutinized Pelosi trades, for | example, were pre-planned rolling of options that did not | generate profits directly and would have been executed very | differently if the trader had any foreknowledge of future price | movements in the underlying. People often sell and buy options | at different expiry dates to keep their position static, not to | trade based on new information. | Anon1096 wrote: | Insider trading as the law currently is written is about theft | of company secrets for private gain. Knowing what is going on | in the world is not stealing information from any particular | company. | [deleted] | vmception wrote: | To clarify, "Insider Trading", the criminal charge, requires a | contract with the company or fiduciary duty with the company | not to trade on nonpublic information or disclose something | nonpublic + the receiver trade on it, as a prerequisite to | getting charged by the insider trading police (SEC + DOJ). | | Thats the reason for this line in indictment summary: | | > The SEC's complaint alleges that despite receiving a company | policy that prohibited them from insider trading | | There would be no case without it (but NDAs or trade secret | policies or a clause present in most employment contracts would | cover it) | | In any case, When only receiving a tip, the obligations of the | receiver is still unclear. Maybe they can trade, maybe they | cant. | | (As there is no actual federal law on insider trading in the US | and the SEC has made it up through court cases over time.) | | They use their general fraud statute, as well as prior | remaining case law that slightly went in their favor, because | they lose in court a lot. | sneak wrote: | Insider trading requires privileged access to inside | information. Covid impacts to society are not inside/internal | data to those companies, those briefings were happening when it | was obvious we were having a global pandemic to anyone paying | attention. | | The inputs to the deductive reasoning process were public | information. | syshum wrote: | Congress is privy to inside information that impacts the | market via several mechanism including private briefings for | upcoming policy changes, or knowing about laws that will be | passed before the actual votes | | Congress should be investigate more thoroughly for insider | trading, or even barred from trading at all (which is my | preferred solution) | nawgz wrote: | > Insider trading requires privileged access to inside | information | | You think knowledge of the laws and regulations that Congress | is going to enact before they're enacted or public is not | "inside information"? Defend this stance. | nickdothutton wrote: | $1m in profits eh? SEC really going after the big fish. | extr wrote: | What a lame way to insider trade. I thought that instance of the | Capital One analysts using internal database queries to | understand which retailers were having good quarters was far more | interesting and insidious. Similarly you could imagine a lot more | subtle ways to leverage insider Twilio information (count of | verification texts sent by client?) to make far more obscure | bets. The SEC definitely takes a look at anyone who goes from | zero trading -> making improbably great trades worth millions | though, so better have a good patsy lined up! | | Edit: Context for the traders I was talking about. What they did | was much cooler and honestly kind of impressive: | https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-01-23/capital-o... | RC_ITR wrote: | >count of verification texts sent by client | | This is what I thought it would be based on the headline and | was frankly disappointed that the truth was so quotidian. | Certain Twilio engineers could very likely keep an index of | major gig-economy/delivery services and track both user and | driver sign-ups in a way that could be very valuable NMPI _and_ | have the advantage of being at a broad range of companies that | are only tangentially related to their employer. | | In fact, @SEC if you're reading this, you might be missing some | bigger fish... | denimnerd42 wrote: | sounds like they went back to China and got new jobs. | https://www.crunchbase.com/person/bonan-huang | ramesh31 wrote: | >I thought that instance of the Capital One analysts using | internal database queries to understand which retailers were | having good quarters was far more interesting and insidious. | | How is this seriously different than what any one of a million | other "AI analytics" companies are doing with customer data | right now? | tptacek wrote: | Because it was Capital One's internal data, which belongs to | the shareholders. US insider trading laws are about theft, | not about fairness (the markets require "unfairness" in this | sense in order to perform price discovery). | bilbo0s wrote: | The "AI analytics" companies are all communicating expressly | their intent when they purchase the data at the outset. This | makes it legal. | | Full disclosure, I'm a privacy advocate and believe this sort | of selling of customer data should not even be allowed. That | said, what the companies you allude to do is totally legal by | law, and significantly different in practice than taking data | without informing anyone of your intent. | | I guess the short answer to your question is that this is the | United States. Everything is legal here, provided you do the | paperwork first. | maxerickson wrote: | It's discussed in the link they added. The retailers shared | the data with Capital One for specific business purposes, not | for stock market analysis. | jeromegv wrote: | It was an internal database (from Capital One credit cards), | they weren't allowed to use that data for analysis. This | wasn't publicly accessible information. | | See article: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015- | 01-23/capita... | jliptzin wrote: | Yea, now just imagine how many smarter people are doing it and | getting away with it | kyleblarson wrote: | Add to that they apparently chatted about it in some tool that | had an auditable history and one can surmise that these people | weren't the most sophisticated bad actors. | MengerSponge wrote: | "The stock will go up for sure." | | Swiper, no swiping! | par wrote: | Wow, not even enough money to retire. Their stock grants are | probably worth more than whatever they made trading. Seems like a | bad move. | donatj wrote: | > SEC's complaint alleges that despite receiving a company policy | that prohibited them from insider trading [...] trade[d] Twilio | options and stock in advance of its May 6, 2020 earnings | announcement while in possession of the confidential information | | Isn't it illegal regardless of company policy? That's such weird | phrasing. | ceeplusplus wrote: | Presumably this is so they can't claim ignorance and receive a | lighter sentence. | [deleted] | xyst wrote: | This is a proud win in the SEC handbook? $1 million dollars is | fucking chump change. Whales do this on a 1000X scale every | fucking day (yes billions). They even collaborate amongst other | trading firms to pump and dump. Where's the prosecution related | to the GME + Citadel Securities + Melvin Capital illegal naked | short selling? Remember when this group was hemorrhaging billions | of dollars and forced RH to remove the "Buy" button on GME? | | I ask again, where's the prosecution there? | mgraczyk wrote: | They are though | | https://www.thestreet.com/markets/regulation/doj-sec-probe-d... | xyst wrote: | investigations != prosecutions | | when sec posts the story, then I will believe it. I strongly | suspect the "investigations" will lead to nowhere. | filoleg wrote: | The process takes time. Prosecution doesn't, and shouldn't, | happen without an investigation. | | Whether this specific investigation will lead somewhere or | not is yet to be determined. You cannot say they did | nothing until the investigation is completed. | | If the investigation doesn't lead to a just conclusion, | then we can talk. But as of now, your anger at SEC just | sounds like being annoyed because they decided not to | speedrun this. If you actually believe that a wrongdoing | has happened here, then the investigation needs to be | thorough and conclusive, to make sure there were no gaps | through which the guilty party can escape. And that's | assuming any wrongdoing actually happened, which is what | the investigation will need to determine. | throwaway5752 wrote: | I searched for Raj Rajaratnam's case and found up with | Malnik, Blakstad, and Martoma cases by accident. Those are | very large prosecutions with prison time. Did you not see | those? | Workaccount2 wrote: | Apes have an understanding of financial markets that's about on | par with 9/11 truthers understanding of civil engineering. | | They get little bits right, but the whole picture wrong. | decebalus1 wrote: | Prosecuting whales is both super expensive and risky to the | conviction rate. See | https://www.npr.org/2017/07/30/535799735/corporate-bungling-... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-28 23:00 UTC)