> If a were a millionaire, I wouldn't risk prison for 200k.
This is part of the reason why you aren't a millionaire. Wealth selects for people who do some strange things to make a little extra money here and there... and there... and there... and there....
It's also why people who aren't like these millionaires (whether of similar means but less wealth or of greater means but fewer questionable choices) think some millionaires make foolish, cruel, or inhumane decisions.
Nah. I'm a millionaire and I wouldn't risk prison for 200k.
Wealth is indeed a proxy measure for certain behaviors, but you're ignoring other even more important behaviors like impulse control and an eye for risk analysis.
Most of us aren't wealthy because we engage in unethical practices; we're wealthy because we understand long term planning and self control.
Here's a related article you might find interesting about the link between self control and wealth. Note as well the negative correlation between wealth and crime, which stands in opposition to the association you attempt to draw above.
What is under discussion is whether rich people are more likely to do illegal things (maybe because they felt they can get away with it) or they are less likely to do illegal things (maybe because they are risk averse and have more to lose).
Sorry bud, the guy you're arguing with is correct about what I said.
I stand by my original statement regarding correlation. Your assumption that there's a causal claim is your own mistake. This has been made clear; there's nothing further for us to discuss. Especially given your uh, personality.
The real trouble is if you are having a streak of luck, you would be absolutely certain there is no reckoning for your deeds coming, this could go on, until it doesn't.
At that point in time punishment/prison looks a heavier price to pay in return for a incremental gain.
Not all risks are the same. You risk death just by getting in a car on a public road. You risk being attacked by a shark if you enter the ocean.
It's important to distinguish likelihood from impact. The heavy impact is "prison"; a lighter impact is a civil suit from the SEC or a similar regulator. The likelihood is unknown right now. It probably went up the second Bloomberg published this article, so it might have been a better decision a few days ago.
The SEC seems to settle for civil penalties more often than the FBI prosecutes for jail time. Sadly, it's more likely that at least 3 managers will probably spend $200k on lawyers to navigate their statements to the authorities over the next few months.
edit The $60k profit will probably also have to defend them against lawsuits by other stockholders.
I don't know what's fair here.
How can anyone prove that they wouldn't have sold some amount of stock in the nearly 6 months since the hack started? How does a prosecutor prove intent without a very damning self-incriminating statement? Certainly $1m in stock sold at a _very_ suspicious time makes me want to blame this guy, but what if he knows he's getting laid off this week? Does that change the calculus of intent?
This assumes she became a billionaire completely legally, and only then made one illegal move. The logic assumes you won't get caught, or the fine will be minimal. Much like speeding to the average person.
I remember a few commentors on HN recently saying they have made large gains by buying stock of companies after the news of cyber security breaches significantly reduced the share value, then waiting for the dust to settle(reaction-news-cycle to complete) and the price to rise again.
For the benefit of those reading: given that this may very well be the worst breach ever by far, and is likely to attract significant attention from government regulators and prosecutors, this is likely a particularly unwise time to begin attempting this strategy.
The direct financial impact to Equifax is likely to be tiny, and their customers aren't the people who's personal information they just left on the side of the road. Once the news cycle is past, it will be business as usual at Equifax.
I might do this with options for this breach, depending on what the IV is tomorrow. While this is probably the worst breach ever, it also happened in a time when there's a government that is going to do fuck all about it.
So what's it going to look like 6 months from now? Your guess is as good as mine. Mine is: either absolutely nothing happens and the stock goes back up, or this finally gets something to be done about the garbage that is SSNs and/or credit reports (in which case I can't really imagine what happens to the stock price in any direction).
The sad thing is these breaches are so common place nowadays most of us regular folk just assume all our personal information is compromised to some degree. I'll be curious to see if this breach has any real material business impact.
If it is, wouldn't the best course of action to sell as soon as the news is announced? You then avoid the insider trading accusations (as the information is now public), but still avoid the bulk of the losses.
No, because the information is not considered public until it has been widely disseminate for some amount of time. As I recall, 2 business days, but it may not be strongly defined.
If a were a millionaire, I wouldn't risk prison for 200k. Even the litigation to avoid prison could cost 100k.
And this is the kind of thing you know all angles will be looked into (it took a news agency a few hours to unearth this).
If he did it (insider trading), he is very stupid.