Mark Cuban Charged With Insider Trading 176
geekboy_x writes "The SEC today charged Mark Cuban with insider trading violations, alleging that he divested himself of stock in mamma.com before the stock was diluted via a public offering." Something tells me that the billionaire blogger won't be talking about this one publicly any time soon.
Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:5, Informative)
Something tells me that the billionaire blogger won't be talking about this one publicly any time soon.
Are you crazy? Do you know how many page hits that would generate?! You don't know Mark Cuban. Of course, from his blog a few hours ago [blogmaverick.com]:
"I am disappointed that the Commission chose to bring this case based upon its Enforcement staff's win-at-any-cost ambitions. The staff's process was result-oriented, facts be damned. The government's claims are false and they will be proven to be so."
I'm not a lawyer. As for the case, I think this crap happens more often than you would like to think--the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The fact that this occurred in June of '04 and he's being charged for it now implies that either it takes that long to build up evidence for a case or you don't hear about this until someone slips up. Also, I don't recall hearing the SEC drop charges or lose these cases very often so I'm pretty sure this guy is boned.
Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think they're going to put Cuban in a women's prison. Anyway, Martha Stewart was not convicted of insider trading. She was convicted of lying to investigators.
If Cuban's smart (and I suspect he likes to run his mouth too much), the only thing he's said to investigators is "My lawyer is _____, anything you want from me, talk to him".
Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. She was convicted of lying to investigators when she wasn't under oath and hadn't been warned that what she said might be used against her. Not only that, what she lied about must not have been a crime because she was never charged with anything else.
Now we know: never talk to the feds unless your lawyer's present, even if you don't think you've done anything against the law.
Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:4, Insightful)
Now everyone who read this send me $200 for legal services rendered.
Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a lawyer [google.com]
Can AND WILL Be Used Against You (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, the lesson I take from it is don't lie to the feds without a lawyer present. (And even then...)
Anything you say that turns out not to be true, even if you don't know it, "can and will be used against you in a court of law." Anything you say that helps you is inadmissible [youtube.com] as 'hearsay'.
So if you do a two hour interview, are thoroughly truthful except for 15 seconds, which you may or may not know is not true, the jury will only know about those 15 seconds. Somebody file a bug.
she was jailed for PERJURY? (Score:2)
No Jail Time (Score:2, Informative)
According to the complaint [thesmokinggun.com] filed by the SEC, they are not seeking any jail time.
They are seeking judgement:
a. enjoining Cuban from engaging in future violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities law.
b. ordering Cuban to disgorge, with prejudgement interest, the losses avoided as a result of the actions described
c. ordering Cuban to pay a civil money penalty to pursuaint to Section 21A.... blah blah
But.. no jail time. Martha Stewart received jail time because she was convicted of
Re: (Score:2)
Since they don't want jail time, I can see why he wouldn't be worried even if he did do something wrong.
Any fine is going to be pretty much a drop in the bucket for him. Sure, he won't like paying the $1-10M (based on his avoiding $750,000 in losses), but we won't see him on the street with a "will work for food" sign anytime soon, either.
Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:4, Insightful)
"Insider trading" can be very vauge and edge cases aren't clearly defined by statute or case law. Martha Stewart wasn't convicted of insider trading, she was convicted for obstruction of justice during the investigation (which might not have madei t to trial). If he shuts up, doesn't lie, and doesn't try to destroy evidence, he'll find it a lot easier to stay out of jail.
Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:5, Informative)
As for the case, I think this crap happens more often than you would like to think--the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The fact that this occurred in June of '04 and he's being charged for it now implies that either it takes that long to build up evidence for a case or you don't hear about this until someone slips up.
As a hobbiest stock trader, I can tell you with confidence that inside trading happens a hell of a lot. Theres billions of dollars to be made. In fact, it happens so much - that there are many technical-trading techniques used to "follow the insiders". So every so often they find an inside trader, chuck him in jail and try make everyone happy. I'd much prefer if the government just got it's nose out of the market. The only thing insider traders do is lead to a more accurate market..
Re: (Score:2)
As for the case, I think this crap happens more often than you would like to think--the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The fact that this occurred in June of '04 and he's being charged for it now implies that either it takes that long to build up evidence for a case or you don't hear about this until someone slips up.
As a hobbiest stock trader, I can tell you with confidence that inside trading happens a hell of a lot.
The company I work for encourages me to buy its shares. If that is not insider trading I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:5, Informative)
That's not insider trading. It may or may not even be stock options. The company I work for (one of the top 3 computer companies in the world) also encourages us to buy their stock, and offers stock options to its employees. They also require we take annual training on business ethics, and that we understand exactly what constitutes insider trading. There's even a question on the final exam of said training dealing specifically with when it would be unethical to purchase stock.
Knowing the general scuttlebutt around the company for how we're doing doesn't give me inside information. Pretty much the whole world knows which markets we're leading, and wich markets we're behind in. If somebody on the front lines is buying stock, they probably don't know anything more about the company than the public at large. We have another category entirely of employees, however... people who are windowed. Those people are given a window in which they are allowed to buy/sell company stock, and periods when they are not allowed to buy.
An example of when a windowed employee would not be allowed to buy would be, say, after our sales figures for the last quarter have been tallied, but before they have been published. People in the upper echelons of the company will know this information, and would be able to predict how their announcement will affect our stock market. With this in mind, they can react accordingly. This, in turn, would allow them to buy a bunch of stock before a sudden spike, or dump a bunch of stock before it falls. That is insider trading.
Insider trading is illegal, because it gives those people an unfair advantage over the rest of the world. That's why we have windowed employees... if you're in a position where insider trading is possible, you're told when not to buy/sell stock so that you can't be accused of it.
Re: (Score:2)
The stock market was designed to allow more or less normal (though mostly rich) people invest for the future in companies without having to take full responsibility for that and risk their freedom in something that they don't understand. The trade off is that they have to have limited knowledge about and control of the company (because if they do understand and control the company they could use it as cover for doing illegal things without responsibility).
Insider trading completely breaks those assumption
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now let's say you're knocking back a few beers with your Intel buddy, and he tells you the i7 CPUs are failing en masse, the management is crumbling and AMD is poised to deliver a fatal blow. So in short, you are now in possessio
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They've only just come out!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Holy shit, the i7 CPUs are failing en masse??!
YES, Sell, sell, sell. You should do what I do: base your trading on rumours you hear on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've used that sort of stuff regularly, but things like stop-loses (selling as the stock goes down) is counter beneficial in this sense.
The reason: The news is always released during non-trading hours. So as soon market opens again, it has already made that adjustment. So that's why it's not effective. And why it's actually counter-beneficial
Re: (Score:2)
I get your point, and agree,but...front-running will give some insider trading a run for it's money. I actually see it as a form of insider trading, but, technically, it is a different crime, or at least, 'label' for an activity leading to the same crime (fraud).
When you mentioned, early in your post, about the lunch hour 'lull', had to laugh, because that's what reminded me of front-running.
Lunch hour at Broad & Wall is the best time t
Re: (Score:2)
First, if things were that bad, it wouldn't be insider trading because a large number of people would know (orders not getting fulfilled, OEM returns, industry reports). Second, if your
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget another SEC clusterf**k that causes endless grief to cash (non-margin) investors (especially newbies)... the "1+3 rule".
When you buy shares of stock, the funds are gone from your trading account the instant your order gets fulfilled. But as far as the SEC is concerned, you haven't actually "paid" for the shares until the close of the day's trading, and don't actually OWN the shares until the third business day after the trade.
Why is that a problem? Because the SEC ALSO prohibits cash trader
Just tell me if I have this right (Score:2)
I'd much prefer if the government just got it's nose out of the market. The only thing insider traders do is lead to a more accurate market..
Just want to be sure I understand. If you were making an equities market, you don't see the value of trying to have a level playing field for information, where all those who would trade an equity have the same information about it (or, if insiders, they'd have some rules on how they can trade)...
Sort of like the SNL all drug olympics [broadcaster.com], right? Ah, I kid. :D
But for serious now, am I supposed to be happier about investing in your insider-trading-friendly market, versus one that does make an attempt to be trans
Re: (Score:2)
Just want to be sure I understand. If you were making an equities market, you don't see the value of trying to have a level playing field for information, where all those who would trade an equity have the same information about it (or, if insiders, they'd have some rules on how they can trade)...
A bit of a loaded question. If I could magically ensure information symmetry, I would. But I believe trying to enforce this level-playing-field idea is ridiculous. We're barely making a dent in "the problem", just enough to make it more profitable for those that do. Not only that, but we're throwing people in jail for doing something 99.9% of us would do..
Sort of like the SNL all drug olympics [broadcaster.com], right? Ah, I kid. :D
:P but yeah, equity markets serve quite a different purpose than sporting events :P
But for serious now, am I supposed to be happier about investing in your insider-trading-friendly market, versus one that does make an attempt to be transparent?
Of course not. I too would be more hesitant, but the purpose of the sto
Re: (Score:2)
But for serious now, am I supposed to be happier about investing in your insider-trading-friendly market, versus one that does make an attempt to be transparent?
Of course not. I too would be more hesitant, but the purpose of the stock market isn't designed as a form of entertainment.
Well, I am always entertained by the sight of suckers losing money. :D That said, I think if you hesitate less to buy in the more regulated market, and so do I, and so do most people, then governments end up regulating markets in this way, because who doesn't want more capital. :)
People that give false information to "outsiders" to take advantage of them have never worried about insider trading laws. They will continue to operate as usual, and we already have laws and regulation in place to deal with that.
You are right of course. We can't stop all crime, but we do prefer to live in the regions of the world where they try. :)
Good point, but this is more correlation than causation. A country that can afford to regulate, is clearly better off.
Touche. I personally believe such regulations are causative, but I suppose proving it to you will be difficult
Re: (Score:2)
It's one of those topics that not many people seem capable of thinking straight about it.
I met a man Rene Rivkin [wikipedia.org] who seemed to love what he did (stock trading) and we talked about a mobile device he carried around for constant stock feeds (I believe he called an "Orange" or something). Anyway, he later was found to have made $2,000 with some insider knowledge, was sentenced to jail, lost his license all which ultimately led to his suicide.
And when you disagree w
Re: (Score:2)
My pleasure.
I hadn't heard of Rene Rivkin. Thank you for sharing the story.
But then again, I'm also against crap like the "war on drugs" for similar reasons (un-enforceability and the result of trying to).
Touche again. For some ideals, we must try and fail. For others, we should not try at all. Then again I'm not sure prohibition (especially against certain drugs) is even an ideal.
For white collar crime, I grow exceedingly weary of the American double standard - where lowly proletarian criminals do years of hard time for stealing a stereo, versus the feather delicate touch of the law on those who commit financial crimes, often of vast
Re: (Score:2)
For white collar crime, I grow exceedingly weary of the American double standard - where lowly proletarian criminals do years of hard time for stealing a stereo, versus the feather delicate touch of the law on those who commit financial crimes, often of vastly greater magnitude.
I hear the same thing everyday from the business community, except about the comparative lax proletarian crime enforcement. I guess it depends what side of the fence you stand on.
On my list: Government corruption. Every branch of the government is corrupt. Every big deal that goes down seems to have kick-backs going everywhere. And it's getting to the point, that the average person is starting to notice it. When you give these people a sanctioned monopoly on power, it's going to get abused. Even if it'
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I am always entertained by the sight of suckers losing money. :D
Reminds me of when I was at the casino, watching the "high rollers" at their baccarat tables playing with stacks of $250 and $500 chips. I figure this must sort of skill game, and they must be doing it professionally. But reading the casino provided rule book, it's pretty clear it's just a game of chance where the house is constantly scraping a couple percent.
Maybe I'm a little sick, but there was something satisfying about watching them reluctantly pull out their wallet and buy another grand of chips.
Re: (Score:2)
More accurate? The accuracy ends up being the same in the long run as the information eventually gets out to the public. Profiting with inside trading is accomplished through short-term inaccuracy, where the market is unable to regulate to the correct price before a few individuals have gamed the system. So not only do a few people profit, you get an increase in ec
Re: (Score:2)
Profiting with inside trading is accomplished through short-term inaccuracy, where the market is unable to regulate to the correct price before a few individuals have gamed the system.
Exactly. Think about it. The individuals that have "gamed the system" have done so, helping to close the "short-term inaccuracy". Consider it arbitrage trading, and they're closing the perceived and actual value of a company gap.
This all happens before the knowledge is public, leading to a more *accurate* market/evaluation.
Re: (Score:2)
Because this happens before knowledge is public, you have less accuracy because the market as a whole doesn't have time to digest all the information to identify what the new value shoul
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think it will lead to no market at all.
Yeah, just like markets that allow it. Including real estate and prediction markets.
If I know that someone else can make use of insider information against me, then I have an incentive to put my money somewhere else.
Fine, maybe you and a few other small players will feel too intimidated and not enter the market. (Even though inside trading already occurs, you just need to be sneaky). But that really doesn't change a thing or my point :)
In this case think about those people who bought stock from Cubin. If they had known that Cubin knew more than them, they would probably have opted not to buy in the first place.
Exactly. They didn't know more than him. The news was bad, so he used his knowledge to sell. Influx of selling caused the stock value to go down before the news. If that's not a more accurate and respons
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the rich invest the time to learn how to generate wealth and then do it. It's a skill almost anyone can learn. Those who don't simply have other priorities. We still live in a mostly free society in western world. It's one thing to be starving on the streets, but anyone who has enough money to have a tv and the time to watch it has all the resources they need to become wealthy.
The other reason why the poor get poorer is because of fiat currency and frac
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation is a tax [lewrockwell.com] on the middle and lower class.
Bingo! That is exactly correct and beginning in the mid 1960s and continuing on through the early to mid 1980s that was a very serious tax indeed which was compounded and made even worse for the middle class by the relative stagnation of wages as compared to that inflation from about 1978 onwards. This is one of the main reasons why the children of the boomers (generation X) and their children (generation Y) are having a harder time achieving the levels of prosperity that the boomers did when they were that
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm not a betting person myself, but in this case I would bet that he is anything BUT boned. Why? Because it just never looks good on the SEC's part to have a loose cannon send an email like this one [nytimes.com] to an intended suit target, especially BEFORE the suit is filed. Makes it look like the suit is retaliation, not an actual case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Even if he's guilty, of course selective prosecution matters. It doesn't change whether he's guilty, but it does show how seriously not credible is the agency that's selectively prosecuting him. Even if he is actually guilty, a verdict from such a corrupt agency is hard to take as proof that he's guilty.
FWIW, what little you heard is just the initial press response repeating the SEC's charges. If that were enough to decide guilt, Bush would have had all 60M people who vote Democratic behind bars over the pa
Re: (Score:2)
The accusation was that he sold on information that he agreed not to disclose. And that he managed to keep from losing 750k. Presumably the SEC has the agreement and knows the timing.
Yes it is innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't negate the fact that the SEC takes these things very seriously and that they have investigated the matter quite thoroughly. I'd be very surprised if he were actually innocent of the charges.
As opposed to the WMDs and Iraq, which had only a few months of research with an u
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened happened in 2004, but he's being charged only in the last few weeks Bush can direct the SEC.
Funny how the other thing that happened recently was that Cuban just launched a website, BailoutSleuth [bailoutsleuth.com] looking into and organizing against the Bush/Paulson Wall Street bailout.
BTW, in America people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, especially when Bush has a political crusade at stake. Even if Cuban is guilty, it's pretty "coincidental" timing to start prosecuting him.
No, if that were the case, they would have gone after Cuban after he funded Redacted [imdb.com], or any of the other stupid [reputationadvisor.com] stuff [ballhype.com] Cuban [articledashboard.com] is guilty [arstechnica.com] of.
Re: (Score:2)
But since you are evidently guilty of collecting Bill O'Reilly talking points to defend Bush attacking the guy exposing that ripoff, I'm going to take your post as confirmation that your wingnut army is going after Cuban with the last power it has left, since America just fired it for its decade of crimes.
And the fact that you accuse me of "collecting Bill O'Reilly talking points" tells me you a far left-winger suffering from severe Bush/FoxNews Derangement Syndrome. My disdain for Cuban comes from what he said about The San Antonio River Walk, not anything I saw on O'Reilly. You should get to know someone before you start making broad assumptions about them. Otherwise, you are no different than those that call people Racist because the voted against Obama or traitor because they oppose the war. Yep! Th
Re: (Score:2)
You just linked to O'Reilly's talking points about Mark Cuban, you insane Republican liar. The list of what you personally don't understand is bigger than Cuban's fortune.
Re: (Score:2)
You just linked to O'Reilly's talking points about Mark Cuban, you insane Republican liar. The list of what you personally don't understand is bigger than Cuban's fortune.
Out of all the links I've posted, here is the entirety of what is mentioned about Bill O'Reilly:
Mark Cuban may very well find himself in serious need of some reputation management very shortly. Fox News' Bill O'Reilly discussed the soon to be distributed Loose Change, a film about the supposed 9/11 government conspiracy. Mark Cuban, billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks, is going to distribute it and Charlie Sheen has said he will do the narration.
Regardless of the source, is anything in that paragraph not true?
The same article also mentions Jennifer Engle of ESPN Radio. Is ESPN now a right-wing outfit also?
Again, the point was to show that Cuban is a loose cannon. Someone who leaves his mouth in gear while the brain is neutral. And again, my beef with Cuban is what he said about the San Antonio River Walk. That's a landmark in San Antonio as well as t
Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW, in America people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, especially when Bush has a political crusade at stake.
I like Mark Cuban, and I can totally believe the Bush administration is trumping up charges against him. That said, your quote is one of my pet peeves, and is DEAD WRONG.
In America, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. The public at large is perfectly within its rights to judge anyone anyway it wants to. For example, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in his first trial, yet I have no doubt he performed the crime.
All too often people in power and/or defense attorneys try and manipulate the public with the "innocent until proven guilty" junk. "Don't rush to judgment on my client just because he was seen with a smoking gun in his hand, remember, we're all innocent until proven guilty!" No, I'm under no obligation to judge people based on courtroom rules used to "prove" guilt. I can judge people based on whatever criteria seems reasonable to me.
Re: (Score:2)
That legal principle means that no one can accurately judge someone guilty until they're proven guilty. You've got a right to be wrong, and prejudge someone - you might even guess right - even though courts don't have that right to be wrong. But if you judge people guilty without their going through an evidence and argument process, you're probably going to be wrong.
You're an "Obama Republican". I note that Republicans like to think that government is fundamentally an arbitrary set of rules that apply only
Re: (Score:2)
You've got a right to be wrong, and prejudge someone - you might even guess right - even though courts don't have that right to be wrong. But if you judge people guilty without their going through an evidence and argument process, you're probably going to be wrong.
"Prejudging" has nothing to do with it. Courts of law are heavily weighted toward finding not guilt verdicts, because we've decided that "better a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail." The tragedy of a wrong guilty verdict is such
Re: (Score:2)
No, that legal principal was established because of psychology. If you parade someone into court dressed as a convict and refer to him in court as "the murderer" in front of the jury, the jury will start to believe it without knowing why. While in a courtroom, the only way to get a fair trial is to presume the person is innocent, and treat them as such. No handcuffs (unless proven to be necessary), no
Re: (Score:2)
Nice catch. I agree with you, it IS coincedental, to say the least....
Unfortunately many people in America still think things are the way they are on TV, they way we all like to think America is.
In truth, when you do something public that purports to shine light into the incredible amount of malfeasance, scandal, and many times outright criminal or unconstitutional activity of the federal government don't think that they wont look for a way to "fuck up your game."
This is just one facet of what the justice s
Re: (Score:2)
It's not mind blowing, it's business as usual.
Just because one person gets caught, doesn't mean the other half-million stock scammers are going to turn themselves in.
why should we care? (Score:5, Insightful)
for all i can tell, the guy registered "broadcast.com" in the 90s, created a pretty business plan, and sold out for billions at exactly the right time, and bought a basketball team
i applaud his timing and his luck and success, but i haven't the faintest idea as to why anything this guy ever did is of any interest to slashdot
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy. The Netspeak translation would be:
Mark Cuban is a Troll IRL.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've never been able to figure it out, and in fact didn't know why he was famous until you mentioned broadcast.com (a place I have never been). Billions for that?
I only saw his reality show, and learned from that show that he owns a basketball team. Otherwise, you are right. Why should we care? He made billions, meanwhile his company (I believe acquired by Yahoo! since broadcast.com redirects there) no longer exists and the parent company is in financial trouble itself. Got out at the right time is an unde
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why would a bunch of nerds be interested in a guy that made a BILLION DOLLARS doing something nerdy?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ya but he didn't do anything nerdy. He's just another MBA asshat like all the other people we've been taught to despise. His only claim to fame is playing the stock game, and poorly at that. He just got reeeeeeeeally lucky.
The main difference between Mark Cuban and the Powerball winners, is Mark Cuban was born with his ass where his mouth should be.
bill gates, steve jobs, bill joy, michael dell... (Score:2)
making billions doing nerdy things
mark cuban: making billions. but not doing a single nerdy thing
Re: (Score:2)
i haven't the faintest idea as to why anything this guy ever did is of any interest to slashdot
Your summary of his life's contributions is accurate, but this is Slashdot. We lost all the good editors years ago, so this garbage is all we get anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
He's a venture capitalist who puts up a lot of money for technology, products, and companies that make Slashdot headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
or all i can tell, the guy registered "broadcast.com" in the 90s, created a pretty business plan, and sold out for billions at exactly the right time, and bought a basketball team
Mark was definately a pioneer in early webcasting. AudioNet really made RealAudio popular. RealAudio was the first usable streaming audio system available to most unicast dial-up Internet users.
As Wikipedia sez:
"Cuban started a company, MicroSolutions, with support from his previous customers from Your Business Software. MicroSol
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In an open letter to Internet service providers published earlier this week, billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban calls for telecoms to put an end to peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing. Cuban expresses concerns that P2P "freeloaders" are clogging the tubes with commercial content. His letter doesn't focus on piracy, however, and instead primarily attacks companies that use P2P for legitimate commercial applications. [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
harnessing P2P for infrastructure
You mean Redswoosh ? The bittorrent clone he sold to Akamai, shortly before launching a crusade against all P2P traffic [arstechnica.com] ?
Yeah, quite the genius alright. I can't want to read his new book "My Cuban is bigger than yours"
Re: (Score:2)
Yea! Our first conspiracy theory!
Regardless, Cuban is a jerk.
For that alone, punishment has been long overdue.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a coincidence theorist.
Who thinks Federal prosecution is appropriate for "being a jerk".
Let me guess who you voted for this year...
Re: (Score:2)
Coincidence Theorist.
I like it! I shall have t-shirts made. Thank you.
Please note, I never said Fedreal prosecution was necessary. I notice you don't refute my initial statement: "Cuban is a Jerk." That's just my opinion. I've had that opinion for a while now. Nothing to do with this insider trading issue.
I like to believe in a "What goes around, comes around - You reap what you sow" kind of justice. Some folks call it karma.
It doesn't always happen, but I am amused when it does.
How does my opinion of Mark
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that call against P2P was bizarrely contradictory to his other public advocacy and private investments in it, as that article noted.
Even more reason why Cuban's fate is interesting to Slashdotters.
It's good to be rich... (Score:3, Funny)
I wish *I* could be charged with insider trading.
It would mean I'm worth it enough to go after :(
Re: (Score:2)
No, it would mean that you are famous enough for people to pay attention while the real criminals get away with whatever they were doing.
Such as the FED recently giving away $2 trillion and won't disclose who they gave it to. Or the fact that half the $700 billion bailout has been given away with zero transparency.
Mark Cuban is just a public scapegoat, just as Stewart was.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget about the automaker bailout which is designed to help GM and others to pay for their newly built factories in other countries. GM just opened a $300 million factory in St. Petersburg, Russia. A few months ago they opened another huge factory in India, a $250 R&D facility in China and are planning on buying larger stakes in a few Chinese automakers.
Where do they get the money to do all of this? The American tax payer of course!
Summary is incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
Mamma.com took a private investment at a discount (a PIPE [wikipedia.org]). This is a sign of weakness, and the announcement sent the shares lower. The SEC alleges that Mr. Cuban sold his shares with insider knowledge of the PIPE, liquidating his stake before it got battered the next day.
WSJ article [wsj.com] (report updated since I saw it earlier; it now erroneously says it was an investment in a private company).
Re: (Score:2)
and to think, he did this illegal trade to save himself about $300,000..
what a dumbass.
Twice now (Score:5, Interesting)
Twice in my career I have had a good laugh at the expense of someone whose abuse I suffered.
The first was David Duncan. He was a senior finance/accounting manager when I was a peon at Mobil. I basically had to jump at his every request even though I never worked for him or his department. I left that job to start an internet business, but I really enjoyed the day that I saw David Duncan testifying before Congress, explaining Enron to them. Beautiful day.
The second is today. When my internet company was encoding and streaming his sports and talk radio broadcasts (innovative for 1994, mind you), Mark Cuban used to page me and call me at home at all hours with the most unreasonable demands and questions. Now I realize if I had been willing to kiss his ass the way he was accustomed to being kissed, I might be a billionaire today, but it would never have happened. Today I am all smiles.
Where can I buy shares... (Score:2)
...in the private corrections firm which will be accommodating him?
More information here (Score:2, Informative)
This was written by a Law Professor. Basically it boils down to the SEC has to really stretch current law to cover this situation.
It appears the CEO of Mamma.com knew that several of their original investors, specifically Mark Cuban, would be upset by the release of more stock, diluting his original investment. The CEO might have told Mark about the investment in an attempt to keep him from
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are a stockholder in a company, can the SEC consider you an insider under the law if an insider calls you and asks you to keep a secret?
So don't take his call or simply say, "La, La, La...I'm not listening!" when he tries to give you insider information.
This has nothing to do with Cuabn being an insider (Score:2)
This case had nothing to do with Cuban being an insider. It is about Cuban (the Tippee) trading on a tip from the CEO (the Tipper).
Anyone - no matter how much or how little stock he owns - may not trade on insider information, you, me, Rob Malda. This is known as "tippee" liability. And it's exactly what got Martha Stewart in trouble (a
Must be a joke (Score:2)
Do it on the iPhone instead (Score:2)
Recent conversation with co-worker (Score:2)
I recently had a mind-blowing conversation with the new maintenance guy. He's got one of those macho, forceful personalities that can't withstand criticism or anything against what he 'knows'. (Actual conversation. I wrote it down after to keep it fresh.)
Anyways, we were talking about the internet. He says "I read the internet all the time. I keep up on all the news. "
Then he says "You know those two Google guys are gay right?"
I say "Well, one is married and the other is about to be married. So unless they'
Spin-Doctoring at its best. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, Cuban commits SEC fraud, and we're supposed to ignore it because he's anti-Bush and it was 4 years ago?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, I didn't say ignore it, and I didn't say he's not guilty - or that he's guilty.
I just said that the timing should make us suspicious of who and what is really ordering this prosecution. Especially since Bush crippled the "Justice" Department by using it for selective prosecution of political enemies, and this suit would be perfectly consistent with that. And because the bailout is a $TRILLION (or several) ripoff of your money, further crippling your government. Even if you can't understand the politics
Re: (Score:2)
Why suspicious? (Score:2)
"I just said that the timing should make us suspicious of who and what is really ordering this prosecution."
Why should the timing be suspicious? Your theory that this is Bush's payback for all of the anti-Bush stuff Cuban has funded over the years has one huge flaw; when Bush leaves in two months, so does his appointees. This is just an indictment. The prosecution will be the responsibility of the Obama Administration, and if they don't see a problem, they can simply drop it. What are you going to say if th
Re: (Score:2)
The indictment is keeping Cuban busy and costing him immediately, while sending the message that Cuban got hit.
You don't have a good coincidence theory, so you're just ignoring it all.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We're not really socialist yet. Obama, and more specifically, our next Congress, will lead us down that road. We might not arrive at the destination but we'll wander down that path a bit. Who knows what happens then?
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Obama + Congress are going to make the nation run more like a European one is, which is far more socialist than where we are now.
I could be wrong. But that's what I'm suspecting...
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that Obama and Congress are NOT going to tilt this country towards a more European style?
Nevermind, you won't even respond.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps you should learn what Communism actually is, before making an ass of yourself here?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think he meant "wrong" not in a legal context but in a moral context; his argument thus leading, "neither of these two things are really wrong and should not be illegal".
Re: (Score:2)
Whether he did it or not is debatable. But if he did what is indicated, it is illegal as well it should be. Here, let me explain this to you in layman's terms. If you have insider knowledge (knowledge that would not be public info to normal stockholders) that earnings either skyrocketed or crashed, and you have this info days in advance of when it will be announced, you are barred from buying or selling stock as a result. If you do it anyways, you are gaining from knowledge that is not available to ever
Re: (Score:2)
a) That's what government is for, right? But jabs aside, that would be a risk of the corporate system. Why do corporations deserve such a protection?
b) I believe this is actually legal--that is, for a group of people to suddenly buy/sell a stock to influence its price and then make a killing on the results.
c) Again, another what should be a risk of the whole stock market game.
Why should it be illegal, and not just a risk of playing this game? If the risk is too big, or the game seems like a cheat, you do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Markets only work when all the players have access to all the information, otherwise the market prices things incorrectly. The problem is that we don't operate in a perfect market where all information becomes available to all agents at the same time. For example, companies have to put a lot of work in place before announcing a dilutive secondary offering. Therefore, some people with stock
Re: (Score:2)
There is never perfect information in any market. That is one of the reasons why there is a spread in prices; there is no one ``correct'' price, just a moving point at which bids meet asks.
Buyers and sellers always conceal some things from each other, in any transaction. If you're buying a used car, you don't know everything about it, and you don't know everything that the seller knows.
The people who get hurt by insider trading are gamblers. Insider trading doesn't hurt the market's long-term valuations of
Re: (Score:2)