×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

IBM, Intel Execs Arrested Over Insider Trading

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the things-are-tough-when-yer-rich dept.

The Courts 198

An anonymous reader writes to share a report from The Register stating that executives from IBM and Intel have been arrested as a part of insider trading allegations. "According to a report from the Associated Press, six people were arrested today as part of an insider trading case, including Bob Moffat, senior vice president and general manager of IBM's Systems and Technology Group; Rajiv Goel, director of strategic investments at Intel Capital; Anil Kumar, a director at management consultancy McKinsey & Co; and Raj Rajaratnam, the founder of the $7bn Galleon Group hedge fund."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

:O (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29773803)

God, the world is cruel! It's obvious they are innocent!

[Senior] Executives never do that!

This is an OUTRAGE!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29773821)

Free the Crooks!!!

No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in business (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#29773965)

It's called, 'getting caught.' You see, when you get caught, everyone else in business has to pretend they don't do it, and that they are shocked! Shocked and appalled at the bad apples ruining the barrel. By 'bad apples,' they mean, 'people just like me except they got caught' and by 'ruining the barrel,' they mean, 'drawing the attention of the peons to our utter corruption.'

Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774473)

Here's your bonus.

Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774491)

It's really a tossup. +5 insightful, or +5 cynical. Ironic that cynicism and insight are so much alike, isn't it?

Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine (4, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774587)

Well, it's not like there aren't any good, ethical people even at the highest levels of corporate power. There are good, ethical politicians, too. Heck, I've met some of both.

But in both cases, you have two things working against there being a preponderance of ethical people. First, power tends to attract high functioning sociopaths. Second, and perhaps as a consequence of the first, you have a culture where corruption is seen as normal, a perk of one's position over other people.

People in positions of power are shielded from anything that can touch their comforting illusions about themselves. They believe that they deserve their positions because they are good people. They are good people because they are in those positions of power, sacrificing their superior selves to make the lives of we, the incompetent peons who need them to look after us, better. Of course they deserve a little on the side for such sacrifice!

You see, the terrible burden of such awesome responsibility entitles them to whatever they can take because the rules for little people don't apply to them.

Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine (5, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774817)

Same thing applies to pastors and preachers, too. They preach the word of God, and start to think they understand all the exceptions, and when it is 'ok' to break them.

I knew a guy who had a collection of old/historical bibles. He always locked them up whenever a pastor came over, because he'd had too many of them stolen, by pastors.

Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine (2, Funny)

sootman (158191) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774903)

It's just the bad 99% giving the other 1% a bad name. ;-)

Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine (1)

johno.ie (102073) | more than 5 years ago | (#29775203)

Well, it's not like there aren't any good, ethical people even at the highest levels of corporate power. There are good, ethical politicians, too. Heck, I've met some of both.

Heck, I've met both of them. (ftfy)

Intel (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#29773809)

Didn't Intel just a while ago discontinue some of their largest product line too?

And IBM only supports the enterprise companies.

Even if Google just today reported great increase in profits, maybe recression still has something to do with it.

Well now... (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 5 years ago | (#29773813)

Per TFA, the trading took place from Jan 2007 to July 2007 and they're just making arrests now? Interesting...

Re:Well now... (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#29773839)

No it's not interesting. It takes time to move through all the documents and prepare for the arrest. The word you were looking for is routine.

Re:Well now... (2, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774309)

No, routine is doing it, a short investigation showing you're guilty, and then waving your hands like a Jedi and getting off the hook.

Oh wait, that's only routine for Steve Jobs.

Re:Well now... (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774321)

Pah, over a yeah to read some papers and bust someone. Right.~

Re:Well now... (2, Insightful)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 5 years ago | (#29773845)

Probably nobody cared to investigate it until last January or February.

Re:Well now... (3, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29773847)

Probably wanted to make sure they had a solid case. If they are guilty, who else thinks these guys will get away with a lower sentence then a non-violent drug user?

Re:Well now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29773913)

These are non-violent people sharing proprietary data.

Both can go to jail. The world is a better place without such criminals.

Re:Well now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774229)

Who else here thinks both this and non-violent drug use should be NON CRIMES because in either case there is no victim and no injury?

Re:Well now... (4, Insightful)

maharb (1534501) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774425)

There are victims of this crime. Those who bought or didn't buy shares at the 'wrong' price because they didn't have the information that the insiders did. Insider trading causes the honest people to A) lose money or B) not make as much money. So there are victims and injuries.

The drug thing is a whole different debate that I do not wish to even start with.

Re:Well now... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774827)

There are victims of this crime. Those who bought or didn't buy shares at the 'wrong' price because they didn't have the information that the insiders did. Insider trading causes the honest people to A) lose money or B) not make as much money. So there are victims and injuries.

Yep, one player in the market had 'more perfect' information than the others, so it wasn't a fair market.

OK, Slashcrowd, so what's the way to structurally prevent this from happening? SEC raids are expensive (both the raids and SEC compliance, which eats shareholder value) and not effective at preventing the crimes in the first place. Complete transparency of the companies isn't ideal (nor efficient) either. I don't know the answer, just hoping somebody here does.

Re:Well now... (4, Insightful)

The Empiricist (854346) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774433)

Who else here thinks both this and non-violent drug use should be NON CRIMES because in either case there is no victim and no injury?

You think that there are no victims and no injuries caused by insider trading? How about the people at the other end of those trades? What about the former shareholder who sold stock early, not having had access to information showing that the stock was undervalued? Or how about the new shareholder who did not have the information to know that the stock was overvalued? Those who have access to proprietary information, or who are in a position to manipulate the value of an organization, have a fiduciary duty of loyalty to shareholders. Insider trading violates that duty and is a subtle, but very real, method of stealing from them. For another perspective, click here [gbcnv.edu] .

Re:Well now... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774535)

Is that you George? How much more do your neocon masters want us to deregulate? We've already dismantled almost all the laws that were put in place after the crash of '29! There really isn't much more we can do!!

Well, wait - we CAN allow people to trade entirely on credit, with no collateral at all. Would that make you happy, Mr. Bush?

Re:Well now... (3, Insightful)

tsotha (720379) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774505)

Nope. Most people don't realize it, but financial crimes in the US are punished pretty severely. Enron's Skilling got 24 years in jail for conspiracy to defraud investors. You can get less than that for killing somebody. Martha Stewart got six months for lying to an investigator (while she wasn't under oath) about something that wasn't a crime. As with drunk driving for awhile people have this idea the penalties are light, but in the meantime legislators are reacting to public anger and jacking up the sentences. It takes awhile for reality to sink in to the public consciousness. From here [nytimes.com] :

"You can certainly make the case that things have gotten too harsh," said Samuel W. Buell, a former Enron prosecutor who now teaches law at Washington University in St. Louis. "But the reason why things have gotten so harsh is we went through these years when sentences were too light. Maybe we need a correction in the other direction to get a happy medium."

I think the drug laws are pretty stupid, too, but where I live first time offenders never get jail time for possession. You can usually avoid jail on the second conviction as well if you don't have a bunch of other stuff on your record. By the third one, well, you're an idiot who's going to jail for being an idiot. But only for a few months.

Re:Well now... (0)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774591)

"Enron's Skilling got 24 years in jail for conspiracy to defraud investors. You can get less than that for killing somebody."

I'm inspired by your slippery logic. Yes Skilling got a sentence on the high end of the scale for a white-collar crime and a person could get less for killing on the low end of the scale. It depends on the details of the crimes. Skilling cheated people on a very large scale so he got a big punishment. So what?

Re:Well now... (2, Informative)

tsotha (720379) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774851)

So what?

The point is that's not the high end of the scale at all. It's not that uncommon to see people who get, literally, hundreds of years for white collar crime. Madoff got 150 years. Now, granted, that's mostly symbolic for a guy in his 70s, but in general financial crimes are such that a prosecutor can usually throw a whole bunch of counts of 3-5 at you to end up with some eye-popping total.

If I were doing an over/under on these guys I'd say (assuming they're guilty as charged) they each get at least five years in jail for making stock moves that had a negligible effect on the price of the stock they were trading.

Re:Well now... (2, Informative)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#29775311)

Well, even young guys who get sentenced to 150 years sometimes get out in their lifetime. The point is that you haven't presented any evidence that in general white-collar criminals are treated more harshly than other criminals.

Re:Well now... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774897)

> By the third one, well, you're an idiot who's going to jail for being an idiot. But only for a few months.

Why does smoking a joint after work, taking some mushrooms, or dropping some acid make you an idiot?

Re:Well now... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774907)

And remember that Ivan Boesky had to write a $400,000,000.00 check to the U.S. Government, and still do time. He was actually on my prison (Lompoc FPC) farm irrigation crew humping pipe with the rest of us through tall, wet grass.

(4 digit UID posting anon. for obvious reasons.)

Re:Well now... (3, Informative)

rachit (163465) | more than 5 years ago | (#29775021)

Nope. Most people don't realize it, but financial crimes in the US are punished pretty severely.

I don't have a problem with the amount of punishment, but I'm pissed with how few get caught. If you follow the market and take a look at important announcements like rate cuts, economic numbers, earnings reports, etc., you could often (not always) see high volume trade before the announcements pre-announcing the result. Its sad that people almost never get caught, considering how often it happens.

Re:Well now... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#29775079)

Drug crimes are often victimless, financial crimes not so.

Re:Well now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29775099)

"Martha Stewart got six months for lying to an investigator (while she wasn't under oath) about something that wasn't a crime."

Insider trading is a crime and she had insider information.

Re:Well now... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29775263)

All good points, but I really, strongly feel the need to point out that it's "a while". Two words.

A. While.

Indefinite article, followed by Noun.

NOT adverb. NOT "awhile". Not "alot" either (which isn't even a word, but if you're making the former error, you should, at least for consistency's sake, make the latter).

However. Good points though.

Re:Well now... (4, Interesting)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774527)

I totally agree with you.

These people are going to have the very very best investigators, experts, and lawyers. They are going to examine every nook and cranny of the case in the attempt to find one little crack of reasonable doubt that will enable them to beat the rap.

The FBI doesn't just need to dot every i and cross every t, they need to develop a case so tight that even the most moronic juror will see the wrong clear as day, when the best lawyers in the world are trying to obscure everything.

On top of that, the US Attorneys don't like to go to trial unless they have a slam dunk. Losing makes them (and their administration) look bad--and image is sooo important!!

Bottom line is that the FBI had to work their ass off to get the goods on these guys and we should all damn well appreciate it!

Re:Well now... (0)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774703)

I totally agree with you.

These people are going to have the very very best investigators, experts, and lawyers. They are going to examine every nook and cranny of the case in the attempt to find one little crack of reasonable doubt that will enable them to beat the rap.

The FBI doesn't just need to dot every i and cross every t, they need to develop a case so tight that even the most moronic juror will see the wrong clear as day, when the best lawyers in the world are trying to obscure everything.

On top of that, the US Attorneys don't like to go to trial unless they have a slam dunk. Losing makes them (and their administration) look bad--and image is sooo important!!

Bottom line is that the FBI had to work their ass off to get the goods on these guys and we should all damn well appreciate it!

Meh...

Re:Well now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774255)

"Similarly, CHIESI obtained inside information from
MOFFAT concerning IBM and Sun Microsystems and shared that
information with KURLAND. New Castle subsequently traded on that
information. For example, in early 2009, New Castle gained
profits of approximately $500,000 from trades in IBM securities
and $900,000 from trades in Sun Microsystems securities based on
material non-public information."

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/October09/hedgefundinsidertradingpr.pdf

Re:Well now... (1)

spydum (828400) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774315)

The SEC is overwhelmed with work -- so you can imagine that building a case against >6 people took them some time..

Re:Well now... (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774667)

I think Intel pissed someone off with after the 3DMark benchmark cheating [slashdot.org] was discovered.

Interesting that the insider trading arrests come approximately a week later?

Re:Well now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29775115)

Most of the staff at the SEC were on vacation for balance of the decade until September, 2008, when some were called back to deal with the fallout of the Lehman Brothers/ AIG/ Wachovia/ Merrill Lynch /Citibank unpleasantness.

Then the rest were made to return after Madoff was arrested in December.

After that, evidently the SEC buckled down and started noticing what folks on Wall Street had been doing during the late bull market, and went around asking questions.

That's not too bad (3, Funny)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#29773853)

Helping the Nazis is worse than insider trading.

No bad or worse (1)

linumax (910946) | more than 5 years ago | (#29773903)

Since Corporations don't have any moral compass, I'd suppose anything is ok as long as they don't get caught.

Re:No bad or worse (2)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774031)

When they do get caught can we kill 'em?

Re:No bad or worse (2, Funny)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774727)

When they do get caught can we kill 'em?

You can do whatever you want just don't get caught.

Re:No bad or worse (2, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774043)

OOOHHH! HATE SPEECH!

We have laws to deal with those who think as you do! Never forget: Corporations are persons [wikipedia.org] and have all the rights of personhood, as enshrined (entombed?) in law. You are a hate-criminal, [wikipedia.org] and probably therefore a violent extremist. [wikipedia.org]

Re:No bad or worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774487)

Anyone who gets their information from wikipedia needs to find a better source.

Re:No bad or worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29775289)

Anyone who uses cliches like that needs to learn to think for themselves.

The entire purpose of wikipedia is to collate and reference varied *third party* sources of information.

This is almost guaranteed to be more accurate than your own research unless you spend long enough on a particular subject so as to be better informed than the collective of people you're bitching about.

Wake the fuck up.

Re:That's not too bad (1)

ParanoiaBOTS (903635) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774171)

Helping the Nazis is worse than insider trading.

So how bad are Nazis that take part in insider trading?

Re:That's not too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774849)

Paradoxically, they are a bit better than other Nazis who don't do insider trading and thus have more time for expansionist wars, running concentration camps, and kicking dogs.

Corrupt Complete. (3, Interesting)

sitarlo (792966) | more than 5 years ago | (#29773881)

Does this surprise anyone? Insider trading must be commonplace at the executive level across most industries these days. How else, but corruption, do talentless, unethical, unproductive sociopaths get paid? These are all lucrative positions to hold, why do they need to cheat to get more bread? Meanwhile, honest mom and pop outfits are folding like lawn chairs and hardworking people are in debt beyond hope just to from month to month. Will somebody please flush the elitist toilet?

Re:Corrupt Complete. (4, Insightful)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774187)

Will somebody please flush the elitist toilet?

Elitist is a loaded term used by useful idiots, seeking to lump together people of above-average intelligence, (supposedly) more highly refined culture, and (very, very secondarily) the wealthy into a political target group that can be exploited by the right wing populist. Unfortunately, this normally results in the demise of smart people (who cannot defend themselves), while leaving in place the wealthy (who can). In doing so, the right wing defang a properly targeted populist revolt that might actually change the system, which is based on economic class/power differences rather than on cultural/IQ differences. Doing this ensures that the fundamental class system, determined by power structures dictated by economics and wealth are never changed, leaving the idiots in the lower class forever subservient. Wash, repeat.

So have a ball flushing your elitist toilet and wave back from the sewer outlet as you try to figure out why that doesn't change a damn thing.

Re:Corrupt Complete. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774329)

No, elitist is a term used to refer to people who think that due to to talent, money, or power, they possess a higher moral value than people without those talents/money/power/&c. A low-level government employee who thinks he shouldn't have to pay parking tickets is an elitist, a president who thinks he's got a moral obligation to take a bullet for a homeless man isn't. It's about perception, not position.

Re:Corrupt Complete. (2, Funny)

StellarFury (1058280) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774511)

You're both idiots. You're responding to posts assuming a definition of the word that is not the definition the parent was using. I know context is a real subtle thing, but really, you should try paying attention to it. It'll help.

(For reference, the above text is elitist.)

Re:Corrupt Complete. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774573)

aw, babbys first snark

Re:Corrupt Complete. (-1, Flamebait)

sitarlo (792966) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774441)

Elitist is not a loaded term you dumb-ass pseudo-liberal zombie parakeet. It's meaning is PLAIN and SIMPLE: People who think they are better than other people.

It's not a matter of left or right, rich or poor! It's a matter of attitude and persona character. Look up egalitarianism if you want to get political. These execs are elitists who think they are above the law and too smart to get busted. Nobody with a high IQ would want a system based on cultural/IQ differences. Many serial killers, child molesters, dictators, and terrorists have high IQs. One's ability to learn is not an indicator of their potential for positive or negative impact on society. How about a society where status is obsolete and people just accept each other for who they are while trying to better themselves and their communities? So jump in your Prius or Subaru and drive back to Berkeley for another dose of the leftist kool-aid.

Re:Corrupt Complete. (1)

SixGunMojo (177687) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774595)

you dumb-ass pseudo-liberal zombie parakeet

1. What do you have against zombie parakeets to insult them so

2. Dumb-ass is kind of a redundant modifier for liberal ;-)

-------------

'To comprehend what mathematicians mean by infinity is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity.' --Voltaire

Re:Corrupt Complete. (2, Insightful)

sitarlo (792966) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774733)

You know, I don't have any ill-will towards liberal thinking people at all. I'm just tired of people wearing it as some kind of "I'm better than thou" badge. Historically, it's dangerous to identify one's self with a single political philosophy. It stinks of brainwashing and indoctrination. Common sense should be the middle ground where people unite, but common sense is not so common.

Re:Corrupt Complete. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774495)

Will somebody please flush the bourgeoisie toilet?

Bourgeoisie is a loaded term used by useful idiots, seeking to lump together people of above-average intelligence, (supposedly) more highly refined culture, and (very, very secondarily) the wealthy into a political target group that can be exploited by the left wing populist. Unfortunately, this normally results in the demise of smart people (who cannot defend themselves), while leaving in place the wealthy (who can). In doing so, the left wing defang a properly targeted populist revolt that might actually change the system, which is based on economic class/power differences rather than on cultural/IQ differences. Doing this ensures that the fundamental class system, determined by power structures dictated by economics and wealth are never changed, leaving the idiots in the lower class forever subservient. Wash, repeat.

So have a ball flushing your bourgeoisie toilet and wave back from the sewer outlet as you try to figure out why that doesn't change a damn thing.

Fixed it for you.

Do you know the origin of the term "useful idiots"?

Re:Corrupt Complete. (1)

yuri82 (236251) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774633)

Really well put. It is a tough world out there for those with the brains and no pockets.

Bob Moffat et al (4, Interesting)

router (28432) | more than 5 years ago | (#29773885)

Nice. So executives at Intel, IBM, Bear Stearns, and McKinsey were tipping off a Billionaire hedge fund manager. Any wonder _how_ he made those Billions, then? And all of them massive contributors to politicians. How nice. These idiots should all go to jail, for a very long time. Maybe, use the per capita income of ordinary Americans to judge their prison terms; 25M/43k/yr = 500 years between them. Some of them _might_ get out in time to die.

andy

Re:Bob Moffat et al (0)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774141)

The Chinese method for dealing with political corruption is better, final, and satisfies the public right to vengeance against those who betray them.

Put the financial crooks who are wrecking this country in a stadium and shoot them while the whole world including their families can watch and get the hint. I'll volunteer for the firing squad.

When gentle, "civilized" effeminate practices fail to stop criminals, then use methods that eliminate them. Had Bernard Madoff been publicly killed instead of going to Club Fed, those wanting to be like him might reconsider.

Re:Bob Moffat et al (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774185)

Yes, rehabilitation sounds perfect.

and I know just who we can call in for the job.

Re:Bob Moffat et al (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774333)

and I know just who we can call in for the job.

Ghostbusters?

Re:Bob Moffat et al (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774659)

BEEF SUPREME

Re:Bob Moffat et al (2, Insightful)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774565)

What you fail to understand is that it would not be the hedge fund managers who were involved in insider trading who would be shot in the public stadium, no they have far too much power and influence (read as money).

It would be the drug dealers and other relatively insignificant criminals who would find themselves in a stadium preparing to be shot on national television.

Re:Bob Moffat et al (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774615)

Sure, that's the way it was done for centuries all over the world and look at the result. Crime is unknown now .. oh wait.

Re:Bob Moffat et al (2, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774791)

"The Chinese method for dealing with political corruption is better, final, and satisfies the public right to vengeance against those who betray them."

And a dozen lucky people on various transplant lists get new organs.

Re:Bob Moffat et al (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774245)

If you threw everyone who had a billion dollars or more in jail, you would reduce the percentage of innocents in jail today.

Re:Bob Moffat et al (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774933)

Maybe, but you would certainly be increasing the percentage of assholes.

Correction (0, Troll)

gbutler69 (910166) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774739)

Nice. So INDIAN executives at Intel, IBM, Bear Stearns, and McKinsey were tipping off an INDIAN Billionaire hedge fund manager. Any wonder _how_ he made those Billions, then? And all of them massive contributors to politicians. How nice. These INDIAN idiots should all go to jail, for a very long time. Maybe, use the per capita income of ordinary Americans that is being stolen away from them by a bunch of foreigners to judge their prison terms; 25M/43k/yr = 500 years between them. Some of them _might_ get out in time to die.

andy

There, fixed that for you

Honestly though... (3, Insightful)

Sibko (1036168) | more than 5 years ago | (#29773887)

Business as usual for corporations. The only thing out of the ordinary here is that they got caught.

Re:Honestly though... (1)

irtza (893217) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774391)

It was the people running the corporations. Don't let them hide behind the company on this one - let the people involved stand for themselves and be judged in a court of law. I don't believe the companies were charged with any wrongdoing on this one.

Re:Honestly though... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29775221)

You have evidence of more than 50% of corporations engaging in insider trading? Would you like to share?

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29773919)

About time those bloated IBM scumbags were arrested.

Insider trading is only for board members (5, Informative)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774005)

I'm afraid that insider trading is deeply, deeply frowned on by most companies, who put strong clauses in their confidentiality agreements, and at some larger companies provide "training" about how not to do it. I've attended such training several times, as part of corporate mergers, and it's striking how thee announced policy does not apply to VP's in practice: does not apply to "corporate partners": and does not apply to the people who have the most to trade with and the most to gain. It _does_ apply to the peons, the people with stock options who might want to trade them in at the right moment but whose activity might pre-announce and thus reduce the profitability of the corporate changes which are the direct knowledge of those most with the most to gain from insider trading.

Yes, I've become extremely cynical about this: I know VP's who really try to help their companies and improve their products, but I've been running into far too many since the Dotcom boom who simply studied how to make their bundle and get out with the last glowing quarter on their resume, and get out before the SEC or the market stomps their grandiose "big vision" plans into the dust.

Re:Insider trading is only for board members (3, Interesting)

Darth Cider (320236) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774371)

I blame Gordon Gekko. No joke. Ever read Oliver Stone's comments about Wall Street? He's horrified by how many stockbrokers and money managers and accountants and traders come up to him and say, "Thanks. That movie changed my life." Gordon Gekko, who said he made 800 thou on his first real estate deal, and it was better than sex, but now it's just a day's pay. Gekko only got caught because he made the mistake of angering a protege who got too close. The latest batch of Gekko wannabes won't make that mistake.

Seriously, if anyone with inside information wanted to cash in on it, how difficult would it be not to get caught? Just make sure not to leave a trail or be obvious about it. In fact, this is probably factored in to every valuation - as a kind of value leakage, a toll. The cost of doing business. Things could only have gotten a lot more sophisticated since Gekko was king. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

Re:Insider trading is only for board members (2, Interesting)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 5 years ago | (#29775239)

I heard the same thing in an interview with Michael Lewis, who wrote Liar's Poker [amazon.com] , about Wall Street CEOs in the 80s and 90s. The big bombshell that he dropped was that some CEOs were making bonuses upwards of one million dollars. He said that after he wrote that book, he would get letters from Ohio University students asking how they could get jobs like that.

Re:Insider trading is only for board members (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 5 years ago | (#29775253)

Seriously, if anyone with inside information wanted to cash in on it, how difficult would it be not to get caught? Just make sure not to leave a trail or be obvious about it.

It's not trivial to successfully hide insider trading. When you're talking about executives moving thousands of shares, those moves must be reported and will be placed under a microscope. Regulators have statistical models, that will raise red flags if trading patterns are unusual, not to mention the potential of alienating other traders left out of the loop who will take notice if things seem fishy (eg Enron).

Unfortunately, while there are plenty of tools and regulations to identify inside trader suspects, for prosecutors to actually build a case that can survive legal and political scrutiny is much more difficult.

Corruption? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774145)

And we all know that Satyam means truth, right? We can even offshore our corruption.

Pentium bug.... again. (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774151)

Irony, def.: Executives for a company that makes microprocessors can't do math...

racial profiler (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774189)

Doesn't seem to be a lack of Indian representation.
Oh wait, I thought this was the Top Coder thread.

I hope this was the guy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774195)

that outsourced my former job at IBM.

Re:I hope this was the guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774359)

No, it was you who did it to yourself. Start taking up responsibility for your own actions.

Re:I hope this was the guy (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774533)

"Start taking up responsibility for your own actions."

You mean he outsourced himself? Perhaps you should sober-up before climbing on your high horse.

So is this why (1, Offtopic)

teknosapien (1012209) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774225)

Wall street is still showing record profits after they stole the billions from the American people I start to wonder how much is enough when I see stuff like this - I mean really how many houses cars boats do you need ? Wonder if they are still saying that they don't need tighter regulation.

Re:So is this why (1)

MerlynEmrys67 (583469) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774325)

Strange - Bad people do bad things, they are caught using existing tools and regulations - if their crimes are proven they will be penalized.

Where do you see the need for more regulation?
Do you see a need to have these people violate two or three regulations instead of simply one?
Do you believe that their penalties (if they are proven guilty) are insufficient and deserving of harsher punishment?

By the way, many of these companies aren't on Wall street, but in Aramok, NY, and Santa Clara, CA.

Your populist milage may vary

Re:So is this why (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774551)

"Do you see a need to have these people violate two or three regulations instead of simply one?"

He doesn't see the need for them to violate any regulations but instead to obey them. Nobody but the straw man in your head is interested in creating redundant regulations.

Re:So is this why (2, Insightful)

teknosapien (1012209) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774705)

Insider trading is as we already know BAD (Ivan the Bad http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id316.htm [tripod.com] ) on many levels -- the biggest problem is that the rules are played lose and free with out any thought of getting caught. so maybe more regulation isn't the answer but harsher penalties are if you stand to lose everything then maybe you will follow the rules Personally I think All assets should be taken and what ever doesn't get applied to payback should go to say funding health care or some social issue of the times. I mean that makes more sense than the current war on drugs.

Re:So is this why (2, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774339)

I mean really how many houses cars boats do you need ?

ALL OF THEM

Re:So is this why (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774501)

I mean really how many houses cars boats do you need ?

Capitalist: All of them.

Re:So is this why (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774803)

What we DON'T need is 'tighter' regulation written by the same politicians who were bought off in the first place. The corruption starts at the top, and it covers both parties. What we need is a political cleansing, and then the regulatory cleansing will take care of itself.

Those guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774507)

Sigh, those guys from IBM are just bastards.

And the guys from Intel... Bum bum bum bums!

Intel Insider Trading... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774567)

Intel Insider Trading...

Add that to Anti-Trust & you gotta really nice bunch of guys.

A. Mous

There gonna put the IBM guy in a little cell (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774645)

with vertical steel bars from side to side and horizontal blue bars at the top and bottom.

Sorry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774677)

But insider trading is exactly the type of information that investors need to determine the future direction of the company. Right now, the laws basically mean that insiders must act like robots when they trade (all trades timed well in advance) and no one is allowed to provide any useful information to investors lest they get sued. It's a crazy catch-22.

Re:Sorry... (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774721)

I think information is allowed to be provided to investors, but it has to be done through a public disclosure, where any investor could potentially access the information at the same time, right? Things like press releases/conferences, maybe announcements on a website, tv/radio/internet news, etc. I might be wrong - I'm definitely no expert on securities law, but I think the *point* is to prevent people getting rich (or avoiding losses) from having access to secrets that other investors don't.

Good Start (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29774715)

Now all that need to be done is to go after the dirtballs above these "fall guys".

All the way to the Top.

While they're at it ... (2, Insightful)

Wansu (846) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774809)

they can arrest everyone who has ever worked for Goldman Sachs or any of those other bankster firms who are now heaping lavish bonuses on their people, paid for by taxpayers who are becoming unemployed and homeless.

These IBM/intel guys are small potatoes. Make Geithner and Paulson do the perp walk.

Poor guy (2)

winomonkey (983062) | more than 5 years ago | (#29774949)

A guy named Anil Kumar charged with insider trading ... I, I just don't know where to start with this one.

Meanwhile ... (1)

Mrrrrrrr (1338649) | more than 5 years ago | (#29775233)

...Goldman Sachs executives and members of the US Congress roam free.

F___ Em (1)

GHynson (1216406) | more than 5 years ago | (#29775275)

I say we make em eat pentium and power pc chips until they s___ silicon.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?