Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud • Hacker News Board

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#491

Post by throwawayjava » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 12:54 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #293

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's different, though. The goal of a parole suitability hearing is to determine whether an inmate poses an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. A data point like "this prisoner murdered some people" is very relevant to that determination.

OJ's parole was fair, and done by the book. OJ's sentencing for the armed robbery (30 years - his friends who brought the guns, and had a number of prior felonies all got probation) unfairly reflected his murder trial. The judge and jury were almost certainly out to get him.

> armed robbery (30 years... his friends... all got probation

Those are both extremely inappropriate, tbf...

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#492

Post by njharman » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 12:55 AM UTC

burkaman wrote: post #158

discombobulate wrote: post #77

I quite like Martin. I talked to him a few time on YouTube, whilst he was live streaming. He's whip-smart & knowledgeable. He does, however, have a couple of major flaws. 1) He trolls. Hard. 2) It seems he lies. Which I picked up from a previous news article. (He claimed to have ~$50mm under management @ his previous hedge fund. It was more like $1.6mm. Something like that). I can forgive the trolling. It's over the…

Trolling is lying. Either you believe terrible things, or you lie about believing them to make people angry. Normal lying is usually intended for personal gain, trolling is just lies intended to hurt other people.

> make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

That is the correct definition of trolling, yours is wrong. It comes from the method of fishing, as in baiting people. It's about getting reaction usually by making people angry or upset. It's purpose is not to hurt other people. Although many people get butthurt over being trolled. BThat is on them. And kind of the point of trolling, "don't waste your time getting upset over shit people, esp people you don't know, do or say. Don't give them power over you". Trolling wouldn't work, if people didn't freak out over it.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#493

Post by throwawayjava » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:00 AM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #5

I use to hate this guy, then I saw the Vice interview on him. It was nice to see his side of the story. I don't know much about this case in particular. It was kinda sleazy to see the congress question him about his price increases when they knew damn well it was perfectly legal and they haven't done anything to stop it. Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the news loves their stories. Vice inter…

> It was kinda sleazy to see the congress question him about his price increases when they knew damn well it was perfectly legal and they haven't done anything to stop it

Lots of things are legal uses of taxpayer money.

Lots of things aren't illegal but are worthy of public condemnation.

The intersection of those things are EXACTLY the sorts of things I want my congress people going after.

Do you disagree, or do you just like seeing things burn?

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#494

Post by throwawayjava » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:03 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #50

swang wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Prosecutors argued that Shkreli lied to investors in two hedge funds and the pharmaceutical company Retrophin, all of which he founded. Shkreli told investors he graduated from Columbia University, that his hedge fund was large and profitable, and that he had hired an auditor, they said. These were all lies, according to prosecutors. yeah seems like a great dude...

Interestingly, his fraud seems to fall into two categories. Lying about his fund's bonafides and status on one side, and working hard to make sure those same investors got what they were expecting by founding a company, making it successful and paying them out from the profits. It sounds like he definitely lied to investors, but he apparently didn't intend to steal their money, and took pains to make sure he did not…

Just to be clear, this is LITERALLY equating business success with ethical/legal conduct.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#495

Post by samsonasu » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:03 AM UTC

turc1656 wrote: post #371

downandout wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When fraud happens those affected don't usually get their money back much less a return on that money. That will be a footnote at sentencing. Federal sentencing is generally based on intended or actual loss, whichever is greater . Further, the judge is allowed to take into account intended losses from his entire course of conduct, not just the intended losses from the specific counts on which he was found guilty. In…

I disagree. I think it will be a major factor at sentencing. First the fact that he did give them their money (with a significant return on it) back to the people well before the government got involved (meaning it wasn't a PR show) to me means there was never any intent for them to actually lose money. I think the judge will see it the same way. Because if that weren't true, he would never have repatriated the money…

I'm pretty sure the "no harm no foul" defense doesn't hold water in a fraud case. A Ponzi scheme is illegal the entire time (because it's fraudulent) even though the early investors receive returns.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#496

Post by kabdib » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:05 AM UTC

A data point about medication:

I just paid for a pair of EpiPens; the generic version was $337 a pair (last I checked, the non-generic version was over $600). I have pretty good health insurance, so I didn't pay that much myself, but my employer paid the rest.

As a baseline, I had the pharmacist look up the equivalent medication for use with a syringe; a ten dose bottle was $5.99. I know, not the same thing. But this confirmed what I'd suspected for years.

I have to assume that the EpiPen delivery mechanism, which is really what we're paying for, is well debugged and optimized and essentially just a matter of ordering parts and assembling them; it would be mind boggling to have a COGs of more than a few dollars, or any significant conversion costs. The cost of the actual medication that the pens contain is apparently about sixty cents on top of that. Mylan is printing money.

Icing on the cake: The pens expire after a year. But you typically can't get pens that last that long, the ones I got already have a few months on them and will have to be replaced before the next school year ends or my son won't be able to attend class (the school is not allowed to administer "expired" medication).

This is an utter and corrupt racket. I'm writing my congressional representatives and senators. Again.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#497

Post by throwawayjava » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:07 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #86

wfunction wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think he's human garbage. Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than greed isn't enough for you?

> Obtaining a license just to increase a drug's price from $13.50 to $750 for no apparent reason other than greed isn't enough for you? This case isn't about that. Are you suggesting we should convict and punish people on trial for one crime because we don't like their past activities and behaviors? Even if those other behaviors were illegal, they should be considered during a separate trial that's actually pertainin…

> This case isn't about that

No. It was about fraud.

Why should we NOT punish people for fraud?

The ways that question are answered in this thread prove your assertion is false. This case IS about that, because without that, he'd just be one more pennyless felon.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#498

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:10 AM UTC

KekDemaga wrote: post #305

wfunction wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your comment.

Take a look at wealth globally, if GDP was evenly distributed every year everyone would get roughly ten thousand dollars. That's pretax, thus the total average spend per human being be in direct cash payments or via governmental programs should not exceed that number in a fair system. In western nations the poor see double that number on average in cash compensation, and more than triple that number when you include…

[deleted]

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#499

Post by quantgenius » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:12 AM UTC

quantgenius wrote: post #212

kbenson wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I'll bite. Why do you think he's human garbage? You felt strongly enough to reply, maybe you can muster the effort to explain why you think that?

The price increase for Retrophin from 12.50 to 750 was NOT for no apparent reason. The previous owners of the rights sold the rights cheaply because they were unable to make money selling Retrophin, and in fact had large losses for years, despite multiple large price hikes. Businesses that continually lose money shut down. Most of the costs are large fixed regulatory costs for each drug manufactured that a business o…

I meant Dataprim not Retrophin. Sleep deprived.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#500

Post by bradjohnson » Sat, Aug 05, 2017, 1:14 AM UTC

wfunction wrote: post #465

bradjohnson wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14931661

Retrophin was a company and not a drug, right? The comment is saying things like "Retrophin isn't a widely used drug" which is really confusing me and makes me think either I or the writer (or both) don't have any idea what he's talking about. I'm trying to make sense of it compared to what I'm reading from other sources and am completely failing because of this.

The drug was called Daraprim. I think the linked comment misspoke when calling it Retrophin, but I have heard many of the same things that they are saying. Namely that anyone that cannot get the drug through insurance can get it for free. I don't think that Martin Shkreli is a good guy by any means, but portraying him as "human garbage" is not entirely fair.