Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 633 posts

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#601

Post by croon »

MichaelGG wrote: post #243
Osmose wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is possible to be upset with both the system and the people using it.

True, and if it comes out that Turing knowingly blocked people from getting it despite knowing their eligibility, then he deserves derision. But so far he's just pointed out the huge issues and laughed, driving up awareness. At some point if your system is so terribly busted and no one is fixing it, eh, maybe you lose the right to hate people abusing it. Or maybe his wit and charisma is making me blind to the issue h…

I found a rule loophole that allowed me to wear an Iron Man suit while playing in the NFL, so I made a career making millions of dollars a year. Aint I brave and admirable for pointing out the issue?

I'm getting increasingly annoyed at the culture of praising exploiters of the system instead of promoting constructive players (who are less profitable, ie less sexy). I understand that the contrarian view to "The Man" is the easiest one to take, even if I think the identified "Man" is the diametrical opposite.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#602

Post by fastball »

usrusr wrote: post #593
fastball wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure it does. A ponzi scheme absolutely does harm people through fraud, namely everyone left holding the potato. Sure, it doesn't harm everyone involved, but many people are harmed because of fraud . In Shkreli's case, he didn't actually harm anyone through fraud, because although he committed fraud, he got them their money back through entirely legal, non-fraudulent means.

Getting money back is just one point in the probabilistic set of possible outcomes. Investment is all about risk, therefore you really cannot ignore that part. Completely over the top illustrative example: you give me money for ten years to invest in real estate, because your investment portfolio is lacking in that sector. I blow it all on cocaine and hookers, then when the money is due I get nervous, buy lottery tic…

Yeah, except Shkreli's handling of the HF money was not fraudulent (he didn't blow people's money on cocaine and hookers, or blow it on anything really, the hedge fund just did poorly).

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#603

Post by evgen »

nerfhammer wrote: post #476
artursapek wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I think OJ is innocent, but that can't be treated as a "data point"; based on public record he did not murder anyone.

He was found liable for causing wrongful deaths.

In a civil trial, not a criminal one. Big, big difference.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#604

Post by usrusr »

fastball wrote: post #602
usrusr wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting money back is just one point in the probabilistic set of possible outcomes. Investment is all about risk, therefore you really cannot ignore that part. Completely over the top illustrative example: you give me money for ten years to invest in real estate, because your investment portfolio is lacking in that sector. I blow it all on cocaine and hookers, then when the money is due I get nervous, buy lottery tic…

Yeah, except Shkreli's handling of the HF money was not fraudulent (he didn't blow people's money on cocaine and hookers, or blow it on anything really, the hedge fund just did poorly).

A coverup is a coverup. If he cannot stand up to his investments doing poorly he has no place in the institutional investment business. If you fake (or hustle) good results to lure in the next batch of investors, yes, that is fraud. It would be an entirely different case if he would have let his funds tank but compensated the losses of his investors with large put nominally unrelated personal donations (assuming that the investors are the actual owners of the money invested, not some middlemen fiduciaries). The illustrative purpose of my example was not how bad cocaine is, it was how bad being deceptive about the nature of an investment could be even when it turns out to be successful.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#605

Post by jklein11 »

fastball wrote: post #510
turc1656 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting. I certainly hope he gets more time than I am expecting. Personally, my gut is saying 1-2 years. I'd be happy if he gets 4-6 like you expect. Definitely going to be interesting to hear the judges words during sentencing. I was listening to the Michelle Carter sentencing yesterday, as I was following that relatively closely. Now I'm waiting to see what happens here, but this is much more cut and dry t…

Why do you favor harsher sentencing for him? As a hedge fund manager, losing money is not illegal. The only illegal thing he did was lie about it so that he could get them their money back. It would've been perfectly legal for him to lose all his clients money in the hedge fund, make them aware of this fact, and reap the profits from his pharma business without dishing it out to his hedge fund clients. As far as I ca…

At the heart of it Shkreli was robbing Peter to pay Paul.

He took some of Retrophin investors profits and used it to pay back his investors in MSMB. Those profits should have gone to Retrophin investors.

From the perspective of the hedge fund, this is a pretty bad spot to be in. Retrophin investors will be looking to be made whole for the money Shkreli gave to MSMB investors.

I would imagine that this is how Ponzi schemes start.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#606

Post by XorNot »

SilasX wrote: post #358
JackFr wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People shouldn't be able to be convicted because they're assholes (even if they are). He wasn't convicted because he was an asshole. He was convicted because he broke the law. I think the fact that he was acquitted on 2 of the 5 counts is evidence that the jury made a determination based on facts, rather than their feeling towards him. That being said, in a trial in the US, the judge applies the law, and the jury d…

>He wasn't convicted because he was an asshole. He was convicted because he broke the law. Well, yes and no. They only bothered looking for his other crimes and prosecuting his because he became unpopular. That's disturbing. What if I'm the victim of financial crimes by someone who didn't piss of Congress and the public? Where's my justice?

The solution to your problems is not found in questioning why one set of crimes which occurred was correctly prosecuted.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#608

Post by wpietri »

EdgarVerona wrote: post #578
downandout wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me start by saying that what you are saying probably should be the way it plays out in this case. Everyone seems to have made money. I was just stating how it actually plays out in the vast majority of federal cases, and will likely play out here. In this case, because of the amount involved, the guidelines will call for a substantial prison sentence (well over 5 years). There is actually a loss table (again, we'…

I should point out too that his being able to pay them back with profit really had nothing to do with his original taking of money. It is tantamount to pure luck that he was able to, entirely separately from the fraud, recoup their losses. Had it not been for that separate channel of money available to him, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to undo the damage done by his harm. And THAT is why this is a punishable…

Yes, exactly. Look at Madoff. Early on, it's entirely possible that he could have gotten lucky trading and made the money back. That still doesn't change the fact that he committed fraud. If we only punish the people who lose money, we create a huge incentive for more fraud, because it encourages yet more "double or nothing" behavior on the part of people who screw up.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#609

Post by chki »

emodendroket wrote: post #445
chki wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But wouldn't the fact that trials might be favoring conviction (I'm not saying they do, but just as a hypothesis) also drastically change the outcome of those non-trial cases (mainly plea bargains, I guess)? If I expect to be convicted, I'm more likely to agree to a worse plea bargain.

I've not seen any reason to believe juries are more likely to convict.

That might be true but it was not my point. I was merely arguing that not seeing many cases actually go to trial is not an argument that can be made in this case.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#610

Post by savanaly »

njharman wrote: post #487
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…

> Edit: I don't know why I'm being downvoted. Don't whine about the Internet. Seriously, waste of time and beneath anyone with a modicum of confidence. Also it earns you downvotes.

I automatically downvote any post that makes mention of its own downvotes or upvotes no matter the other content. It is tawdry.
Post reply on HN