Seems like this piece made an impact before going live:
"Trump advisor Carl Icahn resigned ahead of negative magazine article"
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-icahn-resignat...
Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
11–20 of 45 posts
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile, Icahn makes money on the deal, by anticipating market reaction to his lobbying. Even though it doesn't succeed, the market drops, his short selling profits, and he's up about $200M.
Does that not violate insider trading laws?
Insider trading laws are a series of sanctions exclusive to the equities market, about trading equities. This trade didn't involve equities.
There is nothing illegal about having an edge in the capital markets.
Even if the CFTC did "investigate", there isn't a prohibition on having "inside information" in the futures markets either... for the most part.
You have to look at the history and intent. Investing in companies is a great way to grow an economy, adding a ring of confidence by the state helps promote that so they can push that kind of investment exclusively on the population. As a result stock investing is really popular but the rules around it are extrapolated to being relevant to other capital markets only due to the similarities of trading.
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#13>Icahn’s role was novel. He would be an adviser with a formal title, but he would not receive a salary, and he would not be required to divest himself of any of his holdings, or to make any disclosures about potential conflicts of interest. “Carl Icahn will be advising the President in his individual capacity,” Trump’s transition team asserted.
In the months after the election, the stock price of CVR, Icahn’s refiner, nearly doubled—a surge that is difficult to explain without acknowledging the appointment of the company’s lead shareholder to a White House position. The rally meant a personal benefit for Icahn, at least on paper, of half a billion dollars. There was an expectation in the market—an expectation created, in part, by Icahn’s own remarks—that, with Trump in the White House and Icahn playing consigliere, the rules were about to change, and not just at the E.P.A. Icahn’s empire ranges across many economic sectors, from energy to pharmaceuticals to auto supplies to mining, and all of them are governed by the types of regulations about which he would now potentially be advising Trump.
How is this shit legal?
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#14Seems like this piece made an impact before going live: "Trump advisor Carl Icahn resigned ahead of negative magazine article" http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-icahn-resignat...
And the departure caused the article to be published early[1]:
> I've been reporting on Carl Icahn's role as an adviser to Trump. Monday, in an email to me, the White House fired him. Today, he resigned.
[1] https://twitter.com/praddenkeefe/status/898674961161662464
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#15>Icahn’s role was novel. He would be an adviser with a formal title, but he would not receive a salary, and he would not be required to divest himself of any of his holdings, or to make any disclosures about potential conflicts of interest. “Carl Icahn will be advising the President in his individual capacity,” Trump’s transition team asserted. In the months after the election, the stock price of CVR, Icahn’s refiner…
> How is this shit legal?
In a banana republic? Or in a country that takes these things serious? It all depends on where you live. The absolutely incredible conflicts of interest the Trump administration has brought into the whitehouse ought to have been enough to put several people behind bars. The brands of family members are openly advertised by whitehouse advisors on national TV and the president did not divest himself from his holdings but created some kind of smoke-and-mirrors version of divestment.
It's ridiculous, and it sets the tone for the rest of the nation. If you feel that it isn't legal you are probably right but it would require someone in a position in power to do something about it and that is not going to happen for the time being.
The real problem this causes: precedent has been set and future administrations will not feel bound by these rules any more.
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that not violate insider trading laws?
Insider trading laws were written for small fish. Large players are protected because, apparently, the trading they do is "public". So, the thinking goes, it is just fine if they use inside information for their deals. A guy who uses inside information in every deal is, of course, Warren Buffet. But since he is big and a long term investor, they see no problem.
> A guy who uses inside information in every deal is, of course, Warren Buffet.
I don't think that will hold water.
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#17>Icahn’s role was novel. He would be an adviser with a formal title, but he would not receive a salary, and he would not be required to divest himself of any of his holdings, or to make any disclosures about potential conflicts of interest. “Carl Icahn will be advising the President in his individual capacity,” Trump’s transition team asserted. In the months after the election, the stock price of CVR, Icahn’s refiner…
> How is this shit legal? In a banana republic? Or in a country that takes these things serious? It all depends on where you live. The absolutely incredible conflicts of interest the Trump administration has brought into the whitehouse ought to have been enough to put several people behind bars. The brands of family members are openly advertised by whitehouse advisors on national TV and the president did not divest h…
It isn't all that unlikely that new laws will be passed (for example, there were substantial reforms after Watergate/Nixon).
A big part of the problem is that a lot of the ethics rules surrounding the president are just norms, they aren't laws.
If we are real lucky the imperial office of the president will be neutered quite a lot.
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is this shit legal? In a banana republic? Or in a country that takes these things serious? It all depends on where you live. The absolutely incredible conflicts of interest the Trump administration has brought into the whitehouse ought to have been enough to put several people behind bars. The brands of family members are openly advertised by whitehouse advisors on national TV and the president did not divest h…
It isn't all that unlikely that new laws will be passed (for example, there were substantial reforms after Watergate/Nixon). A big part of the problem is that a lot of the ethics rules surrounding the president are just norms, they aren't laws. If we are real lucky the imperial office of the president will be neutered quite a lot.
> If we are real lucky the imperial office of the president will be neutered quite a lot.
This is my preferred outcome for the Trump administration: that it serves as a vaccine, a shot in the arm for those calling for more restrictions on what a single person can do to the country and that this helps to curb a future wanna-be emperor who is actually competent. Trump - fortunately - is a bungler, imagine the damage he could do if he was half as competent as he claims he is. That would be a much larger issue.
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#19>Icahn’s role was novel. He would be an adviser with a formal title, but he would not receive a salary, and he would not be required to divest himself of any of his holdings, or to make any disclosures about potential conflicts of interest. “Carl Icahn will be advising the President in his individual capacity,” Trump’s transition team asserted. In the months after the election, the stock price of CVR, Icahn’s refiner…
How did Al Gore's pals get a billion federal dollars to fund their dumb Solyndra idea? This kind of stuff is as old as the federal government itself.
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that not violate insider trading laws?
Insider trading laws were written for small fish. Large players are protected because, apparently, the trading they do is "public". So, the thinking goes, it is just fine if they use inside information for their deals. A guy who uses inside information in every deal is, of course, Warren Buffet. But since he is big and a long term investor, they see no problem.
LOL, which is why he's spent the last 60 years of his career in Omaha, Nebraska. And doesn't "trade" anything.
Do you even know what insider trading is, and anything about the laws surrounding it?