21–30 of 45 posts
Corn lobby beats oil lobby this round. Yawn.
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.
Great quotes in the article as well.
"But, in reality, many New York financiers considered him a buffoon. In 2015, Lloyd Blankfein, the C.E.O. of Goldman Sachs, greeted the suggestion that Trump might run for President by remarking that the notion of the former star of “The Apprentice” having his “finger on the button blows my mind.”
"In 2010, Trump again found himself in trouble in Atlantic City. But this time Icahn was his antagonist. Along with a Texas banker, Icahn was trying to gain control of three Trump casinos. When a lawyer asked, during a deposition, whether Icahn intended to rebrand the casinos, he said that a consultant had deemed the Trump name a “disadvantage.” In an interview, Trump shot back, “Everybody wants the brand, including Carl. It’s the hottest brand in the country.” But in Icahn’s opinion the only real downside to shedding the Trump name was the expense that would be associated with changing all the signage"
"In court papers, Icahn’s lawyers suggested that Trump’s name was no longer “synonymous with business acumen, high quality, and style.” Icahn told the Wall Street Journal, “I like Donald personally, but frankly I’m a little curious about the big deal about the name.” If the Trump brand carried such cachet, he asked, why did Trump properties keep going bankrupt?"
Earlier 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?
Using information only you have to trade in the market is not "insider trading" by itself; in fact, it's the only way the markets can actually function!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that not violate insider trading laws?
Insider trading is an agency problem. You're in trouble if you have a fiduciary duty to someone else (either overtly or implied, directly or indirectly) and you take advantage of insider information to trade against their interests. Using information only you have to trade in the market is not "insider trading" by itself; in fact, it's the only way the markets can actually function!
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answersinsiderhtm.html
> The SEC adopted new Rules 10b5-1 and 10b5-2 to resolve two insider trading issues where the courts have disagreed. Rule 10b5-1 provides that a person trades on the basis of material nonpublic information if a trader is "aware" of the material nonpublic information when making the purchase or sale.
Earlier 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insider trading is an agency problem. You're in trouble if you have a fiduciary duty to someone else (either overtly or implied, directly or indirectly) and you take advantage of insider information to trade against their interests. Using information only you have to trade in the market is not "insider trading" by itself; in fact, it's the only way the markets can actually function!
That’s not quite the case, it’s insider trading if you’re using non public material information no matter what account it benefits. https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answersinsiderhtm.html > The SEC adopted new Rules 10b5-1 and 10b5-2 to resolve two insider trading issues where the courts have disagreed. Rule 10b5-1 provides that a person trades on the basis of material nonpublic information if a trader is "aware" of…
Are you just pointing out that the SEC will come after you even if you're not trading against the interests of your shareholders/clients/whatever?
>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…
From the article...
> One recurring feature of the Trump Presidency has been an acute collective sensation, shared by a substantial portion of the electorate, of helpless witness. Dismayed Americans wait, like spectators at a game that has turned suddenly dangerous, for a referee to step in and cry foul...What this means in practice is a serious deficit of accountability. Whom can you call when the authorities are the ones breaking the rules?
This, for me, is the troubling part of the Trump administration. It's not whether the crap he's pulling is legal or not. It's whether there is anyone with the power to do so who will hold him and his fellow law-breakers to account. And when he can just fire the people that are investigating him, you seriously have to question whether our system really does have the legendary checks and balances we're taught in school or whether we've just never before elected the wrong cohort of leaders who were willing to abdicate the responsibilities of their offices.
And with Trump's FEC appointees blocking efforts to plug the holes that Russia may have used to influence the outcome of the last election, we may not even have the opportunity to exercise the ultimate check on corruption during the upcoming elections.
>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…
Of course, it's not quite so simple. Richard Painter, former ethics lawyer to Bush 2 has said about this specific instance that DoJ should investigate on the basis that this was clearly an official role and title.
I would add, that this administration insists everyone watching is a moron, and will thus just let them get away with it. They might be right, we'll just have to see how it plays out in a future episode of President Celebrity Chaos Clown.
In any case, a huge amount of the way things works in government is based on norms including etiquette and ethics, not laws or regulations. When you get people who don't care about norms, things start to fall apart quickly because there's no law or regulation to fall back on.
Earlier 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.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx
If we are real lucky, the president will have resigned two weeks ago, so obviously we are already not lucky. What we have ahead of us is more of the forest fire in progress, damaging trust. That's what is being neutered, public trust in all of government. And that is risky.
http://www.people-press.org/2017/05/03/public-trust-in-gover...
>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…