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

521–530 of 633 posts

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#521

Post by chickenfries »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #9
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…

I agree. My initial perception of Shkreli was the commonly accepted one of revulsion and hatred. After watching the Vice piece, plus a lot of Shkreli's finance talks and live streams, I find him pretty charming and unbelievably intelligent.

That Vice piece felt like great PR for him, so much that I was very suspect of my feelings of sympathy towards him.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#523

Post by cm2187 »

jjxw wrote: post #118

There seems to be a misconception regarding what Shkreli was found guilty of. The legal case here has very little to do with the pharmaceutical pricing controversy - it is a separate case based on a separate hedge fund that he managed. The gist of it is that he took people's money to start a hedge fund, lied to investors that the fund was doing fine when the hedge fund went belly up, but ended up returning everyone's…

In the financial service industry there is very little tolerance for fraud. Fraud with or without losing money will get people in trouble. A trader with a massive unauthorised position is as likely to be sanctioned if this position has a positive P&L than if it is a loss.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#524

Post by cm2187 »

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…

Most ponzi schemes and unauthorised trading start with someone trying to make up for a loss they made and hoping they will fix things and everyone will be made up. That doesn't make it less serious.

It may look surprising given the hatred of bankers here, but it's a profession based on honesty. A guy got banned from the city in London for regularly frauding on his train tickets.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#525

Post by ceejayoz »

RunawayGalaxy wrote: post #435
ceejayoz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, so that he was really only screwing insurance companies. Screwing insurance companies means increased costs for everyone . I'd really rather not pay 20% higher premiums every year to pad someone like Shkreli's pocketbook.

You'd rather let an entire industry continue to screw over millions of Americans out of money and access to healthcare, than let one troll and admittedly fraud profit from exposing said industry? Fair enough.

Shkreli didn't "expose" anything except his own greed.

I'd love to see the current health insurance situation go away - I'm an advocate of single-payer. That doesn't make Shkreli any less gross.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#526

Post by gaadd33 »

pyroinferno wrote: post #70
enraged_camel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court case doesn't have to be about that for the argument to still hold true.

1. The OP has nothing to do with the price hikes, so your argument might have been true if it was actually addressing a relevant topic 2. It's even arguable that his price hikes hurt anyone other than already rich insurance monopolies. The insurance companies would have had to cover the prices, and any people without insurance could have received the drug for free from their company. And of course the higher profits…

You do know that insurance companies are limited to the amount that they can spend on overhead and have to return excess premiums to those that paid them? So yes, it hurt the insurance monopolies, and since they didn't have as much to spend on overhead (aka profit/bonuses) would have to raise premiums.

Also what upgraded version has been released? I haven't found any PubMed/FDA studies mentioning any improvements nor any studies funded by the company. Can you point me to some?

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#527

Post by cm2187 »

downandout wrote: post #398
turc1656 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 believe it is the SEC suing him for fraud, not investors trying to recoup losses. If you commit fraud in the financial industry, whether with or without harm, the regulator will come after you.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#528

Post by vonkow »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #443
rhcom2 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think one of the most famous "troll" things he did was buy the master Wu-Tang album and threaten to destroy it so no one could ever hear the album. How is that not exactly "being cruel to strangers just to enjoy their suffering"?

Because it's a joke. Punish someone for their actions, not their words.

Ah, the #1 go to defence for terrible people when they get called out for their actions, "it's just a joke, I was just kidding, don't be so sensitive."

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#529

Post by gaadd33 »

RunawayGalaxy wrote: post #431
Sangermaine wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>FWIW, he claims that he gave the medicine away for free to people who could prove they couldn't afford it, Sorry, I find it hard to take the word of someone who was convicted of committing fraud. Fraud that was committed before these claims were made. I guess defrauding his investors was also some 11th dimensional chess move designed to show the weakness of the financial industry, right? Move over Jesus, we have a n…

That's an extremely valid point. But there are documented cases of it being true.

Can you link to any documented cases? I searched and couldn't find any that weren't reported on by him or the company, not exactly independent sources.

Re: Martin Shkreli is found guilty of securities fraud

#530

Post by sillysaurus3 »

vonkow wrote: post #528
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's a joke. Punish someone for their actions, not their words.

Ah, the #1 go to defence for terrible people when they get called out for their actions, "it's just a joke, I was just kidding, don't be so sensitive."

You are way too sensitive though. The virtue signaling is through the roof. All you're doing here is "trying to make sure a terrible person gets their comeuppance." Like really? You've never pulled a prank in your life?

I notice you and a lot of people like you have around 100-500 karma. I wonder if it's just newbies trying to find some way of differentiating themselves. Virtue signaling is in fashion, so it makes sense.

Post reply on HN