Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
newyorker.com
Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
1–10 of 45 posts
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#2Corn lobby beats oil lobby this round. Yawn.
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#3Corn 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.
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#4Corn lobby beats oil lobby this round. Yawn.
That's not the story. It's that someone appointed as "special advisor to the President on issues relating to regulatory reform" didn't actually have any interest in reforming regulations except for one very specific niche issue that has been affecting the profits at his refinery.
He tried to pull a fast one and even wrote an executive order, hoping Trump would sign it. Even though it didn't work out, the refinery made handsome profits by short-selling a regulatory instrument, apparently by exploiting information from Icahn.
It's an interesting background piece around Trump's regulatory teardown, one of the few issues where he can claim to have accomplished anything close to his campaign promises.
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#5Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#6Earlier 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?
You would think so, but apparently not. (Or perhaps more accurately, "maybe, but it would be politically inconvenient to investigate.") From the article:
> In May, after the revelations about the rin trading by CVR, the senators wrote to the heads of the S.E.C., the E.P.A., and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, calling on them to investigate. But it could not have escaped the senators’ attention that two recipients of their letter—Jay Clayton and Scott Pruitt—had met with Icahn in the context of securing their jobs. The Senate Democrats cannot issue subpoenas to agencies unless they get the Republican majority to sign on—an unlikely outcome. In May, the C.F.T.C. replied to the senators’ letter: the agency would not be investigating Icahn or CVR, because rins, even though they are commodities, do not trade on a futures market, and the agency therefore had no jurisdiction to look into the matter. By this logic, the fifteen-billion-dollar market for renewable-fuel credits is not regulated by any government agency.
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#7> Because most attendants were women, Icahn insisted, they were not “breadwinners,” and should not expect compensation commensurate with that of male employees. At one point in the negotiations, he reportedly suggested that if the flight attendants were having such trouble making ends meet they “should have married a rich husband.” (Icahn denied having made sexist comments.) C. E. Meyer, the company’s chief executive, described Icahn as “one of the greediest men on earth.” T.W.A. eventually went out of business.
What a nice fellow.
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#8Isn't he one of Lyft's biggest investors?
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#9Earlier 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?
It's a good question for most of the Trump administration.
Re: Carl Icahn’s Failed Raid on Washington
#10Earlier 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 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.