Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mark Cuban Charged With Insider Trading

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the that's-a-way-to-make-bank dept.

The Almighty Buck 176

geekboy_x writes "The SEC today charged Mark Cuban with insider trading violations, alleging that he divested himself of stock in mamma.com before the stock was diluted via a public offering." Something tells me that the billionaire blogger won't be talking about this one publicly any time soon.

cancel ×

176 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791263)

Something tells me that the billionaire blogger won't be talking about this one publicly any time soon.

Are you crazy? Do you know how many page hits that would generate?! You don't know Mark Cuban. Of course, from his blog a few hours ago [blogmaverick.com] :

"I am disappointed that the Commission chose to bring this case based upon its Enforcement staff's win-at-any-cost ambitions. The staff's process was result-oriented, facts be damned. The government's claims are false and they will be proven to be so."

I'm not a lawyer. As for the case, I think this crap happens more often than you would like to think--the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The fact that this occurred in June of '04 and he's being charged for it now implies that either it takes that long to build up evidence for a case or you don't hear about this until someone slips up. Also, I don't recall hearing the SEC drop charges or lose these cases very often so I'm pretty sure this guy is boned.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (5, Funny)

wtansill (576643) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791337)

Maybe he can get Martha Stewart's old cell. Should be a nice homey place...

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791759)

Maybe he can get Martha Stewart's old cell. Should be a nice homey place...

Don't think they're going to put Cuban in a women's prison. Anyway, Martha Stewart was not convicted of insider trading. She was convicted of lying to investigators.

If Cuban's smart (and I suspect he likes to run his mouth too much), the only thing he's said to investigators is "My lawyer is _____, anything you want from me, talk to him".

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (5, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792035)

She was convicted of lying to investigators.

Yes. She was convicted of lying to investigators when she wasn't under oath and hadn't been warned that what she said might be used against her. Not only that, what she lied about must not have been a crime because she was never charged with anything else.

Now we know: never talk to the feds unless your lawyer's present, even if you don't think you've done anything against the law.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (5, Insightful)

pnumoman (1348217) | more than 4 years ago | (#25792975)

You may be trying to be snide, but yes, you really should always have a lawyer present when that kind of heat is being applied to you. Federal investigators don't have to recite Miranda unless they're taking you under custody. (and depending on what kind of investigator they are, they might not have the authority to take you under custody.) And lying to a federal investigator is a serious no-no regardless of what the circumstances are. See 18 USC 1001. Simply put, don't lie when the feds come asking questions. It's a crime, plain and simple. Or, like parent said, don't say anything unless you have a lawyer present. Oh, and IANAL...yet.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (0)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792049)

*WHOOSH*

she was jailed for PERJURY? (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792239)

Lying about inside trading was more serious than the modest trading itself. However the the SEC stripped her of the right to be CEO and be on boards for the trading conviction. Was that permanent?

No Jail Time (2, Informative)

Nixoloco (675549) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792247)


According to the complaint [thesmokinggun.com] filed by the SEC, they are not seeking any jail time.

They are seeking judgement:
a. enjoining Cuban from engaging in future violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities law.
b. ordering Cuban to disgorge, with prejudgement interest, the losses avoided as a result of the actions described
c. ordering Cuban to pay a civil money penalty to pursuaint to Section 21A.... blah blah

But.. no jail time. Martha Stewart received jail time because she was convicted of obstruction of justice / lying to investigators. Not that I don't think jail time is warranted personally..

Re:No Jail Time (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 4 years ago | (#25792631)

Since they don't want jail time, I can see why he wouldn't be worried even if he did do something wrong.

Any fine is going to be pretty much a drop in the bucket for him. Sure, he won't like paying the $1-10M (based on his avoiding $750,000 in losses), but we won't see him on the street with a "will work for food" sign anytime soon, either.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (0, Troll)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791463)

The fact that this occurred in June of '04 and he's being charged for it now implies that either it takes that long to build up evidence for a case or you don't hear about this until someone slips up.

Whatever happened happened in 2004, but he's being charged only in the last few weeks Bush can direct the SEC.

Funny how the other thing that happened recently was that Cuban just launched a website, BailoutSleuth [bailoutsleuth.com] looking into and organizing against the Bush/Paulson Wall Street bailout.

BTW, in America people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, especially when Bush has a political crusade at stake. Even if Cuban is guilty, it's pretty "coincidental" timing to start prosecuting him.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791637)

Funny how the other thing that happened recently was that Cuban just launched a website, BailoutSleuth [bailoutsleuth.com] looking into and organizing against the Bush/Paulson Wall Street bailout.

How many more times are you going to post your crackpot theories today, Doc [slashdot.org] ?

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (-1, Offtopic)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792483)

If you're offering to say something worth hearing, I'll post again on it to straighten you out. Anonymous crackpot Coward.

OH SNAP!!! DOC RUBY GOT PWNED!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25792623)

And pwned hard by an AC. Wow.

That weak comeback shows what happens when a bully gets it right back.

Doc Ruby really deserved to be smacked down like that. What a Grade A asshole.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25792729)

Whatever happened happened in 2004, but he's being charged only in the last few weeks Bush can direct the SEC.

Funny how the other thing that happened recently was that Cuban just launched a website, BailoutSleuth">BailoutSleuth [bailoutsleuth.com] [bailoutsleuth.com] looking into and organizing against the Bush/Paulson Wall Street bailout.

BTW, in America people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, especially when Bush has a political crusade at stake. Even if Cuban is guilty, it's pretty "coincidental" timing to start prosecuting him.

Interesting how Cuban suddenly gets prosecuted right after he launches a website [texasbudgetsource.com] [texasbudgetsource.com] organizing against the Bush/Paulson Wall Street bailout called BailoutSleuth [bailoutsleuth.com] [bailoutsleuth.com], in the final weeks of Bush's power to direct the SEC, even though Cuban's transactions happened in 2004.

And by "interesting", I mean "suspiciously consistent with Bush's treatment of the Justice Department as a political asset for selective prosecution".

Because Cuban is a billionaire Net entrepreneur [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]. Including harnessing P2P for infrastructure, while publicly championing the technique's place on the Internet despite network operator and copyright holder intererence. He's also spoken influentially for realistic revisions to copyright, contrary to some of his obvious interests as a major copyright holder, as an informed Internet business guru.

He just got hit with an SEC suit by the outgoing Bush on 4 year old charges, right after he launched a website investigating and organizing against Bush's Wall Street bailout [bailoutsleuth.com] [bailoutsleuth.com].

Those topics are all often popular on Slashdot.

FWIW, what little you heard is just the initial press response repeating the SEC's charges. If that were enough to decide guilt, Bush would have had all 60M people who vote Democratic behind bars over the past 8 years. In fact, we might even have, say, invaded Iraq amidst fanfare and WMD hysteria if we all just believed whatever the press initially reported when a Bush agency told us one of its enemies was guilty of something.

That's how many times you posted the same damned regurgitated idea (and I'm sure you're not done for the day).

Shut up.

Shut up.

Shut up.

Seriously, learn to articulate yourself once. Post once, then you're done. This ping pong shit you and I are doing? That's called childish. There's no room for that here. If someone thought about something you should have thought of it before you posted, bow out. Be a man. Construct an argument or idea. Deliver it once and deliver it well. If you fail, better luck next time.

Samuel L. Jackson: "Post that link again. Post it again, motherfucker, post it one more Goddamn time!"

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (2, Informative)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791665)

If he is guilty, than coicidental doesn't really matter. What matters is that he is being prosecuted. From the little I've read he seems pretty guilty. The story basically goes: He heard from momma.com that would sink their stock. He immediately sells. The next day momma.com makes an official announces, stock tanks. The end result is he saved himself like $600k in losses. Assuming this happened, he is guilty and whether there is another agenda behind it is irrevelent.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1, Flamebait)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791997)

Even if he's guilty, of course selective prosecution matters. It doesn't change whether he's guilty, but it does show how seriously not credible is the agency that's selectively prosecuting him. Even if he is actually guilty, a verdict from such a corrupt agency is hard to take as proof that he's guilty.

FWIW, what little you heard is just the initial press response repeating the SEC's charges. If that were enough to decide guilt, Bush would have had all 60M people who vote Democratic behind bars over the past 8 years. In fact, we might even have, say, invaded Iraq amidst fanfare and WMD hysteria if we all just believed whatever the press initially reported when a Bush agency told us one of its enemies was guilty of something.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791713)

The fact that this occurred in June of '04 and he's being charged for it now implies that either it takes that long to build up evidence for a case or you don't hear about this until someone slips up.

Whatever happened happened in 2004, but he's being charged only in the last few weeks Bush can direct the SEC.

Funny how the other thing that happened recently was that Cuban just launched a website, BailoutSleuth [bailoutsleuth.com] looking into and organizing against the Bush/Paulson Wall Street bailout.

BTW, in America people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, especially when Bush has a political crusade at stake. Even if Cuban is guilty, it's pretty "coincidental" timing to start prosecuting him.

No, if that were the case, they would have gone after Cuban after he funded Redacted [imdb.com] , or any of the other stupid [reputationadvisor.com] stuff [ballhype.com] Cuban [articledashboard.com] is guilty [arstechnica.com] of.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (-1, Troll)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792237)

So Cuban is "guilty" of making some movies about Bush crimes that had already happened, or of "pretending to sniff cocaine", or paying fines for yelling at NBA refs, or saying something bizarrely self-contradictory about P2P. That has nothing to do with preemptive activism depriving Bush of his final $TRILLION ripoff.

But since you are evidently guilty of collecting Bill O'Reilly talking points to defend Bush attacking the guy exposing that ripoff, I'm going to take your post as confirmation that your wingnut army is going after Cuban with the last power it has left, since America just fired it for its decade of crimes.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792425)

But since you are evidently guilty of collecting Bill O'Reilly talking points to defend Bush attacking the guy exposing that ripoff, I'm going to take your post as confirmation that your wingnut army is going after Cuban with the last power it has left, since America just fired it for its decade of crimes.

And the fact that you accuse me of "collecting Bill O'Reilly talking points" tells me you a far left-winger suffering from severe Bush/FoxNews Derangement Syndrome. My disdain for Cuban comes from what he said about The San Antonio River Walk, not anything I saw on O'Reilly. You should get to know someone before you start making broad assumptions about them. Otherwise, you are no different than those that call people Racist because the voted against Obama or traitor because they oppose the war. Yep! That's you!

I was pointing out that Cuban has hard time keeping his mouth shut and is well known for doing stuff that make other people stare and say "WTF?" The guy is a loose cannon. He evidently has the smarts to make the money, but not enough common sense to know when to STFU.

Personally, I don't understand why someone with more money than they could possibly spend would be so stupid as to risk losing everything and end up in jail trying to make more.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#25792557)

You just linked to O'Reilly's talking points about Mark Cuban, you insane Republican liar. The list of what you personally don't understand is bigger than Cuban's fortune.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 4 years ago | (#25793025)

Arstechnica is now a shill for Fox News! You heard it from DocRuby first!

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

NothingMore (943591) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791767)

Id say its only coincidental timing since the SEC took about the same amount of time to bring charges against Martha Stewart (her insider trade happened in 2001 and she wasn't put on trial until 2004). Whats REALLY coincidental is that he allegedly committed this crime one month before Stewart was sentenced to go to jail for her insider trading charge. Why he would make an inside trade when another high profile celebrity was taking heat for insider trading is kinda mind blowing.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792091)

It's not mind blowing, it's business as usual.

Just because one person gets caught, doesn't mean the other half-million stock scammers are going to turn themselves in.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (3, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791947)

BTW, in America people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, especially when Bush has a political crusade at stake.

I like Mark Cuban, and I can totally believe the Bush administration is trumping up charges against him. That said, your quote is one of my pet peeves, and is DEAD WRONG.

In America, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. The public at large is perfectly within its rights to judge anyone anyway it wants to. For example, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in his first trial, yet I have no doubt he performed the crime.

All too often people in power and/or defense attorneys try and manipulate the public with the "innocent until proven guilty" junk. "Don't rush to judgment on my client just because he was seen with a smoking gun in his hand, remember, we're all innocent until proven guilty!" No, I'm under no obligation to judge people based on courtroom rules used to "prove" guilt. I can judge people based on whatever criteria seems reasonable to me.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792445)

That legal principle means that no one can accurately judge someone guilty until they're proven guilty. You've got a right to be wrong, and prejudge someone - you might even guess right - even though courts don't have that right to be wrong. But if you judge people guilty without their going through an evidence and argument process, you're probably going to be wrong.

You're an "Obama Republican". I note that Republicans like to think that government is fundamentally an arbitrary set of rules that apply only to government. In fact America's government is built on some "self evident truths" that are universal, not just parochial governmental procedures. Even according to science, a statement isn't accepted as fact until it's been rigorously attempted to be disproven and failed. So in reality, "innocent until proven guilty" is realistic, except in a very few of the most grossly self evident cases. Cuban's is not one of them, as he hasn't gone through any of the evidence and argument process, and all we've got to go on is the initial press reaction to the SEC filing charges against a celebrity.

I further note that as I looked down to submit this comment, I noticed the quote at the bottom of the Slashdot page reads:

"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 4 years ago | (#25792705)

You've got a right to be wrong, and prejudge someone - you might even guess right - even though courts don't have that right to be wrong. But if you judge people guilty without their going through an evidence and argument process, you're probably going to be wrong.

"Prejudging" has nothing to do with it. Courts of law are heavily weighted toward finding not guilt verdicts, because we've decided that "better a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail." The tragedy of a wrong guilty verdict is such that we don't want to risk it.

Courts are NOT about finding the truth! The "truth" may be that Suspect A is absolutely guilty of murder and we have video to prove it -- but if the video was ruled inadmissible, then the murderer may go free, even though everyone involved with the case knows that the truth is that he's guilty. The United States has determined that we'd rather let a guilty man go free than use contaminated evidence.

I, however, am free to use whatever evidence I want to determine guilt -- because all I'm interested in is the truth. That's not the same metric as a court of law. So it's perfectly reasonable to hold a personal standard that's not the same as a court of law.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

moxley (895517) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792163)

Nice catch. I agree with you, it IS coincedental, to say the least....

Unfortunately many people in America still think things are the way they are on TV, they way we all like to think America is.

In truth, when you do something public that purports to shine light into the incredible amount of malfeasance, scandal, and many times outright criminal or unconstitutional activity of the federal government don't think that they wont look for a way to "fuck up your game."

This is just one facet of what the justice system has become in America - it is abused by those who control it and abusive towards their enemies and the masses in general.

I'm not a big Mark Cuban fan, but I don't dislike him either - I haven't had a chance to really examine bailoutsleuth in detail, but I have to say that at least he has done soemthing rather than just complain about it - this whole financial situation we're in is total bullshit and is no accident, nor is the way that much of this bailout money is being used (EG for bonuses and other such crap). Every day we get deeper into fascism (and BTW, I am not one of those people crying "fascism, fascism" at every perceived injustice; I am talking about the definition of that word - and that is what America is becoming.

  People are supposed to be presumed innocent - but have you looked at the way federal prosecutors behave? If you're facing federal charges you can be pretty fucked, it's a plea bargain game because the penalties are so severe that it's basically gambling with your life and livlihood - and the prosecutors and judges seem to reap political dividends from this system because it raises their conviction and sentencing stats among other things; and once something like this has been in the press you're pretty fucked in the court of public opinion too.

So yes, I think he stepped on some toes trying to show people what's really going on "behind the curtain" and stop it; publically.... so the powers that be decided to do a little digging or pulled out a file that was ready for the occasion, and viola, bend over Mark Cuban.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (4, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791739)

"Insider trading" can be very vauge and edge cases aren't clearly defined by statute or case law. Martha Stewart wasn't convicted of insider trading, she was convicted for obstruction of justice during the investigation (which might not have madei t to trial). If he shuts up, doesn't lie, and doesn't try to destroy evidence, he'll find it a lot easier to stay out of jail.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (4, Informative)

erikina (1112587) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791835)

As for the case, I think this crap happens more often than you would like to think--the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The fact that this occurred in June of '04 and he's being charged for it now implies that either it takes that long to build up evidence for a case or you don't hear about this until someone slips up.

As a hobbiest stock trader, I can tell you with confidence that inside trading happens a hell of a lot. Theres billions of dollars to be made. In fact, it happens so much - that there are many technical-trading techniques used to "follow the insiders". So every so often they find an inside trader, chuck him in jail and try make everyone happy. I'd much prefer if the government just got it's nose out of the market. The only thing insider traders do is lead to a more accurate market..

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792363)

As for the case, I think this crap happens more often than you would like to think--the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The fact that this occurred in June of '04 and he's being charged for it now implies that either it takes that long to build up evidence for a case or you don't hear about this until someone slips up.

As a hobbiest stock trader, I can tell you with confidence that inside trading happens a hell of a lot.

The company I work for encourages me to buy its shares. If that is not insider trading I don't know what is.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792471)

If the advice is ALWAYS "buy", then it is not insider trading. You aren't making your decisions based on any inside knowledge - in fact, you aren't making decisions at all, since you are always buying.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#25793291)

I would only buy shares in my employer if I knew they were about to win a big contract, or some other advantage.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792415)

The stock market was designed to allow more or less normal (though mostly rich) people invest for the future in companies without having to take full responsibility for that and risk their freedom in something that they don't understand. The trade off is that they have to have limited knowledge about and control of the company (because if they do understand and control the company they could use it as cover for doing illegal things without responsibility).

Insider trading completely breaks those assumptions by conning those normal people who think they have a fair way of investing. Technical traders are already pretty close to evil (they profit only from other investor's inability to get the information they have and move as fast as they do). Insider traders are directly stealing grandma's pension.

The fact they steal from people on a grand scale shouldn't make the penalty any lighter. The idea that a country can send a mother to jail for life for stealing a pizza to feed her kids whilst leaving unpunished those that steal pizza from millions is exactly the stupidity that got the world economy into it's current mess.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (2, Interesting)

erikina (1112587) | more than 4 years ago | (#25792691)

That's crap on so many levels. But first, let's get you off your moral high-horse. Let's say you have a $100k worth of Intel stock (from super, or w/e retirement plan you have in your area). So anyway, you always Intel was a pretty solid stock, and got along with some Intel people.

Now let's say you're knocking back a few beers with your Intel buddy, and he tells you the i7 CPUs are failing en masse, the management is crumbling and AMD is poised to deliver a fatal blow. So in short, you are now in possession of insider information. So the question is, would you sell your stock or wait till you lose it?

Secondly, there's no stealing. You agreed, I agreed. We might have different information, but that's hardly a secret. And the person who is "more correct" will drive the market to correct itself. (See prediction markets).

A technical trading is evil? rofl I'm not even going to bother..

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (2, Funny)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 4 years ago | (#25793187)

Holy shit, the i7 CPUs are failing en masse??!

They've only just come out!

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 4 years ago | (#25793269)

The smart investor has contingency orders or even chains of orders in place to be executed immediately when triggered by certain events (such as a precipitous and sudden drop in price below a certain threshold). Although this will not completely protect an investment which is falling like a rock from losing value it does provide some measure of protection against bad news without being insider trading. It is also possible to purchase derivatives which insure against a loss in exchange for regular premiums so that the total amount of risk that one wishes to take in a given investment can be very finely controlled. These types of measure foreclose any possibility of insider trading indictment because even if you hear about insider news and your trades are executed soon afterward in response to events you can successfully defend the sales by arguing (correctly) that you had placed orders contingent upon those events long before you became privy to the insider information (so long as you don't change them before the public at large becomes privy to the good or bad news).

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

zolltron (863074) | more than 4 years ago | (#25792767)

The only thing insider traders do is lead to a more accurate market.

No, I think it will lead to no market at all. If I know that someone else can make use of insider information against me, then I have an incentive to put my money somewhere else.

In this case think about those people who bought stock from Cubin. If they had known that Cubin knew more than them, they would probably have opted not to buy in the first place.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

erikina (1112587) | more than 4 years ago | (#25793167)

No, I think it will lead to no market at all.

Yeah, just like markets that allow it. Including real estate and prediction markets.

If I know that someone else can make use of insider information against me, then I have an incentive to put my money somewhere else.

Fine, maybe you and a few other small players will feel too intimidated and not enter the market. (Even though inside trading already occurs, you just need to be sneaky). But that really doesn't change a thing or my point :)

In this case think about those people who bought stock from Cubin. If they had known that Cubin knew more than them, they would probably have opted not to buy in the first place.

Exactly. They didn't know more than him. The news was bad, so he used his knowledge to sell. Influx of selling caused the stock value to go down before the news. If that's not a more accurate and responsive market, then I don't know what is.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

DimmO (1179765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792129)

Are you crazy? Do you know how many page hits that would generate?!

Well, none from here since no one RsTFA.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (1)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 4 years ago | (#25793265)

the rich get richer, the poor get poorer

That's because the rich invest the time to learn how to generate wealth and then do it. It's a skill almost anyone can learn. Those who don't simply have other priorities. We still live in a mostly free society in western world. It's one thing to be starving on the streets, but anyone who has enough money to have a tv and the time to watch it has all the resources they need to become wealthy.

The other reason why the poor get poorer is because of fiat currency and fractional reserve banking. This allows for rampant inflation. Inflation is a tax [lewrockwell.com] on the middle and lower class. Everytime banks or governments borrow money from a central bank (e.g. the Federal Reserve), new money is added to the money supply, created out of nothing. As the holders of these loans spend the money, they get its full buying power, while the buying power of dollars everyone else holds gets diluted, essentially robbing the savings of the middle class.

Insider trading is really a minor issue. If the other stockholders truly feel they lost value, they should be the ones suing.

why should we care? (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791303)

for all i can tell, the guy registered "broadcast.com" in the 90s, created a pretty business plan, and sold out for billions at exactly the right time, and bought a basketball team

i applaud his timing and his luck and success, but i haven't the faintest idea as to why anything this guy ever did is of any interest to slashdot

Re:why should we care? (1)

MChisholm (1115123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791361)

I haven't had any luck pulling up the stories, but Mark Cuban has in the past been very outspoken on topics such as P2P file sharing and ISP traffic shaping/net neutrality.

Re:why should we care? (1)

MChisholm (1115123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791545)

Yep, there's one. Thanks.

Re:why should we care? (1)

DwarfGoanna (447841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791367)

It's easy. The Netspeak translation would be:

Mark Cuban is a Troll IRL.

Re:why should we care? (2, Informative)

fprintf (82740) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791417)

I've never been able to figure it out, and in fact didn't know why he was famous until you mentioned broadcast.com (a place I have never been). Billions for that?

I only saw his reality show, and learned from that show that he owns a basketball team. Otherwise, you are right. Why should we care? He made billions, meanwhile his company (I believe acquired by Yahoo! since broadcast.com redirects there) no longer exists and the parent company is in financial trouble itself. Got out at the right time is an understatement!

Re:why should we care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791635)

I've never been able to figure it out, and in fact didn't know why he was famous until you mentioned broadcast.com (a place I have never been). Billions for that?

I only saw his reality show, and learned from that show that he owns a basketball team. Otherwise, you are right. Why should we care? He made billions, meanwhile his company (I believe acquired by Yahoo! since broadcast.com redirects there) no longer exists and the parent company is in financial trouble itself. Got out at the right time is an understatement!

He was one of the few people who got lucky during the dot-bomb times.

Can he do it again? I doubt it. But the way things are, with his "track record", he can raise money for any hair brained idea he or someone else may have; whereas, someone like me, wouldn't even get in the door - regardless of the merits of the idea and plan.

Re:why should we care? (2, Informative)

netsavior (627338) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791557)

let me rephrase your comment to explain:

Why would a bunch of nerds be interested in a guy that made a BILLION DOLLARS doing something nerdy?

Re:why should we care? (2, Funny)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792209)

Ya but he didn't do anything nerdy. He's just another MBA asshat like all the other people we've been taught to despise. His only claim to fame is playing the stock game, and poorly at that. He just got reeeeeeeeally lucky.

The main difference between Mark Cuban and the Powerball winners, is Mark Cuban was born with his ass where his mouth should be.

bill gates, steve jobs, bill joy, michael dell... (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#25792759)

making billions doing nerdy things

mark cuban: making billions. but not doing a single nerdy thing

Re:why should we care? (1, Troll)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791559)

Because Cuban is a billionaire Net entrepreneur [wikipedia.org] . Including harnessing P2P for infrastructure, while publicly championing the technique's place on the Internet despite network operator and copyright holder intererence. He's also spoken influentially for realistic revisions to copyright, contrary to some of his obvious interests as a major copyright holder, as an informed Internet business guru.

He just got hit with an SEC suit by the outgoing Bush on 4 year old charges, right after he launched a website investigating and organizing against Bush's Wall Street bailout [bailoutsleuth.com] .

Those topics are all often popular on Slashdot.

Re:why should we care? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791693)

Including harnessing P2P for infrastructure, while publicly championing the technique's place on the Internet despite network operator and copyright holder intererence. He's also spoken influentially for realistic revisions to copyright, contrary to some of his obvious interests as a major copyright holder, as an informed Internet business guru.

Um...What? [arstechnica.com]

Re:why should we care? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792073)

Yes, that call against P2P was bizarrely contradictory to his other public advocacy and private investments in it, as that article noted.

Even more reason why Cuban's fate is interesting to Slashdotters.

Re:why should we care? (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792277)

harnessing P2P for infrastructure

You mean Redswoosh ? The bittorrent clone he sold to Akamai, shortly before launching a crusade against all P2P traffic [arstechnica.com] ?

Yeah, quite the genius alright. I can't want to read his new book "My Cuban is bigger than yours"

Re:why should we care? (1)

gooman (709147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792403)

Yea! Our first conspiracy theory!

Regardless, Cuban is a jerk.
For that alone, punishment has been long overdue.

Re:why should we care? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#25792657)

You're a coincidence theorist.

Who thinks Federal prosecution is appropriate for "being a jerk".

Let me guess who you voted for this year...

Re:why should we care? (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792161)

i haven't the faintest idea as to why anything this guy ever did is of any interest to slashdot

Your summary of his life's contributions is accurate, but this is Slashdot. We lost all the good editors years ago, so this garbage is all we get anymore.

Re:why should we care? (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 4 years ago | (#25793099)

He's a venture capitalist who puts up a lot of money for technology, products, and companies that make Slashdot headlines.

It's good to be rich... (3, Funny)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791353)

I wish *I* could be charged with insider trading.

It would mean I'm worth it enough to go after :(

Re:It's good to be rich... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791699)

I wish *I* could be charged with insider trading.

It would mean I'm worth it enough to go after :(

LOL! Cheer up Mark we know it's you.

Re:It's good to be rich... (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791887)

No, it would mean that you are famous enough for people to pay attention while the real criminals get away with whatever they were doing.

Such as the FED recently giving away $2 trillion and won't disclose who they gave it to. Or the fact that half the $700 billion bailout has been given away with zero transparency.

Mark Cuban is just a public scapegoat, just as Stewart was.

Re:It's good to be rich... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25793299)

My personal favorite was the SECOND AIG bailout they needed because the first one went to pay bonuses.

Heres a clue: If you need a bailout, you shouldn't be paying bonuses.

Guide To The Barack Obongo Presidency (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791381)

Hi, my name is Barack Hussein Obongo [obongo08.com] and I approve of this message

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.
Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS - MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE
Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN
They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?
Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER bitches ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. - WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.
What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?
They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD
And you were expecting what?

SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?
When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

Re:Guide To The Barack Obongo Presidency (-1, Offtopic)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791431)

Hi, my name is Barack Hussein Obongo [obongo08.com] and I approve of this message

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

Wow, I had no idea so many celebrities posted on Slashdot. First we get Wesley Crusher, now Rush Limbaugh!

Re:Guide To The Barack Obongo Presidency (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25792655)

Flush Limpballs loves niggers. He has that libertardian nigger Walter Williams as his substitute host quite frequently.

I only defend him because Limpballs is a funny guy who doesn't need to be smeared by reactionary morons who think Republicunt/Neocunt = racist. Not because I agree with his politics.

Retaliation for Cuban's Anti-Bailout Website? (1, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791391)

Interesting how Cuban suddenly gets prosecuted right after he launches a website [texasbudgetsource.com] organizing against the Bush/Paulson Wall Street bailout called BailoutSleuth [bailoutsleuth.com] , in the final weeks of Bush's power to direct the SEC, even though Cuban's transactions happened in 2004.

And by "interesting", I mean "suspiciously consistent with Bush's treatment of the Justice Department as a political asset for selective prosecution".

Re:Retaliation for Cuban's Anti-Bailout Website? (-1, Troll)

wpiman (739077) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791551)

I took notice of that too. Apparently the Bush administration is attempting harass him into compliance. We aren't too far off from China now: with the socialism and now political prisoners.

Re:Retaliation for Cuban's Anti-Bailout Website? (1, Informative)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791605)

We're not really socialist yet. Obama, and more specifically, our next Congress, will lead us down that road. We might not arrive at the destination but we'll wander down that path a bit. Who knows what happens then?

Re:Retaliation for Cuban's Anti-Bailout Website? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791911)

What are you talking about?

Re:Retaliation for Cuban's Anti-Bailout Website? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25792177)

Yeah, we're not socialist until we nationalize the banking industry. Oh wait...

Re:Retaliation for Cuban's Anti-Bailout Website? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25792373)

We're not really socialist yet. Obama, and more specifically, our next Congress, will lead us down that road. We might not arrive at the destination but we'll wander down that path a bit. Who knows what happens then?

So, which AM station do you have on now. Oh! You posted at 4:00, so you're listening to Hannity.

He makes tens of millions of dollars to BS people into being afraid. Obama hasn't even finished his cabinet yet and understand this, campaigning isn't governing. Meaning, there's no way that he can implement everything he promised, let alone the things he has been falsely accused of promising by Hannity.

Re:Retaliation for Cuban's Anti-Bailout Website? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25793151)

Perhaps your country will look less like a fascist dictatorship and more like other western countries.

Spin-Doctoring at its best. (2, Insightful)

Trojan35 (910785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791723)

So, Cuban commits SEC fraud, and we're supposed to ignore it because he's anti-Bush and it was 4 years ago?

Re:Spin-Doctoring at its best. (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792289)

No, I didn't say ignore it, and I didn't say he's not guilty - or that he's guilty.

I just said that the timing should make us suspicious of who and what is really ordering this prosecution. Especially since Bush crippled the "Justice" Department by using it for selective prosecution of political enemies, and this suit would be perfectly consistent with that. And because the bailout is a $TRILLION (or several) ripoff of your money, further crippling your government. Even if you can't understand the politics behind the attack, the implications of it should alarm you enough to pay attention, not to ignore anything.

Re:Spin-Doctoring at its best. (1)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792491)

Didn't the democrats draft and propose the bailout bill? It seems like both parties teamed up for this one..

Re:Retaliation for Cuban's Anti-Bailout Website? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791735)

On an aside, I also think it's interesting that the accusation is that someone who is worth 2+ billion dollars would risk his reputation and personal wealth on 700k.

Re:Retaliation for Cuban's Anti-Bailout Website? (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791789)

People often do stupid things for very little gain. Look at Martha Stewart. She engaged in insider trading for a few tens of thousands of dollars despite her massive wealth. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if someone in Cuban's position would engage in insider trading even when the pay-out is small compared to his current wealth.

Name Change Dummy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791397)

His new name will be Marked Cuban.

I hope he gets what Conrad Black got (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791499)

The man is a crook, of course I'm sure you dopes idolize him due to his carefully crafted "innovator in jeans and a suit jacket" image.

Of course, it's more likely he'll get what Martha Stewart got.. A six month vacation with a book deal at the end.

And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791595)

And yet the SEC is having trouble finding any wrong doing in the current market melt down. Almost like they are trying to distract us with this.

No problemo!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791617)

Obama will pardon him just like Clinton did Marc Rich!

Communism at work. (0, Troll)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791661)

Man uses free market mechanisms to avoid losing three quarters of a million bucks, and Big Brother comes down on him.

I can't imagine not selling stock after learning of some upcoming bad news, by any means.

what are you supposed to do?

``Gee, I'm going to lose 750 thousand dollars just to be a law-abiding citizen, out of the goodness of my heart''.

This is no more wrong than counting cards at a black jack table.

Re:Communism at work. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791753)

Perhaps you should learn what Communism actually is, before making an ass of yourself here?

Re:Communism at work. (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791919)

..Not to mention that card counting (while *not* illegal) can result in the players ejection depending on where you gamble. In Las Vegas, for instance, casinos are allowed to do this because the casino is private property, and the owner can decide who is allowed to enter.

Re:Communism at work. (2, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792089)

I think he meant "wrong" not in a legal context but in a moral context; his argument thus leading, "neither of these two things are really wrong and should not be illegal".

Re:Communism at work. (1)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792053)

Whether he did it or not is debatable. But if he did what is indicated, it is illegal as well it should be. Here, let me explain this to you in layman's terms. If you have insider knowledge (knowledge that would not be public info to normal stockholders) that earnings either skyrocketed or crashed, and you have this info days in advance of when it will be announced, you are barred from buying or selling stock as a result. If you do it anyways, you are gaining from knowledge that is not available to every stockholder and thus you have engaged in insider trading. This is illegal so that people like Cuban can be kept from unfairly affecting the markets, in an attempt to:

a) tank a company on purpose

b) to artificially inflate or deflate the value of a stock in order to take advantage of either the investors or the company, or

c) To stop from having big losses which you would normally be subject to with normal market rises and falls.

And as a side question, what the fuck did your post have to do with Communism? I must've missed where you explained that.

Re:Communism at work. (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792175)

a) That's what government is for, right? But jabs aside, that would be a risk of the corporate system. Why do corporations deserve such a protection?

b) I believe this is actually legal--that is, for a group of people to suddenly buy/sell a stock to influence its price and then make a killing on the results.

c) Again, another what should be a risk of the whole stock market game.

Why should it be illegal, and not just a risk of playing this game? If the risk is too big, or the game seems like a cheat, you don't play. If the investment is too risky, don't take it.

Of course, I guess nowadays we don't believe in risks and payoffs, do we? Just bail out businesses that take risks, then everyone can succeed!

Re:Communism at work. (1)

cyngus (753668) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792139)

"Man uses free market mechanisms to avoid losing three quarters of a million bucks, and Big Brother comes down on him."

Markets only work when all the players have access to all the information, otherwise the market prices things incorrectly. The problem is that we don't operate in a perfect market where all information becomes available to all agents at the same time. For example, companies have to put a lot of work in place before announcing a dilutive secondary offering. Therefore, some people with stock in the company will find out about this ahead of time and if they engage in transactions, its a market failure because the parties in the trade are operating on what can only be asymmetric information. If allowed, this results in all assets being sold for less than they are worth because purchasers would be irrational not to demand a risk discount since they can't trust that they know as much as other agents.

No market has perfect information flow, but we can, and should disallow the worst cases of information asymmetry.

Re:Communism at work. (1)

IgLou (732042) | more than 4 years ago | (#25793175)

NO it is wrong, he had a legal obligation to not act on his knowledge until it was disclosed to ALL shareholders. He's in partnership with those shareholders. Would you ever enter a contractual partnership where your partner could openly screw you over and not have to answer for it? The answer would be NO. IAMAL but my understanding is the law has simply set out a framework to make it easier for business to incorporate and for investors to put their money into those businesses. If he had foreknowledge, he shouldn't have sold off until it was disclosed and every c-level businessperson knows this. He had a fair opportunity to sell off

Drop the communism gripe because in the end saying that a group of people collectively own a business by being shareholders sounds pretty communist to begin with.

Summary is incorrect (4, Informative)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791793)

Mamma.com took a private investment at a discount (a PIPE [wikipedia.org] ). This is a sign of weakness, and the announcement sent the shares lower. The SEC alleges that Mr. Cuban sold his shares with insider knowledge of the PIPE, liquidating his stake before it got battered the next day.

WSJ article [wsj.com] (report updated since I saw it earlier; it now erroneously says it was an investment in a private company).

Re:Summary is incorrect (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 4 years ago | (#25792751)

and to think, he did this illegal trade to save himself about $300,000..

what a dumbass.

oblig (1)

musikit (716987) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791985)

looks like he is going to federal pound me in the ass prison

That's not allowed! (1)

one_red_eye (962010) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792005)

Insider trading isn't allowed if you're not in the insider trading club.

Twice now (5, Interesting)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792341)

Twice in my career I have had a good laugh at the expense of someone whose abuse I suffered.

The first was David Duncan. He was a senior finance/accounting manager when I was a peon at Mobil. I basically had to jump at his every request even though I never worked for him or his department. I left that job to start an internet business, but I really enjoyed the day that I saw David Duncan testifying before Congress, explaining Enron to them. Beautiful day.

The second is today. When my internet company was encoding and streaming his sports and talk radio broadcasts (innovative for 1994, mind you), Mark Cuban used to page me and call me at home at all hours with the most unreasonable demands and questions. Now I realize if I had been willing to kiss his ass the way he was accustomed to being kissed, I might be a billionaire today, but it would never have happened. Today I am all smiles.

Re:Twice now (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 4 years ago | (#25793123)

Very interesting. Sorry I wasted all my mod points on the stupid light saber article :-P

Jail-translation (0, Troll)

ZarathustraDK (1291688) | more than 4 years ago | (#25792579)

alleging that he divested himself of stock in mamma.com before the stock was diluted via a public offering.

Will now turn into:

shrieking as his digestive-tract was filled with cock and "Daddy's" cum before the cock dilared his ass as it was publicly offered to other inmates

Ah ok, a bit far-stretch...FETCHED!

Where can I buy shares... (1)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 4 years ago | (#25792605)

...in the private corrections firm which will be accommodating him?

Help me out here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25792753)

1] News for Nerds. Hmm.. no..

2] "Stuff that matters" - If I were Mark Cuban or this were an investor site related to Mama.com, then yeah it'd matter, but to me and the general audience of this site, it doesn't matter one iota.

Slashdot still suckage.

More information here (2, Informative)

weiserfireman (917228) | more than 4 years ago | (#25793109)

http://www.businessassociationsblog.com/lawandbusiness/comments/the_insider_trading_charges_against_mark_cuban/ [businessas...nsblog.com]

This was written by a Law Professor. Basically it boils down to the SEC has to really stretch current law to cover this situation.

It appears the CEO of Mamma.com knew that several of their original investors, specifically Mark Cuban, would be upset by the release of more stock, diluting his original investment. The CEO might have told Mark about the investment in an attempt to keep him from being able to sell his shares before the announcement.

Mark was a minor stockholder (6.3%) and didn't meet any of the other legal standards (fiduciary responsibility to the company) to be considered a traditional insider.

So here is question. If you are a stockholder in a company, can the SEC consider you an insider under the law if an insider calls you and asks you to keep a secret? Under traditional insider rules, the CEO of the company is the person who violated the law by telling Mark about the upcoming announcement.

not a lawyer, but find legal topics fascinating
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>