Do you really think the owners and senior management of SVB ended up with nothing? What about the stock sales they made right before the FDIC took over, or the bonuses given out, or even their compensation during the years in which this high-risk interest rate scheme was going on?
They have orders of magnitude more money than most people, and will get away with no liability.
> What about the stock sales they made right before the FDIC took over
Is there a more clear cut case of insider trading? SEC should already been working on that now.
Anyhow, you're arguing that they SHOULD end up with nothing, that is an entirely different subject of its own. Because you're talking about punishment, while I'm talking about deterrence.
Punishment must be enacted from outside after the fact, while deterrence can be innate before it happens. These senior management could have years of cushy job and more equity, and now they have to rely on savings and have the SEC up their ass. It's clear which is more preferable.
Just wondering, if they know for sure that they will be sued afterwards, why would they sale their stocks? Why not do nothing and live with what they already have? Is there a possibility that they can get away with it?
> Is there a more clear cut case of insider trading?
Genuine question, is there any evidence that these trades were out of the norm, rather than a regular portfolio rebalancing that’s common with any employee who receives part of their comp in RSUs?
They have orders of magnitude more money than most people, and will get away with no liability.