US man accused of making $1.8m from listening in on wife’s remote work calls
US regulators have accused a man of making $1.8m (£1.4m) by trading on confidential information he overheard while his wife was on a remote call, in a case that could fuel arguments against working from home.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said it charged Tyler Loudon with insider trading after he “took advantage of his remote working conditions” and profited from private information related to the oil firm BP’s plans to buy an Ohio-based travel centre and truck-stop business last year.
The SEC claims that Loudon, who is based in Houston, Texas, listened in on several remote calls held by his wife, a BP merger and acquisitions manager who had been working on the planned deal in a home office 20ft (6 metres) away.
The regulator said Loudon went on a buying spree, purchasing more than 46,000 shares in the takeover target, TravelCentres, without his wife’s knowledge, weeks before the deal was announced on 16 February 2023. TravelCentres of America’s stock soared by nearly 71% after the deal was announced. Loudon then sold off all of his shares, making a $1.8m profit.
It’s easy to blame working from home for this but the fact is that this happens all the time, and has happened even when everyone was in office. The problem is people breaking the law, not people not having to commute.
In this case this idiot seriously thought no one would notice. They did, he’s going to jail. The system worked. No reason to make this about anything other than his behavior.
Based on how the article is written, it sounds like no one would have noticed if his (now ex) wife hadn’t ratted him out to her bosses.
Because she’s liable too. He broke the law and implicated her in a crime.
That also doesn’t have anything to do with working from home. Insider trading based on information you gleaned from your spouse’s or friend’s or mom’s job has been happening for as long as the stock market has been in existence. Would the situation be different if she had been talking about how excited she was about this merger over dinner and he’d acted on that information? The burden is on him to not break the law, but employers will use stuff like this to stupidly argue against working from home.
What’s frustratingly awful about this is that US Senators and Representatives become millionaires doing exactly this, and the SEC doesn’t even blink.
Did he break the law? Yes. Is the SEC a joke and the law used to punish and oppress the proletariat, also yes.
Come on, you can’t expect them not to break little laws like that. The money is right there! Why shouldn’t they just take some? \s
Does she get to keep her half of the 1.8 mill?
No, it is forfeit.
Asking the real questions here.
Cant have the little guy doing it, it’s only okay when it’s politicians or already ultra rich people
You call that guy “little”? Who are you?
Im very much poorer than that, but what is a millionaire in this day and age? Upper middle class. That amount is an accounting error for the actually rich people who own the world.
Yeah, but Google, Facebook, and other megacorps profit from doing the same kind of thing and that seems to be fine.
It’s because they’re already part of the oligarchy, so it’s okay. The rules/law only applies to us normies.
Can you give example? How do they use this kind of confidential information for stock trading?
You need an example of big tech companies collecting personal information and exploiting it for profit?
No, for stock trading, as this guy did.
Why would you need that?
Yeah, but Google, Facebook, and other megacorps profit from doing the same kind of thing and that seems to be fine.
Oh I see. You’re getting stuck on semantics. You see, when I used “same kind of” in my sentence, that was to specify that it is not the same exact thing. My concern lies in the fact that personal data is taken and exploited for personal profit, the details of how the data is exploited is less important to me than the fact that it is allowed to be collected and exploited in the first place. Actually, since you bring it up, I wonder if a megacorp with bots collecting data from consumers all across the web might have the resources to predict and possibly manipulate the stock market themselves? Hmm…
That’s what I asked example of.
Making money on personal information while might be immoral, but legal (as far as what Google does), this guy did something different and illegal. I honestly do not see similarities.
deleted by creator
They targeted a regular dude, not they companies raking in billions off of shit like this.
And the article for some reason thinks this is a case for getting rid of work from home?
Wtf do we live in
A world where those very corporations control media outlets
deleted by creator
I think to avoid SEC complications, you have to have a high net worth BEFORE your scam, not just because of it. Since money can be seized without a presumption of innocence, they'd likely just seize the 2mill profit and say you have to prove its innocence to get it back.
You'd need to have a high enough net worth from the get-go in order to make it seem more expensive than it's worth to investigate/litigate.
When you're married to someone, your finances may as well be your spouse's. Who would seriously buy that much in shares and not keep your own wife in the loop?
Wow and this guy didn't even post FDs. What a jerk
Insider trading is only okay if you’re a federal level politician. /s