Yes but there's almost always someone on zoom/conference line in the meeting, which is recorded, so..

The penalties are so stiff for a lot of infractions, there is far less attempts to workaround the letter of the rules than you would immediately expect.

There's also classes of in-person meetings with externals that you need pre-approval permission to attend and to write up what was discussed after the fact.

Like people at asset management firms attending a dinner with a broker.

Another example, at a hedge fund I worked, emails, meetings or phone calls to public companies required pre-approval from compliance, and for them to be on the email or call. The emails would also require a preface reminding the moron on the other side that you are a hedge fund and they should not provide you with any material non-public info.

I can only think to myself, well, yeah, that's what that industry gets for all of the bullshit shenanigans that have been pulled in the past. Is everyone commit flat out illegal shit like Wolf Of Wall St? No. But this is the only way to allow any semblance of trust by anyone. That being said, I personally believe every company if finance/banking is doing something shady somewhere, even if only a small number of people are involved. There is no trust whatsoever from me to that industry

cool story, given the left-right populist-progressive agreement on regulating big tech.. its coming for the HN crowd next :-)

As long as no one can see my comment history on HN, I’ll be fine.

I’ve heard stories of people saying things like “at our (highest) levels, we only talk face to face, and then as little as possible.”

It wasn’t about regulation, but protectionism. If you want to do business with us, you need to hire people to deal with us - people we approve of, or no access.

This was in an unregulated industry, with strong protectionist instincts (Hollywoods movie industry).

Couldn’t these sorts of “in person only” rules also be a protectionist gatekeeping technique?