throwaway99807
This article seems to be mostly anger fluff. A lot of it seems to reference someone’s lawsuit over a 401k deal with overly dramatic wording. Maybe someone can clarify but I don’t actually see anything illegal or even particularly unethical. As the article states, it’s not entirely unreasonable for a private company to offer better options to senior officials. Low level employee benefits are significantly above average and I don’t believe anyone seriously feels sleighted.
As for whether there is insider trading involved with the MIO, I think it is unlikely. The opportunity for fraud exists, but not moreso than the personal risk for committing fraud. I have no comment on the specifics of individuals behaviors. Might bad actors exist? Certainly. Although it would seem strange for them to try and commit fraud through a massive diluted operation like this. The culture of internal controls and communications is frankly very strong in my opinion.
People will be able to find examples of bad actors. I don’t feel it disproves any particular points. I do see active decisions about firm and personal ethics. And people are actively encouraged to not work on things they oppose.
There was a NYT article about a study looking at improving marketing for Opioids. No doubt, that was not good. The Chinese thing was distasteful. Does it represent the firm culture? Personally I don’t think so.
The media, the NYT in particular, has been painting the firm as an evil shadow organization. They released an article that basically said they’re going to continue to write attack articles against it because it’s secretive. Well it’s secretive because it protects client confidentiality.