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.

  • @originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    1939 months ago

    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.

    • @harsh3466@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      66
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

      • @originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        529 months ago

        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.

        • @harsh3466@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          549 months ago

          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.

          • @originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            119 months ago

            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

    • MxM111
      link
      fedilink
      09 months ago

      You call that guy “little”? Who are you?

        • MxM111
          link
          fedilink
          -89 months ago

          To be in top 1% by income, you have to earn “just” $819K per year in US. So, $1.8M is nothing to sneeze about for them.

          • @STOMPYI@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            159 months ago

            1.8M fraud is for FUCKING ANTS! The top 12 Americans hold 1.2 Trillion dollars and owe 10s of billions of tax. This is small potatoes smoke screen looks like we’re doing our job propaganda…

            • MxM111
              link
              fedilink
              19 months ago

              Those 12 Americans are not 1%’s and not even 0.1%’s and not even 0.01%’s and not even… I can continue…

            • MxM111
              link
              fedilink
              09 months ago

              Those 12 Americans are not 1%’s and not even 0.1%’s and not even 0.01%’s and not even… I can continue…

      • @GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        69 months ago

        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.

  • Eggyhead
    link
    fedilink
    599 months ago

    Yeah, but Google, Facebook, and other megacorps profit from doing the same kind of thing and that seems to be fine.

    • @harsh3466@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      329 months ago

      It’s because they’re already part of the oligarchy, so it’s okay. The rules/law only applies to us normies.

    • MxM111
      link
      fedilink
      -59 months ago

      Can you give example? How do they use this kind of confidential information for stock trading?

      • Eggyhead
        link
        fedilink
        39 months ago

        You need an example of big tech companies collecting personal information and exploiting it for profit?

            • MxM111
              link
              fedilink
              09 months ago

              Yeah, but Google, Facebook, and other megacorps profit from doing the same kind of thing and that seems to be fine.

              • Eggyhead
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                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…

                • MxM111
                  link
                  fedilink
                  19 months ago

                  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.

      • Bakkoda
        link
        fedilink
        139 months ago

        And the article for some reason thinks this is a case for getting rid of work from home?

        Wtf do we live in

        • @Cort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

    • @iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      219 months ago

      Headphones don’t protect what you say. My girlfriend is an investment banker and I could easily do the same thing. The funny thing is, she only makes low six figures while doing multiple hundred million deals.

    • @Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      179 months ago

      If I had the chance to get my wife fired for $1.8 million, I would do it in a second. Money is literally the point of having a job.

    • FuglyDuck
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -49 months ago

      The difference from WFH and WFO is that the employer can control the environment better; which keeps confidential materials more contained- though people will always talk out of class to get ahead, WFH removed all ability to keep secrets reliably.

      Not saying WFH shouldn’t be a thing, but there are some reasons to still require an office. Sensitive materials feature prominently.

      Though I’d suggest four walls and a locked door is a good place to start.

  • @pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    109 months ago

    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?

  • PatFusty
    link
    fedilink
    89 months ago

    Wow and this guy didn’t even post FDs. What a jerk

  • @ef9357
    link
    39 months ago

    Insider trading is only okay if you’re a federal level politician. /s