917
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
917 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59596 readers
3524 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The issue here is because they're linked by the owner. If one stock goes up/down, the other does too. This has happened repeatedly with these two companies specifically, even.
So although they don't own stock in the company in question, they still have a stock in seeing it succeed. Its success will bring about their own financial gain.
The fact that this issue was voiced and they specifically took the action that raises questions about authenticity also means we must question if that's even the goal. If this went to a different judge, after all, one with no bias, then if this judge is unbiased, he should expect the same outcome. Of course, if he were biased and intended to give a biased ruling to take advantage of the chance to directly increase his wealth, then we'd expect him to be reluctant to let another judge rule on it. He could miss his financial opportunity, after all.
This is a very tenuous connection, especially considering the relatively small amount of money involved.
It's far more likely the judge just doesn't consider the two companies to be closely linked enough to be an issue.
Also, it says the judge bought in 2022, and the price today is pretty much equivalent to the LOWEST point of 2022. So it’s not like it has performed well for him. But I don’t know shit about stocks. Just wanted to point that out.
And while $35,000 is a pretty big investment, at least to an average person, would that amount of money be persuasive enough to convince a judge to do what this one is doing? The perceived corruption, I mean.
This should be easy to prove that their correlation to one another is significantly more than to the market, or maybe more accurately to tech stocks as a whole. do you have these numbers or is it just speculation?
The other poster makes a much stronger argument, pointing out how some investors in Tesla are concerned about musk having to sell stock to support x, which could lead to a fall in x prices.