CEO Questionably Used Pseudonym to Post Online 187
jpallas writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that court filings by the FTC about Whole Foods' plan to acquire Wild Oats reveal an unusual detail: The CEO of Whole Foods regularly posted to a Yahoo! stock bulletin board under a pseudonym. His alter ego was feisty, to say the least, and regularly disparaged the company that he later decided to acquire. A former SEC chairman called the behavior 'bizarre and ill-advised, even if it isn't illegal.' This certainly raises questions about online rights to free speech and anonymity, especially when the line between free speech and regulated speech depends on who is speaking as much as what they are saying."
I will never do such a thing. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You have to wonder. (Score:2, Interesting)
Posting anonymously under a pseudonym, bah. Gill Bates.
He generally pays people to do that or to be Apple switchers [slashdot.org], outraged voters [newsfactor.com] and Slashdot posters. At the same time, you have to wonder how much of his "email time" is actually ... Slashdot time.
Liberate your code, Bill.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you people think, is it wrong for companies to use people they pay to edit their page on wikipedia?
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Whole_Foods_Mar
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
It certainly reflects poorly on the him, but only insofar as he's just another lame schmuck posting propaganda on the message boards. Maybe I'm missing something but I wouldn't expect to find unbiased opinions there.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can imagine that several large corporations have attempted to somehow change the stock price either for themselves or a competitor in such a manner, and I would be extremely surprised if it was worth the effort, unless those postings contained some sort of insider information.
By the way, Mackey is an entertaining sort. He's a vegan who eats eggs, is a libertarian, and ticks off unions. I could almost like this guy. He also cut his own salary for his employees' benefit (the way it ought to be done, not by some idiot act of Congress).
On reflection, this should have little to nothing to do with the acquisition of another company.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I've listened to the guy before, and is kind of an interesting person.
And hell, I REALLY like the stores too...they've got a couple of them in the NOLA area, and wow....all the different sausages they make, and the cheese shoppe (got any cheddar?) are amazing.
I usually end up spending way too much money any time I go in there...but, it is good stuff, and they actually have GOOD service!!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sincerely,
yekcam nhoj.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
A CEO (actually any C_O) is differentiated because they have insider information - I.E. information not available (legally) to the general public and the average investor.
That sure sounds impressive. How much did he cut it, and how prescisely did the employess benefit thereby?
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not quite true - as access to internal Whole Foods information (the fact that they were planning to aquire Wild Oats) is also an issue.
Salary cut (Score:4, Informative)
Article states he cut his salary to $1. Since CEOs make the majority of their money from other sources (especially those who found the company and have an enormous share of the stock), I'm guessing he cut his pay by 2 or 3 percent. Might be as much as 20 or 30 percent if the company had a bad year, though bad years rarely affect the execs compensation.
I'm sure his total compensation is in a report somewhere.
Re:Salary cut (Score:5, Interesting)
One other important item to communicate to you is, in light of my decision to forego any future additional cash compensation, our Board of Directors has decided that Whole Foods Market will contribute $100,000 annually to a new Global Team Member Emergency Fund. This money will be distributed to Team Members throughout the company based on need when disasters occur (such as Hurricane Katrina last year). The money will be placed in a special account and any money not distributed in any particular year will roll over and be added to the following year's contribution. We are still working on the exact way Team Members will be able to access this money. The first $100,000 will be deposited on January 1, 2007.
Not many CEO's behaving that way these days.
Disclaimer: :-)
CoderDudeI work at WFM in the IT group, so now I make more than the CEO does.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That said, it's certainly a refreshing break from the CEOs who increase their compensation at the expense of the employees, and, occasionally, at the expense of the continued existence of the company itself.
I sh8t, I'm guilty (Score:2)
One could argue that the little guy doing the same is committing a violation also, just to a much lessor extent. However, this guy is *paid* to select companies for his employer, while Joe Sixstock is not. Thus, it is a level higher.
Now that I think about it, I own a bit of stock in database companies, and also regularly bash OOP (which I generally consider conflicting with or
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/85/3871.html [yahoo.com]
He's a vegan who eats eggs (Score:2)
Is everybody blind? (Score:3, Interesting)
It has ZERO to do with the acquisition of another company and the FTC knows it.
Re: (Score:2)
On a side note, I like to buy fruits & veggies from Whole Foods not because I'm some yuppie (even though I see working class folks there) but because the quality of their produce is much better than the regular supermarkets. I'm willing to pay a bit more for them because when I get them home I don't end up with produce that immediately goes bad or is completely flavorless.
Re: (Score:2)
From an anticompetitive standpoint this just makes no sense. It would be like preventing Hooters and Winghouse from merging. Although that's a bad example because Hooters did try to stick it to Winghouse by seeking trademark protection for its scantily clad hot chicks. [law.com]
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
This is a CEO who is paid by his company to acquire other businesses. Instead, he is wasting time on Yahoo message boards.
I think all slashdotters will agree that browsing online forums while at work is unethical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since he was a CEO, and he was kind of lying to manipulate stock prices, had he not done it anonymously he would be in trouble probably, whereas a non-insider would probably not.
I think it is funny more than anything else.
B.F.D. (Score:3, Insightful)
If he didn't do anything illegal, why does anyone care? He wasn't manipulating prices or public perception... so what's bizarre about it? Perhaps his forum postings were is personal feelings about things, rather than his "official" feelings as the CEO of Whole Foods.
Last time I checked, that was the entire reason people use anonymous "tags" online, rather than their real names.
I have no idea why people have a problem with anonymity, but feel perfectly comforta
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He was *trying* to manipulate stock price so they would be an easier take over target.
>>If he didn't do anything illegal..
It would be illegal if he had not been anonymous; he was the CEO of a competitor.
>>so what's bizarre about it?
See above. He knew his behaviour was illegal, so he did it anonymously so that it wouldn't be illegal. I just think it is pretty funny, especially since he had little chance of suceeding. It is kind of weird
Re: (Score:2)
seanadams.com wrote:
Does the public in general use their real names?
A lot of the time they do.
Free speech without anonymity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't exist. Someone will hold it against you. This is why the more polite a society gets, the less it tolerates or even cares about truth, and the more its science gets politicized.
Free speech, like world peace, unconditional love, and true happiness in life are misnamed goals. They are symbols, not reality. Of course, some of this could be changed, but it would require getting over the aforementioned taboos.
Re:Free speech without anonymity? (Score:4, Interesting)
No anonymity, no free speech, no truth. (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone going the the pen name eht asks:
If you're not willing to take a stand for what you say, why are you even bothering to say it?
Because the truth is more important than taking credit for it. Often, the credit is punishment and the anonymous accuser always runs this risk.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course I have more fun not telling you whether it is or isn't.
Not like you could find me in the phone book or pretty much any directory of information with whatever my real name is anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
(And if you don't realise that there are literally thousands of cases where revealing your identity for stating the truth will get you killed, then you don't understand enough about the free speech issue to be commenting on it meaningfully, not by a long shot.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask Benjamin Franklin (Score:3, Insightful)
Google it, you're obviously ignorant of the history.
Anonymity is critical to democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
"She" wrote about many things, including the oh my gosh topic of petticoats and Harvard, he surely would have been put to death if anyone ever found out is young Ben wrote about those.
He used the pseudonym because his brother would not allow him to use his own name, not because he was afraid of his life.
Maybe you should lrn2google.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure that being polite has absolutely NOTHING to do with a lack of tolerance or hostility towards truth that challenges ones viewpoint; Those traits are the inverse of being polite. Do not confuse being prudish with being polite as prudes are specifically intolerant by definition whereas being tolerant is usually considered a part of being polite.
Re: (Score:2)
One wonders what theoretical society you are using as a model for this supposition. Our current one is much less polite than previously, has little tolerance for the truh, and damm near _everything_ is politicized.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. If I could suddenly have big lottery amounts of money at my disposal, where I'd never have to work again, I'd have true happiness! I know this, because as I've increased my salary/income, I've become a little happier and carefree.
"Unconditional love?"
Definitely can be had. Buy a dog.
The problem is the glass (Score:2)
Hey, just learn to accept that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Astroturfing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This just goes to show (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, does he really have nothing better to do (Score:2)
Yeah, Mrs. Butterworth sucks, did you know that? Terrible product, and even worse management. My money is with my Aunt Jemimah! Now gimme gimme gimme!
Re: (Score:2)
Where shall I send the $.50?
(You _did_ RTFM right? Lol
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for that comment "antifoidulus", and please remember Mr. President you have a meeting this afternoon with the Secretary of Defense, followed by the National Security Team.
Re: (Score:2)
You should check out his blog [wholefoodsmarket.com]. He surely can't have time to do anything else.
Fine By Me (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy is essentially just another anonymous poster. Even if his intended goal was to somehow affect the price of the company he was buying, as an anonymous poster the impact of his statements should be close to nil. If they were not nil, then the problem is with society taking the word of anonymous posters seriously, and the cure is not some sort of extended regulation, but for society to learn to think more critically.
They say freedom isn't free. Well, this is a perfect example of a trivial cost that society should bear in order to assure freedom of speech for all of us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The moment one tries to curtail speech of any sort, it has a chilling effect. This is why I have distain for all the "hate speech" laws, for they do not curtail hate, only exposure to it. Which drives it underground and harder to see. It becomes clouded with code words and other obfuscation, making it much harder to see.
Hate is much easier to counter, when it is wearing a white sheet over one's head, rather than hiding in the shadows
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The moment one tries to curtail speech of any sort, it has a chilling effect.
There go 3000 years' worth of fraud laws. As Stanley Fish said, "There's no such thing as free speech - and it's a good thing, too." You have to curtail speech slightly: when a Don gives orders to one of his men to put a hit on a rival, would you have the Don be able to defend himself with the Beckett defense? "Oh, I said they should kill him, but that's free speech, and I didn't expect them to actually do it?"
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is a 'hate speech' law?????
I'm guessing this is outside the US? I don't know of anywhere in the US where I can't say pretty much anything I want to...racial, sexual preference, etc. and be arrested for it. Now, socially, I might get into trouble, but, I'm free to spout off however I like.
Where do you l
Re: (Score:2)
The moment one tries to curtail speech of any sort, it has a chilling effect.
Free speech can be curtailed by too much noise as as well as too little information. Anonymous, deceptive messages are noise. Astroturf is even worse because it's biased noise.
Marketing parasites like to ignore that simple fact.
People are limited in many ways in what they can say in order to improve free speech and public discourse, the banning of fraud being the obvious example.
---
WGA. Guilty until proven innocent. F
Massive Fail? (Score:2)
Next paragraph: "[Wild Oats management] clearly doesn't know what it is doing
And paragraph after that: "Earlier this year, his company agreed to buy Wild Oats for $565 million, or $18.50 a share."
I thank this
Re:Massive Fail? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I have never in my life seen a more concentrated pool of sheer idiocy and poor financial advice than what you see in those forums. There's only two groups of people who post there: Complete idiots, and people trying to game the stock market through lies and manipulation. And no, they aren't mutually exclusive groups.
Anyone who takes portfolio advice from the yahoo forums should have all their money taken away
Re: (Score:2)
There is joy to be had on a Friday. (Score:2)
-Rick
here is how it goes (Score:2)
2. watch their stock price go low...low...low
3. buy company at low stock price
4. profit!!!
Bad headline. (Score:5, Insightful)
The questionable part was the propriety of him doing so.
Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
He should be fired (Score:3, Insightful)
Even I as a lowly employee know that under no circumstances should I be posting on any share trading site about my company, without having discussed the situation thoroughly with our legal department first. Under no circumstances should I do anything that could annoy the SEC; and in one employment contract I was told that I am not even allowed to do anything that might _appear_ to be illegal or that some people might believe to be illegal.
Now I am not employed to run my companies' business, and I still have to know these things. As the CEO of the company, posting on a share trading site marks him as an outstanding idiot, bringing his company in disrepute, and possibly opening it up to severe penalties. That is grounds for immediate termination of his contract.
Yahoo stock message boards? (Score:5, Insightful)
what exactly is "questionable"? (Score:2, Insightful)
At the worst, it really sounds like fraudulent behavior, trying to decrease the stock price before he begins purchasing it. His judgement is obviously faulty, he's willing to cross the line to get what he wants.... I really hope he suffers for this ridiculous behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one reason why the SEC would be interested in hearing about it.
he's willing to cross the line to get what he wants
And every other CEO doesn't?? C'mon. What he did was rudimentary. It's kind of quaint in a way. Check HP's recent history for what they do in the minor-leagues. Check Worldcom's sordid history for major-league dirty tricks.
So does this mean the mergers is cancelled? (Score:2)
I'm Shocked !!! (Score:5, Insightful)
A. The guy couldn't come up with another way to kill Wild Oats? He should hire some of the scumbags running HP. They've got plenty of dirty tricks and know how to give their CEO plausible deniability.
B. The SEC in general would frown on this kind of activity from a CEO. In theory, they are held to a higher standard. Since it's a public company the likes of Albertson's would love to see disappear, no doubt more non-stories like this will appear.
C. The job should be left to underlings. Contracted underlings like they do in *every* other industry.
D. Most
E. The simple fact he couldn't pay off enough people in D.C. to force this one through is also quite enlightening. The telcos have enough budget for bribes. I guess Whole Foods doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how. I walk out of there with some tuna salad and a pack of blueberries and somehow have spent $39.63
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he figured the words of the Mighty Rahodeb needed about 20 - 24 months to really have an impact.
A less exciting explanation is that.. he didn't think Wild Oats was worth buying then.. and he changed his mind more recently.
Re: (Score:2)
Message Boards != Good Stock Advice (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"haha longs, TIMBEERRRRR this stock is going straight down, ROFL LMAO you idiots."
Am I the only one who approves? (Score:5, Funny)
Hands-on kind of approach. I like it. I don't think even the SEC can really complain about people believing anonymous internet posts.
(I also propose Slashdot rename "Anonymous Coward" to "John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market, Inc." for the week, but that's because I don't believe in letting him off scot-free either.)
How'd the FTC find this out? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
i vaguely recall some other scandals involving stock prices and internet message boards (i think it was yahoo as well). it's possible that after a few scandals that yahoo teamed up with the FTC or the SEC to track ip's and registrations and such.
or maybe there was just a mole in his office.
either way, i'd really like to know how he was caught so i can avoid a similar fate.
SCOX and astroturfing (Score:2)
The message board in yahoo financials for SCO has some regulars that IMHO seem like they would be people of interest to the SEC.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/SCOX [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
From evidence collected by SCO-watchers, it's highly probable that Darl Mcbride, or his wife Andrea, or someone with access to their email address have, on numerous occasions, anonymously posted to Yahoo SCOX! in support of SCO.
The evidence? One of the accounts used to support SCO on the Yahoo SCOX board in 2003 and again in early 2006 was an account with the nym 'anmcride'. Since Yahoo message board nyms
Never mind, he's just an asshole. (Score:2)
affable guy (Score:2, Interesting)
Could he have totally fooled me and others? If so, he should run for president.
SEC Rules (Score:3, Informative)
And as a friend of mine who had dealings with them points out: the SEC make the CIA look like nice, friendly people.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the SEC's conclusion was that this isn't a problem when you post details about someone else's company.
Tanking (Score:2)
Yeah, Mackey's actions were kind of creepy, but so it yelling "Snow!" in a crowded theatre.
Ethics vs Legality (Score:2)
Its another question of ethical behavior versus legal behavior
If he posted stock information, company information, predictions based on inside information - that sounds illegal to me
If he posted about "WHOLE FOODS RULEZZZ, OATS SUXXX", he's just another idiot online
By posting these messages, it doesn't sound like he was violating any laws by interfering with another business. Standing outside a Wild Oats B&M store with a sign that says "Go to Whole Foods", qualifies as a civil offense (tort?).
The b
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:3, Insightful)
His alter ego is basically the equivelent of an AC and his statements must stand on their own. The only way the comments would make a difference is if they ring true with others reading the posts. If that is the case then it really doesn't matter who is saying it.
Makes me wonder about Slashdot (Score:2)
Idiot CEOs (Score:2)
Let's have a big, fat slice of clarification here (Score:2)
It's about disclosure, and when it is or is not a duty.
The issue is not whether he's allowed to say that Wild Oats stock sucks. The issue is whether he should disclose that he has a special stake in the Wild Oats stock price. Strict ethics says yes. If he had disclosed his interest in the stock price, he'd have been screwing his own company, so you can see this ethically a no win situation.
Legality I think we must leave to the lawyers for the most part. But common sense also
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't illegal because he was not using any inside information that he wasn't supposed to disclose. Nobody even knew who he was. He was more or less just anonymously posting "Whole Foods rules, Wild Oats sucks" on a freaking Yahoo! stocks message board. A single anonymous poster can not drive down the stock price