139 replies to this topic

[Marklar]

Dunno if this requires a seperate thread but looks like Wolff is being investigated for insider trading

https://www.journald...f1-sous-enquete

basically bought AM shares, then Merc did too, the timing could imply that he knew which is forbidden as you are not allowed to use information not available to the public to enrich yourself.

If proven true I cant see him staying at Merc.

Edited by Marklar, 23 August 2021 - 07:19.

[garoidb]

Dunno if this requires a seperate thread but looks like Wolff is being investigated for insider trading

https://www.journald...f1-sous-enquete

basically bought AM shares, then Merc did too, the timing could imply that he knew which is forbidden as you are not allowed to use information not available to the public to enrich yourself.

If proven true I cant see him staying at Merc.

 

Could be an opportunity for Nico!

[Requiem84]

Dunno if this requires a seperate thread but looks like Wolff is being investigated for insider trading

https://www.journald...f1-sous-enquete

basically bought AM shares, then Merc did too, the timing could imply that he knew which is forbidden as you are not allowed to use information not available to the public to enrich yourself.

If proven true I cant see him staying at Merc.

 

It's about time that the concept of 'independence' in F1 is being reviewed more closely.

 

There are way too many people with different roles in F1 that may be considered a conflict of interest. 

 

This is something typical of the more old school way of governance cultures. 

[Ellios]

Dunno if this requires a seperate thread but looks like Wolff is being investigated for insider trading

https://www.journald...f1-sous-enquete

basically bought AM shares, then Merc did too, the timing could imply that he knew which is forbidden as you are not allowed to use information not available to the public to enrich yourself.

If proven true I cant see him staying at Merc.

 

 

This is pretty serious charge, if proven he's going to be a whole heap of trouble. 

[DeKnyff]

This is pretty serious charge, if proven he's going to be a whole heap of trouble. 

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine he could only be in trouble only if some interested party sues him. And I seriously doubt that move wouldn't have been known from the beginning by both Mercedes and Racing Point.

[Requiem84]

I don't understand why someone in Toto's position would even take this risk to let anyone even think there would be a chance of insider trading.

 

I doube it was on purpose, but once you are this deep into different investments, it's bound to happen. 

 

In contrast with F1, I am just a simple employee of a consultancy firm, but I can't really have any investments at all as we work for most listed companies. I even have to report the investments of my girlfriend and direct family to the company, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest / independence breach. And that is only at a lower/mid management level ... 

 

F1 really should take some steps to become more professional on this. 

[Requiem84]

I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine he could only be in trouble only if some interested party sues him. And I seriously doubt that move wouldn't have been known from the beginning by both Mercedes and Racing Point.

 

Nah, there's generally no need to be sued by an interested party for insider trading. Most countries have independent (government) legal bodies that can start a review for things like insider trading. Like the SEC in the US. I expect the UK to have something similar, but I'd be curious to hear from someone with more knowledge on this. 

[P123]

On the one side they will have to prove he bought purely based on the knowledge that Merc were going to buy in.  And Wolff will have to show that he bought independently, without being aware of the intentions of Mercedes or when they were going to act.  It's his own close links to Merc that will have raised some eyebrows.
 

[Risil]

I've split this out -- very thin story right now (we don't seem to know if the investigation is still active, for example) but probs best not to try and have careful discussions about financial disclosure and stock market regulation in a thread that also covers what Lewis says to Bonno mid-race. As always, speculating about whether a named individual has done crimes can very quickly turn into libel so please keep things tethered to what's actually being reported.

[Goron3]

If proven true he's going to prison or paying a huge penalty. That's a big 'if'. Frankly, stuff like this is virtually impossible to prove.

[BRG]

 

F1 really should take some steps to become more professional on this. 

Why?  It is hardly an F1 matter.  He doesn't work for F1, the shares are nothing to do with F1 and this was a private business matter that may or may not have broken the insider trading rules.  

 

Even if he has been a naughty boy, it would scarcely register on the top 100 of F1 dodgy deals.  Ecclestone was in court for bribery in Germany and had to buy his way out.  Mosley was....well, less said the better.  

[fed up]

Nothing to see there hence the reason why this rumour hasn’t been picked up elsewhere in the press. 

[FLB]

I don't know if you can have access to it, but Montreal newspaper Journal de Montréal has a write-up of the events and some reactions from both Aston and Daimler:

 

https://www.journald...f1-sous-enquete (en francais)

 

The initial investigation is coming from BaFin, the German autority, and then referred to the UK because that's where Aston shares are traded. It's been going on for a while (November 2020).

Edited by FLB, 23 August 2021 - 10:18.

[Requiem84]

Why?  It is hardly an F1 matter.  He doesn't work for F1, the shares are nothing to do with F1 and this was a private business matter that may or may not have broken the insider trading rules.  

 

Even if he has been a naughty boy, it would scarcely register on the top 100 of F1 dodgy deals.  Ecclestone was in court for bribery in Germany and had to buy his way out.  Mosley was....well, less said the better.  

 

So because other people in the past did dody things it doesn't matter if any current important person in F1 does dodgy things. Nice way to reason, would absolve a lot of people from a lot of crimes .

 

And yes, I think it is relevant for F1 as a sport. I'd like to see them introduce a code of conduct for these type of conflicting interests. F1 is not well served if people have investments / shares in companies with opposite interests. 

[Myrvold]

Give it some time, and we'll have Toto Briatore. From when Briatore own half of Minardi, Ligier and was team boss at Benetton. All while Walkinshaw bought Arrows while being at Ligier with his Briatore-connections. What a mess.

Edited by Myrvold, 23 August 2021 - 10:32.

[DeKnyff]

I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine he could only be in trouble only if some interested party sues him. And I seriously doubt that move wouldn't have been known from the beginning by both Mercedes and Racing Point.

 

I don't know if you can have access to it, but Montreal newspaper Journal de Montréal has a write-up of the events and some reactions from both Aston and Daimler:

 

https://www.journald...f1-sous-enquete (en francais)

 

The initial investigation is coming from BaFin, the German autority, and then referred to the UK because that's where Aston shares are traded. It's been going on for a while (November 2020).

 

Aah, ok, I had understood it was about Wolff purchasing Aston Martin (the F1 team) shares. If it's about Aston Martin (the car constructor) shares. That's a very different matter, since there can be thousands of shareholders who could be affected.

[milestone 11]

If I google "Toto Wolfe insider trading investigation", Marklar's thread on this forum is third in the list. We gotta source boys. Is Marklar's true identity Aston Martin fellow shareholder Seb Vettel?

Edited by milestone 11, 23 August 2021 - 10:48.

[Requiem84]

English articles, but seems to be a rehash of the original source:

 

https://pledgetimes....mulapassion-it/

https://www.essentia...rtin-f1-fiasco/

Edited by Requiem84, 23 August 2021 - 10:47.

[BRG]

So because other people in the past did dodgy things it doesn't matter if any current important person in F1 does dodgy things. Nice way to reason, would absolve a lot of people from a lot of crimes .

I didn't say that.  I said it hardly registered compared to the excesses of the past.  No-one is being absolved.

 

 

And yes, I think it is relevant for F1 as a sport. I'd like to see them introduce a code of conduct for these type of conflicting interests. F1 is not well served if people have investments / shares in companies with opposite interests. 

 

You are heading down the primrose path with that one.  For a start, Red Bull/Alpha Tauri are toast.  How big a conflict of interest is it to own two competing teams?  And I imagine that many people in F1 are prosperous enough to have an investment portfolio that might well include 'conflicting' shares.  How are you going to police that?

[kumo7]

Haven't read the article, yet.

What if it were Merc who abused the knowledge that Toto had acquired the share? It shall grant Toto, but he did not know it in advance.

[thefinalapex]

If I google "Toto Wolfe insider trading investigation", Marklar's thread on this forum is third in the list. We gotta source boys. Is Marklar's true identity Aston Martin fellow shareholder Seb Vettel?

I dont think so😂 he isn’t a fan of seb vettel or maybe it a distraction😜

[Requiem84]

I didn't say that.  I said it hardly registered compared to the excesses of the past.  No-one is being absolved.

 

 

And yes, I think it is relevant for F1 as a sport. I'd like to see them introduce a code of conduct for these type of conflicting interests. F1 is not well served if people have investments / shares in companies with opposite interests. 

 

You are heading down the primrose path with that one.  For a start, Red Bull/Alpha Tauri are toast.  How big a conflict of interest is it to own two competing teams?  And I imagine that many people in F1 are prosperous enough to have an investment portfolio that might well include 'conflicting' shares.  How are you going to police that?

 

For starters, there should be a register for any (significant) investments by the group of persons classified as relevant persons. 

 

F1 is currently being run like a wild wild west from a governance / regulatory perspective. The societal and legislative trend in a broader sense is going the other direction: much more transparency and clarity about investments, Ultimate Beneficial Owners (EU Directive) etc.

 

If you'd be interested enough right now in F1, you could probably take a share in every F1 team and nobody would care. I don't think that is proper governance. 

[BRG]

For starters, there should be a register for any (significant) investments by the group of persons classified as relevant persons. 

 

F1 is currently being run like a wild wild west from a governance / regulatory perspective. The societal and legislative trend in a broader sense is going the other direction: much more transparency and clarity about investments, Ultimate Beneficial Owners (EU Directive) etc.

 

If you'd be interested enough right now in F1, you could probably take a share in every F1 team and nobody would care. I don't think that is proper governance. 

It's a sport, by the way, not the City of London or the Frankfort Bourse.  There are plenty of financial conduct regulatory bodies already, we really dont need the FIA or Liberty setting themselves up as another.  Bottom line is, it is nothing to do with F1 what shares I own, even if I am Toto Wolff.  If the FCA or whoever conclude he is guilty of something, then that is fine.  That is THEIR job, it isn't F1's.

[Requiem84]

It's a sport, by the way, not the City of London or the Frankfort Bourse.  There are plenty of financial conduct regulatory bodies already, we really dont need the FIA or Liberty setting themselves up as another.  Bottom line is, it is nothing to do with F1 what shares I own, even if I am Toto Wolff.  If the FCA or whoever conclude he is guilty of something, then that is fine.  That is THEIR job, it isn't F1's.

 

It's not only a sport, it's a lot more than that. There's crazy amounts of money flowing around and people dipping in multiple pools trying to get their part of the growth. 

 

I think you can see a similar trend in football where the professional football is starting to become more than a sport. It's becoming business and part of becoming a business is to make sure you have your governance set-up right. 

[F1matt]

If the FCA are investigating him expect Robin Raikkonen to be a double world champion by the time the investigation is finished, a prison sentence if found guilty is very very unlikely, normally struck off from working in an FCA regulated position again (which won't affect him) but he could be barred from acting as a company secretary or director but it is embarrassing and he might have to distance himself from a front facing role. 

[New Britain]

It's about time that the concept of 'independence' in F1 is being reviewed more closely.

 

There are way too many people with different roles in F1 that may be considered a conflict of interest. 

 

This is something typical of the more old school way of governance cultures. 

Indeed. Whether Wolff engaged in insider trading has nothing to do with F1 itself, but the fact that the Team Principal and 30% shareholder of one team also has an equity stake in a rival team is purely an F1 matter and should not be allowed. Combine that with Racing Point's appearing to have had access to the W10 in order to copy it and the conflict of interest is obvious.

 

Conflicts of interest in ownership is one issue, a different issue is when a team principal (such as Wolff) also manages a driver (such as Bottas). We don't know whether Wolff has always acted in Bottas's interests, but an egregious example of conflict of interest was when Briatore managed Mark Webber. Briatore actually went on record saying that he would not allow Webber to drive for any team that he saw as a competitor to Renault. WTF?

 

The FIA has always asserted its authority to regulate F1 and other series. As such, it should bar these conflicts of interest which can do nothing but harm the sport.

[yolo]

Dunno if this requires a seperate thread but looks like Wolff is being investigated for insider trading

https://www.journald...f1-sous-enquete

basically bought AM shares, then Merc did too, the timing could imply that he knew which is forbidden as you are not allowed to use information not available to the public to enrich yourself.

If proven true I cant see him staying at Merc.

 

If proven guilty, he would find himself behind bars most likely.

 

What I find interesting is that no reputable outlet is running with the story in Europe. Journal De Montreal is Montreal's equivalent of The Sun/Daily Mail, NY Post and Bild - that is, not very reliable. I'll wait until the FT/Reuters report on it.

Edited by yolo, 23 August 2021 - 11:13.

[New Britain]

Aah, ok, I had understood it was about Wolff purchasing Aston Martin (the F1 team) shares. If it's about Aston Martin (the car constructor) shares. That's a very different matter, since there can be thousands of shareholders who could be affected.

As noted above, in order for insider trading charges to be brought, there is no requirement for an alleged victim to make a claim. It is (rightly) considered to be in the public interest for the authorities to bring an action themselves.

[smitten]

Bottom line is, it is nothing to do with F1 what shares I own, even if I am Toto Wolff.  If the FCA or whoever conclude he is guilty of something, then that is fine.  That is THEIR job, it isn't F1's.

I agree to a point.  The problem comes when there is an apparent conflict of interest or a possibility of insider knowledge.  We want our sport to be clean but to also look clean. 

[BRG]

Indeed. Whether Wolff engaged in insider trading has nothing to do with F1 itself, but the fact that the Team Principal and 30% shareholder of one team also has an equity stake in a rival team is purely an F1 matter and should not be allowed. 

He doesn't have an equity stake in a rival team.  He bought shares in Aston Martin, the car maker, not the race team.  So no problem.  But you ought to be looking at Dieter Mateschitz who owns two competing teams outright.  Let's deal with the BIG issues first, not the peccadilloes. 

 

 

What I find interesting is that no reputable outlet is running with the story in Europe. Journal De Montreal is Montreal's equivalent of The Sun/Daily Mail, NY Post and Bild - that is, not very reliable. I'll wait until the FT/Reuters report on it.

They only ran it as it had a peripheral connection to Stroll.  Even a pic of Lance and his girlfriend, and one of Lawrence.

[yolo]

I agree to a point.  The problem comes when there is an apparent conflict of interest or a possibility of insider knowledge.  We want our sport to be clean but to also look clean. 

 

He bought shares in the car manufacturer, NOT the F1 team.

 

Besides, even if he had bought shares in the F1 team, generally companies have 'Chinese walls' to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

[New Britain]

He doesn't have an equity stake in a rival team.  He bought shares in Aston Martin, the car maker, not the race team.  So no problem. 

I am aware of that (although unfortunately much of the media seem not to be), but Aston and Stroll have done everything they could to conflate the two, the effective control of the two organisations is in the same hands, and the car maker has a massive interest in seeing to it that the racing team succeeds and vice versa. In the current issue of Autocar there is a lengthy interview with Stroll (the fat one, not the thin one) in which he talks about adding races and increasing the exposure of F1 in the US in order to help 'our road car company'. I really don't see how one could say 'no problem'.

 

As for Mateschitz, well, yeah. And let's not forget that he owns the Red Bull Ring as well. As others have noted, F1 has been and still is rife with conflicts of interest; it's the FIA's responsibility to eliminate them.

[BRG]

The idea that owning 0.95% of Aston Martin Lagonda gives Toto Wolff any say in what the Aston Martin F1 team does is risible.  And of course Lawrence Stroll wants the race team and its place in F1 to be beneficial to the parent car maker.  Why wouldn't he?   And what has that got to do with Toto Wolff?

 

This is about a possible case of insider trading.  It is nothing to with the governance of F1.

[Marklar]

Rencken/Maher are reportingt his now too.

https://racingnews36...-trading-emerge

 

 

 

However, a request for comment from the Mercedes F1 team was forthcoming. When asked by RacingNews365.com whether the team are aware of any current scrutiny on Wolff, a spokesperson said: "No. We are not aware of any such action. All necessary disclosures have been made to the UK financial authorities at the appropriate time."

[absinthedude]

This is nothing to do with F1 or even the Aston Martin F1 team. But it is clear that the FCA is investigating whether Toto had privileged information when he bought his shares in Aston Martin. The FCA couldn't give a rat's ass about anything else and that isn't what this investigation is about.

 

Within F1, individuals have often owned shares in multiple teams - though even that is not what we're talking about here. Toto owns nothing of the Aston Martin F1 team and a tiny amount of shares in the car manufacturer. 

[TennisUK]

Sebastian Vettel also purchased shares in the PLC.

[Rodaknee]

Apparently Toto bought his shares 6 months before Mercedes bought theirs - actually they increased their shareholding.  That is such a large gap it'll be laughed out of court, especially given the past financial history of Aston Martin.  Has anyone made money from them in the past 25 years?

 

It was also public knowledge, in April 2020 Toto had bought the shares.  So anyone could have followed his lead.

 

Daimler already had 5% of Aston Martin from 2013.

 

 

Daimler is also a shareholder in Aston Martin, having taken 5% of shares in 2013 in return for supplying engines and electronic components.

 

https://www.bbc.co.u...rmula1/52336684

Edited by Rodaknee, 23 August 2021 - 14:15.

[jpm2019]

Can't see this being a problem. 

 

Case closed. 

[New Britain]

The idea that owning 0.95% of Aston Martin Lagonda gives Toto Wolff any say in what the Aston Martin F1 team does is risible.  And of course Lawrence Stroll wants the race team and its place in F1 to be beneficial to the parent car maker.  Why wouldn't he?   And what has that got to do with Toto Wolff?

 

This is about a possible case of insider trading.  It is nothing to with the governance of F1.

 

 

This is nothing to do with F1 or even the Aston Martin F1 team. But it is clear that the FCA is investigating whether Toto had privileged information when he bought his shares in Aston Martin. The FCA couldn't give a rat's ass about anything else and that isn't what this investigation is about.

 

Within F1, individuals have often owned shares in multiple teams - though even that is not what we're talking about here. Toto owns nothing of the Aston Martin F1 team and a tiny amount of shares in the car manufacturer. 

 

Obviously you are free to disagree, BRG, but 'risible' is an hyperbole too far.
 

One may argue that Toto Wolff has no say in what Aston Martin the F1 team does, but he pretty clearly has a say in what the Mercedes F1 team does and of course Mercedes supply Aston Martin with their PUs. That in itself give him leverage.

Then one would consider how last year's Aston (neé Racing Point) was a highly suspect copy of the previous season's Mercedes, and the risk of conflict of interest and incest is self-evident.

Aston cut a deal to use Merc drive-trains in their road cars, Moers leaves AMG for Aston, Merc will be taking a 20% stake - this is hardly an arm's-length relationship, and Wolff is in the middle of the action.

Running a conflict of interest is not new territory for Wolff. You may recall that there was considerable overlap between when he joined Mercedes and when he sold his stake in Williams.

 

Just because Wolff owns only a minority of the road car company (published reports show it as 4.95%, not 0.95%) hardly means that he would have no influence. The last I knew the Stroll consortium owned only 22% of Aston Martin Lagonda, and yet we know that he and his pals call the shots and it would take an extraordinary series of events for the remote shareholders to depose them.

 

The late Walter Mondale once quipped, 'Nothing propinques like propinquity', and that applies here. Ultimately, shareholder votes and the fine print of contracts will (usually) prevail, but in the real day-to-day world it is networking, mutual back-scratching, and personal interest that make the running.

[Sterzo]

Apparently Toto bought his shares 6 months before Mercedes bought theirs - actually they increased their shareholding.  That is such a large gap it'll be laughed out of court

 

Presumably the FCA's questions are:

 

1. Was the proposal to increase the shareholding under discussion within Mercedes as early as April 2020?

2. Was Toto Wolff aware of those discussions?

 

If the answer to either is "No", then there is indeed no case.

[BRG]

 

Obviously you are free to disagree, BRG, but 'risible' is an hyperbole too far.
 

One may argue that Toto Wolff has no say in what Aston Martin the F1 team does, but he pretty clearly has a say in what the Mercedes F1 team does and of course Mercedes supply Aston Martin with their PUs. That in itself give him leverage

 

Yes, it does, irrespective of any share holding.  So that rather makes it a non-issue.  You seem to be intent on constructing some sort of case against Wolff based on thin air and some sort of desire to blacken his name.

 

The only issue here is whether he broke insider trading rules (and as Rodaknee points out above, that looks rather doubtful.)  The rest is just hot air.

[Ellios]

What I find interesting is that no reputable outlet is running with the story in Europe. Journal De Montreal is Montreal's equivalent of The Sun/Daily Mail, NY Post and Bild - that is, not very reliable. I'll wait until the FT/Reuters report on it.

 

So far not seen anyone else running the story beyond quoting the original publication. 

 

Twitter is having fun with it, Toto is currently trending but mostly bandwagon jumping by bots and 'other driver' fanatics. 

 

Do think this story will run through the race weekend..

Edited by Ellios, 23 August 2021 - 15:59.

[New Britain]

Yes, it does, irrespective of any share holding.  So that rather makes it a non-issue.  You seem to be intent on constructing some sort of case against Wolff based on thin air and some sort of desire to blacken his name.

 

The only issue here is whether he broke insider trading rules (and as Rodaknee points out above, that looks rather doubtful.)  The rest is just hot air.

I'm sorry, but it is far from being 'hot air'. The question of whether Wolff 'knew' when he bought his shares that Merc would be increasing their stake is open to speculation at this point, but it is hard to believe that he had no inkling of discussions between Merc and AML over potential forms of cooperation. Under the Andy Palmer regime AML had already committed to get its drive-trains from Merc. Merc has been supplying F1 PUs to AM and its predecessor teams for years. And of course we had the Racing Point cloning of the W10, which also preceded Wolff's share purchases.

 

I am sure that I am not the only person who - at the time that Wolff's purchase of AML shares was announced, not later when the Daimler share purchase commitment was announced - thought, 'Hmmm...that seems rather close to the knuckle - Wolff works for Mercedes and everybody knows that there are multiple links between Mercedes and Aston'.

 

Let's put it this way: one can hardly say that what Wolff did was best practice. The potential for conflict of interest, if not the abuse of inside information, was clear as day. Wolff is already a rich, powerful guy in a highly public position, and such persons should not behave in this way, even if their behaviour should turn out not to be actionable. It's not like Wolff's only investment option in the whole wide world was shares in Aston Martin!

 

As for the allegation that I am trying to 'blacken his name' - come on! Do you really think anybody gives a damn whether Wolff or Brown or Horner or any of the others is criticised on an internet forum? One usually finds that an individual's name is blackened not by outsiders but rather by the individual themselves.

[masa90]

Oh wow.

 

That Mercedes and Aston Martin/Racing point stuff just keeps going.

 

There seemed to quite many coincidences last year alone

[Marklar]

I must say the memes about this today on twitter made my day

[Squeed]

I put a chunk of money into AML when Stroll bought the company, and it’s more than doubled.  Point being, you don’t need insider info to recognize a good opportunity when you see it.  

 

Also, most insider trading convictions in the US involve stock sales based on insider bad news.  

 

The SEC in the US is way overzealous in accusing/charging people with insider trading.  Not sure if it’s the same in GB, but it’s one of those “if you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail”-situations. 

Edited by Squeed, 23 August 2021 - 16:48.

[gillesfan76]

I don't understand why someone in Toto's position would even take this risk to let anyone even think there would be a chance of insider trading.

 

I doube it was on purpose, but once you are this deep into different investments, it's bound to happen. 

 

In contrast with F1, I am just a simple employee of a consultancy firm, but I can't really have any investments at all as we work for most listed companies. I even have to report the investments of my girlfriend and direct family to the company, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest / independence breach. And that is only at a lower/mid management level ... 

 

F1 really should take some steps to become more professional on this. 

 

Unfortunately this kind of strict governance is only strictly followed at the lower levels. I can tell you from first hand that the big wigs at Deloitte have no qualms at investing in companies they are involved with, yet the do tell their consultants including at senior level not to do it.

 

However you should be able to invest in ETFs even if they are made up of the very companies you aren’t supposed to hold an individual position in. It’s completely ridiculous for a company to demand an employee reports the investments of girlfriend, spouse, family etc. A spouse has full right to have a small separate account and do what they wish with it, without divulging what investments they buy as long as the other person has no problem with it. The company can’t demand that your girlfriend tell you what she buys.

[Requiem84]

Unfortunately this kind of strict governance is only strictly followed at the lower levels. I can tell you from first hand that the big wigs at Deloitte have no qualms at investing in companies they are involved with, yet the do tell their consultants including at senior level not to do it.

However you should be able to invest in ETFs even if they are made up of the very companies you aren’t supposed to hold an individual position in. It’s completely ridiculous for a company to demand an employee reports the investments of girlfriend, spouse, family etc. A spouse has full right to have a small separate account and do what they wish with it, without divulging what investments they buy as long as the other person has no problem with it. The company can’t demand that your girlfriend tell you what she buys.

That’s Dutch big 4 independence rules unfortunately. A former Dutch Deloitte CEO got demoted because he did not report his mother in law’s financial interest of a family foundation.

It’s pretty strict here - unlike F1 where you can have 2 teams, manage drivers, invest in anything you like and be involved in many other enterprises.

[jjcale]

My guess is that FCA is only looking into this because Germany asked them. Germany has trying to be squeaky clean for a about 10 years now... since the americans went after them for their former sloppiness. And for the past 5 years they delude themselves that they can take significant business from UK because of Brexit if they look more pristine. Reality is the Germans still dont know what they are doing. It takes a very long time to develop the right culture. The anglo americans invented the rules on things like insider trading and they know which way is up. German regulators are still babes in the woods who dont have a full understanding of how to deal with really complicated situations. Look at the farce that they made of Ecclestone's trial on the criminal side... jokers. 

 

This is a nothing. I dont know anything about this deal but it seems much more likely that rather than front running the Merc-Aston deal, Toto was probably helping to broker the deal.... I would be very surprised if there was anything to see here. 

 

And anyway, this is the good kind of insider dealing. The shares have gone up and everybody who could conceivably have an issue is happy.... arnt the shares even new shares?? I seem to remember that - which would mean that they didnt even have to buy them off anyone who might then claim they would have held on to them but for whatever .... but that is going by my increasingly failing memory. 

 

Toto has been a bit of a wide boy for years - but this does not look like anything serious to me. It will keep some investigators and accountants and lawyers in work for a while in the City. From my experience of these things (dont hate me folks ... every time I say something like this, somebody gets antsy) ... but in my experience the folks advising Toto will sort it out quietly with the FCA. There will be a report (mostly written by Toto's people) which may or may not say he should have been more careful - and even that mild rebuke is (I am guessing) something that will be negotiated. And it will all be swept under the carpet.

 

There are lots worse than this one that go nowhere. 

 

I should add really the caveat that it is early days and I am just speculating and blah blah blah ... but honestly, I am not even bothering ... this looks like a nothing.  

 

The thing that I find most interesting about all this is the leaking to the media ... I am guessing that is the Germans... I cant see the UK side doing that - but I would stick my neck out a bit less on that point ... maybe only 60% compared to about 70%-80% for the rest.  

Edited by jjcale, 23 August 2021 - 18:14.

[New Britain]

I put a chunk of money into AML when Stroll bought the company, and it’s more than doubled.  Point being, you don’t need insider info to recognize a good opportunity when you see it.  

 

Also, most insider trading convictions in the US involve stock sales based on insider bad news.  

 

The SEC in the US is way overzealous in accusing/charging people with insider trading.  Not sure if it’s the same in GB, but it’s one of those “if you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail”-situations. 

Speaking as someone who spent his career in the equity markets, I must take the opposite view, namely that insider trading or at least trading with 'an edge' (that is not available to the public) happens every day and the SEC barely scratches the surface of it. Whether a specific instance can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is different (and OJ was innocent - right?), but for as long as there have been markets there have been people trying to get one over on other people and it's the same today.

 

I'm not saying that Wolff actually did that for which he is apparently being investigated, but he's been sailing close to the wind for some time and certainly there was no need for him to have bought a significant stake in AML to begin with - it was bound to raise questions.