CEO Questionably Used Pseudonym to Post Online

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."

Comments

So what?

[seanadams.com]

Why would you expect that anyone posting to a stock message board did NOT have some stake in the game? I don't see how or why you would differentiate the CEO from any other stakeholder who chooses to post for his own self interest. Does the public in general use their real names?

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?

[Notquitecajun]

A CEO would be differentiated because...well..he's a CEO, and has a HIGHER stake in case his agenda is out to acquire the company. However, I doubt that anonymous posters on a little-viewed yahoo board about a poorly-performing whole foods company which have a huge amount of influence on what its stock does.

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?

[cayenne8]

"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)."

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:So what?

[linguizic]

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. In this case though, did his position give him access to internal Wild Oats information? If the answer is no, than he's no different from any other investor.

Free speech without anonymity?

[athloi]

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.

Fine By Me

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It think that such behaviour is smarmy but not worth much attention.

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.

Bad headline.

[peacefinder]

Actually, the CEO Unquestionably Used Pseudonym to Post Online.

The questionable part was the propriety of him doing so.

Carry on.

Re:Massive Fail?

[Otter]

Ummm, that'd be the point. He was (apparently) trying to drive down the cost of Wild Oats to make the acquisition cheaper.

B.F.D.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the guy posted to a forum. Big F'ing Deal.

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 comfortable with the endless soup of shell companies created by corporate America (especially all those shell companies which, combined among 3-4 parent companies, own about 95% of all our nation's media outlets).

Yahoo stock message boards?

[Pedrito]

The last place I'd ever take advice is from the Yahoo Stock message boards. Everyone is a zealot for one stock or another there. Who cares if people are dumb enough to take investment advice there. I suspect anyone who actually knows anything about the market and Yahoo stock message boards knows this. I suspect anything he wrote had little if any effect on the performance of the stock.

I'm Shocked !!!

[asphaltjesus]

Unbelievable!

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 /.'ers fail to understand how much money he stood to make if the price of Wild Oats shares were lower by a dollar or two. Easily worth the effort. Easily.

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.

No anonymity, no free speech, no truth.

[twitter]

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.