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.

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.