> The employees decided to buy units in a new 11-story condo building in the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens just before the first reports of Amazon’s HQ2 location were released this month...
On the surface, these condo purchases seem suspicious. OTOH, there are thousands and thousands of Amazon employees, so, one might ask: how many condos in NYC do Amazon employees typically purchase per month? Is that number zero?
> On the surface, these condo purchases seem suspicious.
Buying real estate ahead of such an announcement doesn't break any laws (edit: it might have violated employee agreements if Amazon has anything in there about acting on insider info, not an Amazon employee so I cannot comment on that). It's not as if this was a short dated deep out of the money call options play based on insider information (most definitely against the law; don't do this!).
yes. ok. "suspicious" is probably a bad choice of words. maybe just "curious" or "intriguing" would have been better.
if the underlying implication ever actually proves true, then i have to wonder how these 2 employees even got that info ahead of time. i would have thought only Bezos and few top execs would have known this info before the announcement.
I don't even think it's a moral issue. If anything, these Amazon employees purchased before speculators could front run them. Working for Amazon is hard enough without generating fake outrage.
Your concern should be with any elected official who offered Amazon concessions to locate in NYC. When their reelection comes up, it should be expressed that New Yorker's subsidized a trillion dollar company.
> Your concern should be with any elected official who offered Amazon concessions to locate in NYC.
Yes! In fact, all (or at least most) of the cities who "bidded" for the Amazon HQ2('s), did so by keeping the bid secret from their taxpayers. THAT is sketchy and vastly more harmful than a couple Amazon exec's getting a little greedy with condo real-estate.
The victim is a mix. The previous owners, the people would have bought there if the Amazon's employees did not, and the people who now are going to buy in that neighborhood in the future.
How does that make them a victim? They weren't forced to sell at any price. That's real estate and the article says they are net new construction.
Also, Amazon has thousands of employees in NYC already. LIC is close to Midtown Manhattan, a few subway stops away and is a neighborhood full of new construction.
It makes sense for any employees to buy there regardless of any situation...doesn't?
Since when is "Buying a nice apartment in a desirable neighborhood near work" a suspicious or criminal thing? Geez.
By this logic, would it not be immoral to engage in any trades when there exist information asymmetry? There will always be "victims" who do not make a profit because they made a bad investment.
A person losing money due to insider trading has almost certainly invested in a company that was not worth what they thought it was. If they’re a victim, then whose victim are they really? I have a hard time blaming the insider trader.
There's nothing "morally" wrong with insider trading. The purpose of insider trading regulations is to limit the spread of information about the firm. Executives who keep pertinent information from the investing public are conspiracies against their own employers. Defection from such a conspiracy may be disloyalty to the management chain, but it is loyalty to the shareholders.
I understand why people are upset over Amazon's behavior with the new headquarters, but this article is scraping the bottom of the barrel for new headlines to stoke outrage over. There is literally nothing wrong with acting on insider information in a context outside of securities trading, which real estate is not.
wrong != illegal. You statement should read "There is literally nothing illegal with acting on insider information in a context outside of securities trading, which real estate is not." Given how contentious housing is these days due to high prices, I'd argue that many would find buying real estate using insider information to be wrong.
It's not necessarily suspicious at all. They almost certainly are not going to staff the new offices entirely with new hires. Many people will be transferred in from other offices.
That will include many to do the large amount of the work that needs to be done in New York before the new offices actually open.
It is quite likely that these condo buyers are such people, moving to New York to work on opening the new offices and then to work at those offices.
If it is only a small number of employees, there is no reason for them not to find housing in New York as soon as they can after finding out they are transferring.
Long Island City is also an obvious choice for current residents along the L train who might be moving because of the upcoming L train closure. It's worth noting that LIC is only a ~20 minute commute with two train options (M & 7) to the current Amazon office, which is better even than the commute from parts of Manhattan. So I wonder if this is just part of a greater migration pattern from along the L to LIC/Astoria?
And if they bought the condos with insider knowledge of the future location of Amazon HQ2, why would that be of any concern ? Why would it be fraudulent ?
The laws exist to stop corruption where people "in the know" get to make loads of money from privileged information - the rich get richer etc. This example of housing is a similar issue but, of course, the question is whether it is illegal, which it seems is unlikely.
On the surface, these condo purchases seem suspicious. OTOH, there are thousands and thousands of Amazon employees, so, one might ask: how many condos in NYC do Amazon employees typically purchase per month? Is that number zero?