121–130 of 177 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Martha Stewart's insider trading saved her ~$45k. At the time she worth around $600m. I agree, not rational.
She wasn't actually convicted of insider trading. After a highly publicized six-week jury trial, Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it is the state that has to prove mischief. They still enjoy presumption of innocence. I agree the timing is suspicious, but the amounts are pretty small. Even if the stock drops 20% long term due to this (which IMO is highly unlikely), a high ranking executive risking a jail term to avoid losing 50k of stock is (again IMO), absolutely irrational.
Martha Stewart's insider trading saved her ~$45k. At the time she worth around $600m. I agree, not rational.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Markets are closed, but it's down 13% in after-market trading now.
This is not financial advise: I remember a few commentors on HN recently saying they have made large gains by buying stock of companies after the news of cyber security breaches significantly reduced the share value, then waiting for the dust to settle(reaction-news-cycle to complete) and the price to rise again.
So what's it going to look like 6 months from now? Your guess is as good as mine. Mine is: either absolutely nothing happens and the stock goes back up, or this finally gets something to be done about the garbage that is SSNs and/or credit reports (in which case I can't really imagine what happens to the stock price in any direction).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to prove intent. If there's a history of these execs selling similar amounts of stock in other quarters, then it's probably not insider trading. If the paperwork trail started an hour after the first meeting where they learned about the breach, and they had never sold stock before, then it's probably insider trading. Since the truth is somewhere in between, it's hard to say. It's hard to believe that these…
Intent doesn't need to be proven. If you knew of the material non-public information and you then decided to execute a trade you're guilty of insider trading.
It would be highly unusual for the CFO not to have the burden of confidence but even for a division president it's not clear they'd have corporate officer responsibilities.
During compliance training in my old life they covered the classic "overheard in a coffee shop" example as a way to highlight that a barista does not owe confidentiality to a random public company. However, I don't think it's ethical behavior regardless of whether it'd result in a conviction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most likely yes. Actually if this doesn't count I don't know what is. However just like you, don't take my word, not a lawyer.
Off topic question... Is there a law about giving legal advice in a public forum if you're not a lawyer? Why do people add the disclaimer about not being a lawyer. Generally curious. Moreover, is there a law about impersonating lawyer in a public forum (not that any ethical person would do that of course)?
So the company stated that they (3 of them) did not know about the breach. I'm interested in what it takes to begin an investigation?
So, does this count as insider trading? My intuition says 'yes'. But my intuition about a thing and what the law says don't always match.
It's hard to prove intent. If there's a history of these execs selling similar amounts of stock in other quarters, then it's probably not insider trading. If the paperwork trail started an hour after the first meeting where they learned about the breach, and they had never sold stock before, then it's probably insider trading. Since the truth is somewhere in between, it's hard to say. It's hard to believe that these…
That's what 105b-1 trading plans are for. If they had used them there would be no questions to ask.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: Regulatory filings show that three days later, Chief Financial Officer John Gamble sold shares worth $946,374 and Joseph Loughran, president of U.S. information solutions, exercised options to dispose of stock worth $584,099. Rodolfo Ploder, president of workforce solutions, sold $250,458 of stock on Aug. 2. None of the filings lists the transactions as being part of 10b5-1 scheduled trading plans.…
Actually it is the state that has to prove mischief. They still enjoy presumption of innocence. I agree the timing is suspicious, but the amounts are pretty small. Even if the stock drops 20% long term due to this (which IMO is highly unlikely), a high ranking executive risking a jail term to avoid losing 50k of stock is (again IMO), absolutely irrational.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-06-17/there-mig...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She wasn't actually convicted of insider trading. After a highly publicized six-week jury trial, Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators
all which was related to ~$45k? Hardly rational.
Credit reporting agencies are the cancer of the modern economy. They are rife with inaccuracies, and on top of that, highly vulnerable to hacking , as software engineering is just a cost for them, not their focus. Their entire function needs to move to the blockchain. Their only value is that of a distributed, trust less ledger, and they charge horrible fees and sit in the middle for doing that terribly
This strikes me as sadly typical of so many "just use a blockchain" plans: it has a hopelessly naive understanding of the topic. Credit reporting agencies aren't just a big ledger. They collect a lot of information from a variety of sources, verifying and evaluating them. They contextualize, evaluate, and summarize the information. They comply with extensive laws that regulate the use of the information. And then the…