Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 177 posts

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#131

Post by Natsu »

wnevets wrote: post #121
Clubber wrote: post #108

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.

They usually get people for panicking when they're investigated. You never want to talk to federal investigators without a lawyer and you want to be very sure as to whether you actually remember things or not. People often play that safe by not remembering much of anything, but that can also bite you if you remember later.

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#133

Post by Powerofmene »

dragonwriter wrote: post #40
jzwinck wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No there is not a law against giving legal advice if you're not a lawyer. It's lawyers who are sometimes prohibited from giving legal advice. Non-lawyers have the usual freedom of speech, restricted in the usual ways. Claiming that you are someone you're not on the Internet is so commonplace it is hard to see where any trouble would come of it by itself. Again it's different if you knowingly cause harm to others. I'm…

> No there is not a law against giving legal advice if you're not a lawyer. In most (all, I think) US jurisdictions, providing legal advice is practice of law, and doing it without a license to do so in the state is prohibited (usually, a crime.) This isn't not legal advice and I am not a lawyer. Consult an actual lawyer licensed in your state before deciding whether or not you should provide legal advice.

In some states the collection of the fee is not relevant. All that is relevant in these states is that you do or do not have a alicense to practice and that you were conducting work that is typically conducted by an attorney and you are providing legal advice. In some states just the act of typing a Motion for someone who is representing themselves in open court is practicing law without a license unless you have passed your bar exam. You can get in trouble for drafting a Motion for your spouse and vice versa unless you are an attorney representing your spouse.

Legal advice should be limited to someone who is an attorney. There are ways around that giving of advice, you can say, "if air were in that position I would do xyz." Or "when that happened to me my attorney said I should xyz."

Practicing law without a license is a crime albeit one not often prosecuted unless you are representing yourself as an attorney and in most cases that involves the transfer of monies for those legal services but not always.

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#134

Post by ddeck »

adventured wrote: post #118
ddeck wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I agree the timing is suspicious More so considering that prior to the sale John Gamble (the CFO) hadn't sold a single share in the three years that he has been with the firm.

That's incorrect. For example, Gamble sold $1.9 million worth of stock in May. https://finance.yahoo.com/screener/insider/GAMBLE%20JOHN%20W... http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/insiders/gamble-john-w-jr-60842...

You are correct. I mistakenly thought the incident was in May, but I see now that it's the August trades that are in question. His only sales were in May and August of this year.

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#135

Post by dimfeld »

mathattack wrote: post #128
ptero wrote: post #91

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.

Yes. At least they were smart enough not to buy options. :-) https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-06-17/there-mig...

Somebody opened a huge options position on EFX a couple weeks ago. No way to tell who, of course, but it certainly looks suspicious. I posted the chart here: https://twitter.com/dimfeld/status/905952247682547716

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#136

Post by kamaal »

throwaway76543 wrote: post #83
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a were a millionaire, I wouldn't risk prison for 200k. This is part of the reason why you aren't a millionaire. Wealth selects for people who do some strange things to make a little extra money here and there... and there... and there... and there.... It's also why people who aren't like these millionaires (whether of similar means but less wealth or of greater means but fewer questionable choices) think some mi…

Nah. I'm a millionaire and I wouldn't risk prison for 200k. Wealth is indeed a proxy measure for certain behaviors, but you're ignoring other even more important behaviors like impulse control and an eye for risk analysis. Most of us aren't wealthy because we engage in unethical practices; we're wealthy because we understand long term planning and self control. Here's a related article you might find interesting abou…

I think your point is you know when to stop.

The real trouble is if you are having a streak of luck, you would be absolutely certain there is no reckoning for your deeds coming, this could go on, until it doesn't.

At that point in time punishment/prison looks a heavier price to pay in return for a incremental gain.

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#137

Post by kamaal »

ceejayoz wrote: post #57
21 wrote: post #51

So one guy sold 1 mil of stock, the stock dropped 6%, so he avoided a 60k loss. Let's say he expected a 20% drop, and he saved 200k. If a were a millionaire, I wouldn't risk prison for 200k. Even the litigation to avoid prison could cost 100k. And this is the kind of thing you know all angles will be looked into (it took a news agency a few hours to unearth this). If he did it (insider trading), he is very stupid.

Martha Stewart was a billionaire and wound up spending prison time over an insider trading savings of $45,673. Logic doesn't always apply.

Mentioned this in an another comment. Its not as much as about logic. Some people just don't know when to stop.

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#138

Post by icelancer »

throwaway76543 wrote: post #83
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a were a millionaire, I wouldn't risk prison for 200k. This is part of the reason why you aren't a millionaire. Wealth selects for people who do some strange things to make a little extra money here and there... and there... and there... and there.... It's also why people who aren't like these millionaires (whether of similar means but less wealth or of greater means but fewer questionable choices) think some mi…

Nah. I'm a millionaire and I wouldn't risk prison for 200k. Wealth is indeed a proxy measure for certain behaviors, but you're ignoring other even more important behaviors like impulse control and an eye for risk analysis. Most of us aren't wealthy because we engage in unethical practices; we're wealthy because we understand long term planning and self control. Here's a related article you might find interesting abou…

>>Note as well the negative correlation between wealth and crime, which stands in opposition to the association you attempt to draw above.

You are pointing the arrow in the wrong direction.

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#139

Post by icelancer »

Dobbs wrote: post #88
jzwinck wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you cancel the planned trades when you learn of some coming news that disadvantages them?

There are rules about amending your plans. My company has trading windows (a month or two after earnings, window open for around three weeks) for when people above a certain level are allowed to make trades. Even higher level employees must have a trading plan. You can only modify your trading plan during the trading window and there are restrictions and limits on how you can modify it and if you need permission to m…

You may have to produce your research or justification for modifying your plans, or selling outside of those scheduled plans. Most attorneys and financial experts will strongly advise you to document every minutia around all changes, no matter how innocuous.

Re: Three Equifax Managers Sold Stock Before Cyber Hack Was Revealed

#140

Post by icelancer »

tdeck wrote: post #3

Aren't senior executives legally required to submit their trading plans well in advance of any stock sale? That certainly seemed to be the case at my last employer.

No, it's an affirmative defense to do so, but not required. There are a lot of reasons to sell outside of the scheduled plan. Many executives will set up minimal scheduled selling plans and liquidate more as diversification becomes necessary, or key purchases in their life. Documentation is everything.
Post reply on HN