51–60 of 143 posts
> On January 15, 2018, Bohra used her work computer to search Google for “AMZN.” How does the SEC know this? Is it most likely browser history? Google account history? Corporate monitoring software?
Amazon probably had to comply with giving up the corporate monitoring data most likely.
As alleged, the family reaped illicit profits of approximately $1.4 million from their unlawful trading in Amazon securities. Did anyone really need insider information to know Amazon stock was going to rise? Although $1.4 million is life changing amount of money, I feel like for these people who were already being generously compensated in Amazon stock, it probably wasn't worth the risk, especially given the quote b…
If it really is widely known that a stock will definitely rise at some point in the future, that very quickly gets priced into the stock price now. It goes up gradually as confidence that it will go up goes up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article mentions that they were asked to pay just under twice their profit (2 * $1.4 million)
I would not do this, because it is unethical. However, if there is a 5% chance you will get caught and lose 230% your profit margin, seems like a rational agent would do insider trading at every opportunity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People do really dumb things for relatively small amounts of money. Look up examples of corruption in US city administrators. You’ll see people who throw away their career over $30k.
Martha Stewart was jailed for avoiding a loss of ~$45k USD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People do really dumb things for relatively small amounts of money. Look up examples of corruption in US city administrators. You’ll see people who throw away their career over $30k.
Martha Stewart was jailed for avoiding a loss of ~$45k USD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on what they initially put in. Lets say you made 1.4mil of 100k investment. That would be pretty good.
Seems like an $850k investment for a $640k profit. So good, but not go to gaol good. Especially when it's split 3 or 4 ways as it seems this would have been.
> On January 15, 2018, Bohra used her work computer to search Google for “AMZN.” How does the SEC know this? Is it most likely browser history? Google account history? Corporate monitoring software?
Amazon probably had to comply with giving up the corporate monitoring data most likely.
It is funny that high management is never considered to be doing illegal insider trading (except for obvious missteps), but they're the ones responsible for capital allocation, stock/option grants, and all kinds of decisions that will impact financial results in the next quarter.
And their trades are typically scheduled in advance and public. Their job and fiduciary duty is to maximize shareholder value, and they make decisions so that happens. If that means allocating $ and rewarding people that will attain that goal, then what should be considered illegal?
Meanwhile, Mr. Musk has literally gotten a slap on the wrist for multiple flagrant violations of securities law. There are definitely two justice systems in the US. The ultra-rich do not play by the same rules that you and I do.
> Their performance is statistically significantly greater than that of random choice. However, the difference is economically small. For example, only 31% of earnings announcements traded by the informed traders fell within the tail deciles. About 70% of their informed trades missed the biggest stock price return opportunities. They traded earnings announcements with an average absolute return of 5.15%. The average earnings announcement return in the tail deciles is 11.3% (median 9.2%).
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2019-11-26/kn...