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

Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 371 posts

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#361

Post by pierrefermat1 »

matsemann wrote: post #352
reaperman wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes its easier to trade the right to buy/sell something than to trade the thing itself. It’s less obvious with stocks because there’s a pretty streamlined system for taking delivery of the stock ownership but with physical goods or real estate sometimes actually changing ownership triggers a lot of regulatory or tax or process things. For example, with real estate if you actually buy it you’ll need at minimum t…

It wasn't really a question about options in general, but these specific options. If they are either basically free money for the seller, or suspicious trading by the buyer, why allow both sides to trade like this? The seller is basically stealing money from a "sucker", until they suddenly aren't. No value in allowing those kind if bets, then. Where the seller either wins or claim fraud. Very one sided.

From my understanding the SEC would end up taking the profits if the prosecution is successful? The seller here is not free rolling by claiming fraud on losses.

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#362

Post by AlbertCory »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #357
AlbertCory wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but people can walk by your desk and see what you're working on. Or look in the conference room and see what's on the whiteboard. Not doing that would be Security Malpractice.

In an M&A you do not use the names of actual companies, but code names - exactly for that reason. There is just a very limited amount of documents that actually mention the target company (on both sides, and tt the lawyers')

and yet it still leaks out. That's why we have gov't watchdogs watching the trading.

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#363

Post by mock-possum »

bragr wrote: post #163
mock-possum wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A guy speaking out loud at a bus stop isn’t public information?

The SEC has very specific rules and even specific form [1] they must file when companies release information like this. [1] https://www.sec.gov/forms

Right but - that means the company employee gets in trouble for making the information public (via announcing it in public at the bus stop) - not that I would get in trouble for hearing it and acting on it, right?

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#364

Post by dmoy »

ada1981 wrote: post #345
zinglersen wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After.

We really ought to make them disclose them in advance like CEOs.

I would be 100% supportive of all congresspeople being required to file 10b5-1 plans in advance for the whole year, for any stock holdings

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#365

Post by jjav »

matsemann wrote: post #351
jjav wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well no, because there is nothing illegal about the trade itself nor the profit. What's illegal is to use insider info to make the decision to do the trade. Did the entity making this trade use insider info? We don't know. If they did not, nothing wrong with the trade. Now, the circumstances are such that this reeks of insider info. Nobody sane would have done that trade otherwise. So hopefully the SEC will investiga…

> Nobody sane would have done that trade otherwise. But my point is that there were people on the other side more than willing to take that person's money. If "no one sane" would do that trade, why let the other side be able to profit of it until suddenly it wasn't free money? Why shouldn't the other side carry any risk?

> But my point is that there were people on the other side more than willing to take that person's money.

What else would you propose?

Designing an algorithm that prevents people from offering or taking bad trades would require a reliable crystal ball. Solving the halting problem sounds easier.

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#366

Post by replwoacause »

jiveturkey wrote: post #240
thumbsup-_- wrote: post #228

These are so easy to track and find out. Whoever did this, either doesn't knows about insider trading laws or is stupid enough to think they can outsmart SEC. SEC would make a good example of this person, whoever they are. Wouldn't be surprised if this is done by a sibling or an uncle in another country.

Or, it's not insider trading but rather someone that observed a parking lot, that kind of research activity.

I’d like to know who is watching parking lots and spending 22k on a hunch

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#367

Post by pierrefermat1 »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #357
AlbertCory wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but people can walk by your desk and see what you're working on. Or look in the conference room and see what's on the whiteboard. Not doing that would be Security Malpractice.

In an M&A you do not use the names of actual companies, but code names - exactly for that reason. There is just a very limited amount of documents that actually mention the target company (on both sides, and tt the lawyers')

If there's anything on the whiteboard it's extremely easy to snap a pic and infer from context on what company it actually is.

But yes all these steps should be necessary to minimize risks.

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#368

Post by snypher »

matsemann wrote: post #352
reaperman wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes its easier to trade the right to buy/sell something than to trade the thing itself. It’s less obvious with stocks because there’s a pretty streamlined system for taking delivery of the stock ownership but with physical goods or real estate sometimes actually changing ownership triggers a lot of regulatory or tax or process things. For example, with real estate if you actually buy it you’ll need at minimum t…

It wasn't really a question about options in general, but these specific options. If they are either basically free money for the seller, or suspicious trading by the buyer, why allow both sides to trade like this? The seller is basically stealing money from a "sucker", until they suddenly aren't. No value in allowing those kind if bets, then. Where the seller either wins or claim fraud. Very one sided.

The option could be used as a low cost hedge against another trade and may end up being cheap insurance for a very unique event

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#369

Post by ada1981 »

dmoy wrote: post #364
ada1981 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really ought to make them disclose them in advance like CEOs.

I would be 100% supportive of all congresspeople being required to file 10b5-1 plans in advance for the whole year, for any stock holdings

Right, they still get legally protected insider trading otherwise.

The public ought to benefit from the same insights and info.

And if a trade disclosure would be considered a threat to national security for some reason, you don’t make the trade.

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#370

Post by ada1981 »

dmoy wrote: post #364
ada1981 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really ought to make them disclose them in advance like CEOs.

I would be 100% supportive of all congresspeople being required to file 10b5-1 plans in advance for the whole year, for any stock holdings

Has anyone calculated how much $$$ has been made by Congress folks due to this type of trading?
Post reply on HN