• conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Selling shares before the announcement” was a pretty egregious misrepresentation. He has scheduled pre-registered sales on a regular basis because he gets paid partly in stock.

    It was always going to be relatively soon after a sale of stock.

    • William@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      As if you can’t schedule your announcements to fall just after the scheduled stock sales… Or just before them, if you want.

    • sino@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just want to add you’re right but what pisses me off is that they still can influence decisions based on this. Let’s say his shares are sold at x day, just do some decisions before that and boom your auto sell share price is now either higher or lower. Only because it’s predetermined they still influence it and SEC now can’t do shit.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        This has nothing in common with insider trading and doesn’t resemble it in any way. The shares he sold weren’t a relevant proportion of his ownership. He didn’t sell then deliberately tank them. He sold then announced something he thought would improve the value of his big stake in the company. The decision almost definitely cost him a lot of money by substantially lowering the trajectory of his company’s ability to maintain market share.

        • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          He sold then announced something he thought would improve the value of his big stake in the company.

          In what universe?

          • Revan343@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If he didn’t think the announcement would improve the value of the company, why did they do it?

            • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Exactly. It was plopping his dick on the table, then realizing “oh shit, no one actually is impressed by this”.

              Insider trading would be more “I know we’re about to get sued for this egregious fuckup and have no defense, so I’m going to sell before the news leaks”. Strategy knowledge can be part of insider trading, but it would tend to be more buying shares because you have advanced knowledge that a highly lucrative contract has been signed before the announcement. It would be harder to have selling because of a strategy decision be insider trading unless you were opposed to it internally, because decisions you make are intended to make the shareholders (you) money.

    • Aqarius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know, that might just make it worse. As in, this wasn’t some 5d plot, he genuinely thought this would work.

    • JonEFive@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t you bring facts into this! We want to be outraged!

      Being serious though, they ought to be investigating whether there were any changes in those sale orders. If they’ve been the same and unchanged for the last two years or some long period of time, I don’t think there’s a case. But if they’re was an adjustment a month or two ago, that would be very problematic.