4 ms·

Pretty normal. Their lawyers likely said that as long as they reported in (via Form 3 and Form 4) then it would be complaint enough. So this was still transpar

Pretty normal. Their lawyers likely said that as long as they reported in (via Form 3 and Form 4) then it would be complaint enough. So this was still transparency, and its just fodder for reporters to debate about, because without the Form 3 and Form 4 regulation, you would never know. Cost benefit analysis.

stygiansonic 9y ago
So, does this mean just the transparency via regulatory filings is enough to absolve them of any legal liability?
- jdmichal 9y ago
  It means that someone from the SEC should probably be looking into the trades. It would take a court to decide any legal liability, and charges would be the result of such SEC action. Having not reported the transactions in the first place would have likely made the sales less defensible -- good ol' "why were they hiding if they aren't guilty?"
  - icantdrive55 9y ago
    It looks like this is the way to get around SEC laws. 1. Have a large stock/hedgefund/whatever company. Kinda like Steve Cohen at SAC. 2. Hire hungry employees to take the risk of getting/profiting from Insider Information. (Yes--there are a thousands of Series 7 sociopaths that will do anything to get ahead--including spending a few years at the locked up federal Resort. "Just make money. Happy boss happy life! Plus--how do I keep the out of my league Professional Shopper happy? Really dude?" 3. As long as the head honcho doesn't know exactly where the sociopath got the stock tip, he can claim plausible deniability on his winning wad. It helps to have an army of good lawyers, and very deep pockets. 4. Pay some expected civil penalties, but stay clear of Criminal Conviction. Keep that privilege to steal. That's what's important. 5. Keep your license, and go back to the game of exploiting a rigged system. 6. I'm talking about guys like Steve Cohen. (In my mind, it looks like as long as you can't be directly tied to the insider tip; you Win! Yea--for the boys! Yea--for having money to buy your right to win!). 7. In all honestly, the only real money my deceased father made on the stock market was over a tip at Thanksgiving giving after his daughter's father and in-law got drunk and told him to invest in his company. This was twenty years ago. My father was a vocal critic of anyone who cheated the system. He stopped with his chest beating holier than thou speaches after that trade. (I don't even think my dad saw it as insider trading that night. It was a few months later it hit him. I knew, but I knew my father desperately needed some viable stock tips. Tips that most guys throw around--especially the successful Traders. https://www.ft.com/content/efda2ca2-ec69-11e6-930f-061b01e23655 https://www.ft.com/content/efda2ca2-ec69-11e6-930f-061b01e23...
abalone 9y ago
Uh, what? As another comment noted, they possessed "material non-public information" when they traded. Forms 3-5 just disclose the transaction, not the non-public information that we all just learned about. This doesn't mean they are guilty of insider trading, especially if there is a pattern of recent sales, but it certainly doesn't absolve them. Definitely smarter to hold off on ad hoc trades until all material information goes public -- or go with a scheduled plan.
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  here are the sells http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/?sym=EFX http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/?sym=EFX All of the guys in question all own 40,000 more shares than the few thousand they sold. Doesn't mean they weren't insider trading or avoiding losses, its a good defense though. Selling outside of a predefined schedule is always at risk of some scrutiny, because they always have inside information. Given the size of these sells, they probably need it to cover a margin call, since its common for people to borrow against their shares. Would suck if thats what it was because its damning for civil and criminal liability and would have been likely necessary for their solvency. Enjoy

stygiansonic 9y ago

So, does this mean just the transparency via regulatory filings is enough to absolve them of any legal liability?

jdmichal 9y ago
It means that someone from the SEC should probably be looking into the trades. It would take a court to decide any legal liability, and charges would be the result of such SEC action. Having not reported the transactions in the first place would have likely made the sales less defensible -- good ol' "why were they hiding if they aren't guilty?"
- icantdrive55 9y ago
  It looks like this is the way to get around SEC laws. 1. Have a large stock/hedgefund/whatever company. Kinda like Steve Cohen at SAC. 2. Hire hungry employees to take the risk of getting/profiting from Insider Information. (Yes--there are a thousands of Series 7 sociopaths that will do anything to get ahead--including spending a few years at the locked up federal Resort. "Just make money. Happy boss happy life! Plus--how do I keep the out of my league Professional Shopper happy? Really dude?" 3. As long as the head honcho doesn't know exactly where the sociopath got the stock tip, he can claim plausible deniability on his winning wad. It helps to have an army of good lawyers, and very deep pockets. 4. Pay some expected civil penalties, but stay clear of Criminal Conviction. Keep that privilege to steal. That's what's important. 5. Keep your license, and go back to the game of exploiting a rigged system. 6. I'm talking about guys like Steve Cohen. (In my mind, it looks like as long as you can't be directly tied to the insider tip; you Win! Yea--for the boys! Yea--for having money to buy your right to win!). 7. In all honestly, the only real money my deceased father made on the stock market was over a tip at Thanksgiving giving after his daughter's father and in-law got drunk and told him to invest in his company. This was twenty years ago. My father was a vocal critic of anyone who cheated the system. He stopped with his chest beating holier than thou speaches after that trade. (I don't even think my dad saw it as insider trading that night. It was a few months later it hit him. I knew, but I knew my father desperately needed some viable stock tips. Tips that most guys throw around--especially the successful Traders. https://www.ft.com/content/efda2ca2-ec69-11e6-930f-061b01e23655 https://www.ft.com/content/efda2ca2-ec69-11e6-930f-061b01e23...

abalone 9y ago

Uh, what? As another comment noted, they possessed "material non-public information" when they traded. Forms 3-5 just disclose the transaction, not the non-public information that we all just learned about. This doesn't mean they are guilty of insider trading, especially if there is a pattern of recent sales, but it certainly doesn't absolve them. Definitely smarter to hold off on ad hoc trades until all material information goes public -- or go with a scheduled plan.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago
here are the sells http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/?sym=EFX http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/?sym=EFX All of the guys in question all own 40,000 more shares than the few thousand they sold. Doesn't mean they weren't insider trading or avoiding losses, its a good defense though. Selling outside of a predefined schedule is always at risk of some scrutiny, because they always have inside information. Given the size of these sells, they probably need it to cover a margin call, since its common for people to borrow against their shares. Would suck if thats what it was because its damning for civil and criminal liability and would have been likely necessary for their solvency. Enjoy