5 ms·

Unless the advance scheduling is completely binding, I don't see why that should sidestep insider trading. What's to stop these guys from always having a cascad

• eropple 9y ago
  What is to "stop these guys" is the legal parties and officials involved have brains that they can use. The engineer idea of "mwa ha ha, I found a bug, I can walk" is rarely true in practice (n.b.: having quite a lot of money is a different kind of exception).
  • Ajedi32 9y ago
    Basically this: https://xkcd.com/1494/ https://xkcd.com/1494/
• douglasfshearer 9y ago
  SEC rules also cover cancellation of orders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Rule_10b5-1#A_possible_loophole:_canceling_plans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Rule_10b5-1#A_possible_loo...
• ashelmire 9y ago
  What, they are never allowed to sell shares then? There are constantly bugs being found in major software and hardware.
  • wyldfire 9y ago
    Surely this is a material design defect that anyone would expect to hurt Intel's business in a very significant way.
• Havoc 9y ago
  >Unless the advance scheduling is completely binding It gets filed with the SEC so should be suitably permanent
• aarongolliver 9y ago
  A good rule of thumb is that if you think you've discovered a loophole that would allow insider trading, and it only took you a few moments of thinking, the SEC thought of it already.
• tdb7893 9y ago
  The orders registered with the SEC and all these cancellations would attract a lot of their attention. I have no doubt they would see through it pretty easily once they started investigating