4 ms·

How is it different from other sells Krzanich has done earlier? It seems that he has been selling/disposing off his shares on a regular basis after each option

How is it different from other sells Krzanich has done earlier? It seems that he has been selling/disposing off his shares on a regular basis after each option execution: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider-trades?sortname=insider&sorttype=0&page=11 http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider-trades?sortname=in... http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider-trades?sortname=insider&sorttype=0&page=12 http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider-trades?sortname=in... http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider-trades?sortname=insider&sorttype=0&page=13 http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider-trades?sortname=in... http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider-trades?sortname=insider&sorttype=0&page=14 http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider-trades?sortname=in... The only difference in this case is the trade size. Huge grant was vested and sold: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider-trades?sortname=sharestraded&sorttype=1 http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider-trades?sortname=sh... This might be related to his employment terms.

avs733 9y ago
Because in addition to selling of his option shares he also told off all if the other shares he has been holding down to the minimum (250k shares) that he is required to hold as CEO based on the Intel governance documents. In November he sold as much stock as he legally could in his position, not just the amount he optioned.
- Arainach 9y ago
  The holding requirements are contractual, not criminal - there's no law requiring him to hold stock. The minimum he's required to hold is still more than $10M tied up in a single stock. Wanting to diversify one's assets past that level is understandable.
  - SolarNet 9y ago
    You missed the point, it implies criminal if he sold down differently this time. The contractual details are only important in so far as they dictate his behavior.
  - dis-sys 9y ago
    it shows the concerned trade is not a part of the regular trades, the portion sold in that batch was significantly different to the extent that he couldn't sell any more when also retaining is position in Intel. In short, he used inside information to minimise his exposure to the risks. that is criminal.
maxerickson 9y ago
Undisclosed material information. If you know a risk factor that hasn't been disclosed to investors you shouldn't be able to just point to your pattern of behavior. (And if he doesn't want equity risk, he should arrange for other compensation...)

avs733 9y ago

Because in addition to selling of his option shares he also told off all if the other shares he has been holding down to the minimum (250k shares) that he is required to hold as CEO based on the Intel governance documents. In November he sold as much stock as he legally could in his position, not just the amount he optioned.

Arainach 9y ago
The holding requirements are contractual, not criminal - there's no law requiring him to hold stock. The minimum he's required to hold is still more than $10M tied up in a single stock. Wanting to diversify one's assets past that level is understandable.
- SolarNet 9y ago
  You missed the point, it implies criminal if he sold down differently this time. The contractual details are only important in so far as they dictate his behavior.
- dis-sys 9y ago
  it shows the concerned trade is not a part of the regular trades, the portion sold in that batch was significantly different to the extent that he couldn't sell any more when also retaining is position in Intel. In short, he used inside information to minimise his exposure to the risks. that is criminal.

maxerickson 9y ago

Undisclosed material information. If you know a risk factor that hasn't been disclosed to investors you shouldn't be able to just point to your pattern of behavior. (And if he doesn't want equity risk, he should arrange for other compensation...)