3 ms·

Why is this downvoted? This seems like a reasonable debunking of the insider trading theory, unless someone has better information than this.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> This seems like a reasonable debunking of the insider trading theory Martha Stewart went to jail for avoiding $45,000 in losses [1]. People don't always act rationally. More pointedly, you don't have to act in bad faith to break securities law. The lack of any disclosure surrounding this material issue, which Intel knew about for months prior to the CEO's sale and prior to Intel's Q3 Form 10-Q, is jarring and could result in liability. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case
- knowaveragejoe 9y ago
  What does that have to do with insider trading, though? I'm reading elsewhere in this thread that this was a scheduled sale ahead of time. Supposing it was indeed pre-planned well before they knew of the vulnerability, cancelling the sale would also be insider trading.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    The scheduled sale was for less than 100k shares. He modified the schedule to 900k shared after finding out about meltdown.
    - knowaveragejoe 9y ago
      That sounds pretty damning then, do you have a link?
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > Martha Stewart went to jail for avoiding $45,000 in losses [1]. Your link says exactly the opposite of that: > On February 27, 2004, Judge Cederbaum threw out the charge of securities fraud which could have led to up to ten years in prison and a $1 million fine. The judge found that "no reasonable juror can find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lied for the purpose of influencing the market for the securities of her own company." > On March 5, 2004, Stewart was found guilty by a jury of eight women and four men on all four remaining counts against her: conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements to a federal investigator. Martha Stewart went to jail for having the temerity to be a target of a federal investigation, not for doing anything.
lovich 9y ago
Because it's makes it less likely but it's not an iron class defense or even a strong defense. Martha Stewart broke the law to save ~45k with her insider trading when she was worth hundreds of millions. People's greed can over take any sort of rationality
kornish 9y ago
One counterargument is that he might have thought there was a chance he'd be asked to step down, and thus his days pulling that kind of money were limited. Just speculating, of course.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> This seems like a reasonable debunking of the insider trading theory Martha Stewart went to jail for avoiding $45,000 in losses [1]. People don't always act rationally. More pointedly, you don't have to act in bad faith to break securities law. The lack of any disclosure surrounding this material issue, which Intel knew about for months prior to the CEO's sale and prior to Intel's Q3 Form 10-Q, is jarring and could result in liability. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case

knowaveragejoe 9y ago
What does that have to do with insider trading, though? I'm reading elsewhere in this thread that this was a scheduled sale ahead of time. Supposing it was indeed pre-planned well before they knew of the vulnerability, cancelling the sale would also be insider trading.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  The scheduled sale was for less than 100k shares. He modified the schedule to 900k shared after finding out about meltdown.
  - knowaveragejoe 9y ago
    That sounds pretty damning then, do you have a link?
thaumasiotes 9y ago
> Martha Stewart went to jail for avoiding $45,000 in losses [1]. Your link says exactly the opposite of that: > On February 27, 2004, Judge Cederbaum threw out the charge of securities fraud which could have led to up to ten years in prison and a $1 million fine. The judge found that "no reasonable juror can find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant lied for the purpose of influencing the market for the securities of her own company." > On March 5, 2004, Stewart was found guilty by a jury of eight women and four men on all four remaining counts against her: conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements to a federal investigator. Martha Stewart went to jail for having the temerity to be a target of a federal investigation, not for doing anything.

lovich 9y ago

Because it's makes it less likely but it's not an iron class defense or even a strong defense. Martha Stewart broke the law to save ~45k with her insider trading when she was worth hundreds of millions. People's greed can over take any sort of rationality

kornish 9y ago

One counterargument is that he might have thought there was a chance he'd be asked to step down, and thus his days pulling that kind of money were limited. Just speculating, of course.