4 ms·

https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001538580 https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&C... Their CEO has a well-

by meritt 9y ago

https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001538580 https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&C... Their CEO has a well-documented six-year history of acquiring and disposing INTC stock. As the CEO, he implicitly always has access to privileged information. How exactly does the SEC determine the legality of a specific trade? I'm not trying to be flip here, I don't really have an opinion on the matter. It just seems that when the CEO is allowed to apparently buy/sell as they please, and not on a predetermined announced-in-advance plan, you could argue that every single trade was illegal insider trading.

URSpider94 9y ago
Most corporations have special departments in place to “pre-clear” executive trades. He almost certainly has a pre-clearance opinion letter on file authorizing him to proceed.
crdoconnor 9y ago
When it was the Qwest CEO the legality appears to have been determined by his lack of cooperation with the NSA: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-and-the-nsa-2013-6?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-a...
friendzis 9y ago
Another side of the same coin would be that since CEO "implicitly always has access to privileged information", it is up to trader to prove legality of specific trade. Of course this is against innocent unless proven otherwise dogma, but still perfectly valid different side of the coin. Which I find amusing. This is just one of the many places where legality of an action greatly depends on consensus and established practices, which can change overnight. For example court ruling based on implicitness of access to privileged information would effectively eliminate high ranking officers from trading altogether.