4 ms·

If he sells shares the day they vest, year after year, the only question then is about volume. Did he sell a larger volume than usual? That's a VERY different

by T2_t2 9y ago

If he sells shares the day they vest, year after year, the only question then is about volume. Did he sell a larger volume than usual? That's a VERY different question to a binary "is it insider trading?"

URSpider94 9y ago
Nope, that’s not necessarily true. The test is whether he, or any other actor, gave the order to sell while in possession of material information. It’s possible to put an advance order in place to sell shares on a plan, which clears the issue because that decision is made in advance.
- pathseeker 9y ago
  >It’s possible to put an advance order in place to sell shares on a plan, which clears the issue because that decision is made in advance. That's what he did, no?
  - sudhirj 9y ago
    Only time, not number. The schedule allows for a sale on pre determined days, and on the day in question, after he had the news, he sold every share he legally could - way more than he usually did on the scheduled days.
  - josefx 9y ago
    He broke his pattern last year by changing the orders in october. At a time intel was already aware of Meltdown and with a puplication date for the vulnerability set in January. Wikipedia states that the issue had been shared with manufacturers in July, a month after he normally issues his orders mentioned by the article. Edit: The date on the last part is wrong, which doesn't change the fact that he changed his orders in the time between internal and public disclosure of Meltdown. I misread the article, in 2017 he issued his orders in February not June (2015).
- T2_t2 9y ago
  I posted this, but I have no idea how to interpret it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16104426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16104426 - the numbers make no sense to me.
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago
  > The test is whether he, or any other actor, gave the order to sell while in possession of material information. Wouldn't that reasonably make any sale, at any time, illegal? Or, alternately, when would a CEO not possess (non-public) material information?

by T2_t2 9y ago

URSpider94 9y ago

Nope, that’s not necessarily true. The test is whether he, or any other actor, gave the order to sell while in possession of material information. It’s possible to put an advance order in place to sell shares on a plan, which clears the issue because that decision is made in advance.

pathseeker 9y ago
>It’s possible to put an advance order in place to sell shares on a plan, which clears the issue because that decision is made in advance. That's what he did, no?
- sudhirj 9y ago
  Only time, not number. The schedule allows for a sale on pre determined days, and on the day in question, after he had the news, he sold every share he legally could - way more than he usually did on the scheduled days.
- josefx 9y ago
  He broke his pattern last year by changing the orders in october. At a time intel was already aware of Meltdown and with a puplication date for the vulnerability set in January. Wikipedia states that the issue had been shared with manufacturers in July, a month after he normally issues his orders mentioned by the article. Edit: The date on the last part is wrong, which doesn't change the fact that he changed his orders in the time between internal and public disclosure of Meltdown. I misread the article, in 2017 he issued his orders in February not June (2015).
T2_t2 9y ago
I posted this, but I have no idea how to interpret it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16104426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16104426 - the numbers make no sense to me.
aeorgnoieang 9y ago
> The test is whether he, or any other actor, gave the order to sell while in possession of material information. Wouldn't that reasonably make any sale, at any time, illegal? Or, alternately, when would a CEO not possess (non-public) material information?