7 ms·
> On August 2, 2017, Equifax notified the FBI of the Data Breach. It also retained legal counsel to guide its investigation into the breach. The same day, Equif
by RankingMember 7y ago
> On August 2, 2017, Equifax notified the FBI of the Data Breach. It also retained legal counsel to guide its investigation into the breach. The same day, Equifax’s legal counsel retained Mandiant to assist in the investigation into the incident. Experts would later note that these steps suggested that Equifax knew that the Data Breach was serious. In the days immediately following the discovery of the Data Breach, Gamble and Ploder sold more than $1 million in Equifax stock. On August 1, Gamble, Equifax’s Chief Financial Officer, sold stock for $946,374, representing more than thirteen percent of his holdings. On August 2, Ploder sold stock for $250,458, representing four percent of his holdings. These sales were not made pursuant to a Rule 10b5–1 trading plan. Smith would later state in congressional testimony that Ploder and Gamble would have been in many of the meetings he had concerning the Data Breach.
Am I crazy or is this not blatant insider trading?
- peteradio 7y agoThis is blatant insider trading. That however does not preclude you from being crazy, nice try.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- falcor84 7y agoYup. According to formal logic, the answer then is just yes. p or true => true
- throwaway744678 7y agoIn natural language, "or" generally means "xor" - as is the case here.
- falcor84 7y agoObviously you're probably right, but I'll just try to troll this a bit. According to the principle of charity (or steelmanning), you should interpret an argument in the strongest possible way, and thus you should in this case interpret the statement with an inclusive or, which is more likely to be true.
- pdonis 7y agop xor true => true
- scarejunba 7y agoHaha, T ^ T = F, so that isn't quite a syllogism you have there.
- pdonis 7y agoAh, yes, you're right.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hermitdev 7y agoIt's quite possible that these were scheduled trades that were arranged far in advance before either executive was aware of the breach. So, no, not necessarily insider trading. The optics sure look bad, but it could just be shitty timing.
- peteradio 7y agoDoesn't it say in the quote that these were not scheduled? !
- steveklabnik 7y agoFrom the parent: > These sales were not made pursuant to a Rule 10b5–1 trading plan.
- jagged-chisel 7y ago"pre-arranged" != "Rue 10b5-1 trading plan" I'm not an expert in stock trading, but this logic seems very plausible. A Plan does not preclude other arrangements to sell shares
- steveklabnik 7y agoI am admittedly not the most educated person in this area (I wasn't 100% sure that "rule 10b5-1" was the rule that applied here), so I'd like to learn more. Can you give me an example of a reason you'd pre-arrange the sale of stock but not do it in accordance with Rule 10b5-1?
- jagged-chisel 7y agoArranging some other transaction (e.g. buying a yacht) in advance that would require cash, so the executive plans in advance a single sale to execute just ahead of the need for cash. If we go with the yacht purchase, perhaps in six months the builder needs final payment, so Mr. Executive arranges for a single sale of company stock a couple weeks before that date. Maybe such a thing does indeed require amending The Plan, but I haven't seen anyone with expertise chime in. I'm just saying that logically, "pre-arranged" does not necessitate "working within Rule 10b5-1"
- mateus1 7y agoApparently both execs have been cleared of an insider trading charge. https://gizmodo.com/equifax-investigation-clears-execs-who-dumped-stock-bef-1820127634 https://gizmodo.com/equifax-investigation-clears-execs-who-d...
- otterley 7y ago... by their former employer, not the SEC (the enforcing authority here).
- RankingMember 7y agoBasically "We investigated ourselves and found there was no wrongdoing." As the top comment there notes, they're positing that the director of US Information Security wasn't aware of the data breach until 2 weeks after it was uncovered.
- WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago"hey man, we're all selling our shares, but we can't tell you why"
- kjaftaedi 7y agoIt's sad how obvious this is. Possibly even more obvious than the insider trading at intel prior to the spectre/meltdown public release. This will be forever the legacy of Eric Holder, the man who changed the justice department policy to go after smaller 'fines' as settlements instead of prosecuting crimes.. only because of the simple fact that fines are easy to win, and criminal cases can be lost. Justice is now escapable because it's been deemed "too difficult to pursue"
- mtgx 7y agoNo, Eric holder's legacy will be not going after bankers because that could hurt the economy. His solution was to rather leave the criminals in place instead of suffering any sort of short term pain (if that).
- 50656E6973 7y ago>changed the justice department policy to go after smaller 'fines' as settlements instead of prosecuting crimes.. only because of the simple fact that fines are easy to win, and criminal cases can be lost. This policy change could also perhaps be attributed to lobbyists seeking to maximize profits and minimize risks for corporate clients who are knowingly breaking the law.
- ericmay 7y agoSure, which is the fault of the people and the government, as far as I’m concerned. If an elected official is corrupted or doing something we disagree with, it’s our job to fix it.
- werm82 7y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the job of the SEC to investigate the insider trading, and then call in the DOJ if they deem it necessary to file criminal charges?
- ineedasername 7y agoNot just too difficult, but reinforcing the idea that with enough money, you can buy your way out of trouble.
- oneepic 7y agoI'm confused why they didn't get prosecuted (at least not yet). The CIO actually got fined and sent to prison for insider trading: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/pr/former-equifax-employee-sentenced-insider-trading https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/pr/former-equifax-employee...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gok 7y agoIt's possible they were already planning to make those sales. Executives who can potentially have inside information often need to tell the SEC far ahead of time about sales they intend to make.
- lurker458 7y ago"These sales were not made pursuant to a Rule 10b5–1 trading plan" They didn't report in advance.