6 ms·
my company has the same rules, and i’d expect any publicly traded company that doesn't want to see their stock drop due to insiders activity or lawsuits against
by ek750 7y ago
my company has the same rules, and i’d expect any publicly traded company that doesn't want to see their stock drop due to insiders activity or lawsuits against it would do the same.
i think it’s fair, you’re not restricted from trading other companies. this prevents unethical people from taking advantage of insider knowledge.
- walshemj 7y agooutside of c levels the average employee wont have enough stock to make this aplicable
- nullc 7y agoI've never seen it before and I've seen the employment agreements for several fortune 500 companies-- though perhaps it's something that's only become common in the last ten years. Obviously, restrictions on "restricted insiders" driven out of federal law exist... but I'm referring to restrictions that would prevent you from programmatically hedging your employment risks. You're not going to have an insider trading problem from such a program. As far as fair goes-- it's fair if they compensate you for the loss of that freedom, otherwise it isn't. It's up to you to figure out what compensation is fair. Employment is an extremely large undiversified risk. Through no fault of your own the company could go tits up with little notice, leaving you seeking new employment at the same time as many other people. Unemployment benefits are a rounding error for highly compensated employees. For good reason, you're generally prohibited from having alternative concurrent employment which would be the obvious way to reduce employment risk. It's prudent to take actions to hedge this risk. If the company takes one of the avenues off the table for that they it compensate you for or provide an alternative (like a good severance agreement).