3 ms·
Why would they care? I really can't think of a rationale for that stance. OTOH why would I presume one should exist?
by aquark 15y ago
Why would they care? I really can't think of a rationale for that stance.
OTOH why would I presume one should exist?
- beagle3 15y agoWell, it's basically a protection against intricate pump-and-dump schemes that include mergers and acquisitions - the rule basically says shares allocated (rather than _bought_ or invested into) need to be held for 6 months. (It is sometimes known as "lockup period", and versions of it exist in many countries). However, the entire allocated stock in this deal is ~1% of the buying company; so this protects no one. Even if all of the allocated shares were sold on day 1, the stock would not have moved more than ~5% as a result. However, the market conditions has caused it to move 40% in a week.