this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
369 points (92.2% liked)

Gaming

20015 readers
929 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hayes_@sh.itjust.works 74 points 1 year ago (1 children)

These stories are so dumb/intentionally misleading/outrage bait.

Executives have predefined stock sale schedules at regular intervals. This allows them to convert their equity to cash and avoid conflicts of interest. That is, it’s hard to gain an advantage over the market when you sell exactly the same amount every month for the next 4 years.

Where was everyone’s outrage the other 99% of times this guy sold exactly the same amount of stock?

[–] CluelessLemmyng@lemmy.sdf.org 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So they could just time the announcements after their scheduled sell-off?

[–] hayes_@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

The point is this is one sale of many.

Yes, hypothetically the CEO could influence the date an announcement is made for their own personal gain, but it’s not worth it and there will be many more sell events in the future.

Long run, trying to scheme an announcement to gain more at 1/100 sales isn’t worth it.

CEO John Riccitiello shifted 2000 shares last week on 6th September, … part of a trend over the past year where the exec has sold more than 50,000 shares in total and bought none.

This is a drop in his equity bucket and any gains this article implies are due to “insider trading” will disappear in subsequent events.

[–] s20@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

Seems like if they wanted to avoid this sort of suspicion, they'd time the announcement for either right before or nowhere near when the scheduled sale would take place.

But then they wouldn't get to feel like a Bond villain, so…