• conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    This has nothing in common with insider trading and doesn't resemble it in any way. The shares he sold weren't a relevant proportion of his ownership. He didn't sell then deliberately tank them. He sold then announced something he thought would improve the value of his big stake in the company. The decision almost definitely cost him a lot of money by substantially lowering the trajectory of his company's ability to maintain market share.

    • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      He sold then announced something he thought would improve the value of his big stake in the company.

      In what universe?

      • Revan343@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        If he didn't think the announcement would improve the value of the company, why did they do it?

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Exactly. It was plopping his dick on the table, then realizing "oh shit, no one actually is impressed by this".

          Insider trading would be more "I know we're about to get sued for this egregious fuckup and have no defense, so I'm going to sell before the news leaks". Strategy knowledge can be part of insider trading, but it would tend to be more buying shares because you have advanced knowledge that a highly lucrative contract has been signed before the announcement. It would be harder to have selling because of a strategy decision be insider trading unless you were opposed to it internally, because decisions you make are intended to make the shareholders (you) money.