Wall St:Insider stock selling dwarfs stock buying
4 replies
padre31luxury_boxOPJust when everyone thought we may see some moderation in the wholesale dumping of equities by those who actually know what their companies are worth better than moronic stock pumpers on stations that are rapidly losing their viewership, here come the same insiders and pull the rug right from underneath the latest batch of hot potato recipients (that would be various collocated computers mostly, and involuntary taxpayers course). Two weeks ago, insiders sold "only" 1,169 times more than they bought. Alas, last week selling apparently is the new black again, with selling outpacing buying on the S&P by a factor of 2,018. Insiders in Oracle, GameStop, Google, CSX and General Mills appear to be particularly partial to the new black. Something tells us CNBC will not pick up this particular piece of news.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/insider-selling-buying-update-2019-1
Interesting, how much of that activity is based on knowledge and confidence in a companies future, and how much is simply selling at what may be the best price possible before the 1/1/11 tax bomb drops?
Stringer BellsubscriberI actually believe insider trading should be permitted.
“Come on, shake your body baby, do that conga!”
padre31luxury_box"Stringer Bell wrote:
I actually believe insider trading should be permitted.
No argument from me, as long as such sales are reported in a timely fashion.
If an investor is not interested in whether or not company employees are selling or buying company stock that is their choice.
Stringer Bellsubscriber"padre31 wrote:
No argument from me, as long as such sales are reported in a timely fashion.
If an investor is not interested in whether or not company employees are selling or buying company stock that is their choice.
Well what it comes down to, is exposing fraud. If insider trading were permitted, everyone that owned Enron wouldn't have been as screwed.
“Come on, shake your body baby, do that conga!”
"Stringer Bell wrote:
Well what it comes down to, is exposing fraud. If insider trading were permitted, everyone that owned Enron wouldn't have been as screwed.
I don't know if that would have changed much, to be honest.
Of course if we're going to go to the Enron example, we must remember that all executives of any publicly traded company have to file with the SEC for share sales. If the executive board of Enron didn't hold any shares of stock, one could say that in and of itself was a pretty good signal not to own the stock. If they did own stock but were moving out of it, they'd still have to file.
To be fair, in the grand scheme few people actually knew that Enron was cooking it's books so bad at the time. I don't think insider trading would have changed that entire fiasco as even if you had the executives winding out of what they had left, that stock had high enough volume of trading on a daily basis nothing would have tipped off investors. The problem is all the signals were there, it's just that no one wanted to believe that could happen.
*
Log in to reply.