What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
99 Comments
- ZombieNixon, on 10/12/2007, -12/+65This isn't really Insider Trading, but trading by people inside the company. The distinction may seem slight, but is important.
Although it does seem there is alot of selling going on. - szelij, on 10/12/2007, -11/+47It's not insider trading. Its trading by insiders...the distinction is CRUCIAL. The former is illegal and is based on knowledge that other people don't have. Let's say you know that Glaxosmithkline is going to have a major drug rejected by the FDA by an informer, so you sell your gsk stocks before the news hits-that's illegal. But if you're just in the company and you just think there's a huge probability that its going to be rejected and then you sell-it's not illegal.
Google folks are selling now because google stocks are near the $500-$600 ceiling. - BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -10/+32This is in fact insider trading. "Insider Trading" can refer to both the legal trading and illegal trading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading - cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Goes off the chart? Have you actually looked at the axis? I hope you don't mean the last line from May to June, it simply means they havent included the June transactions yet and that's why it's marked 0.
- rotten777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19$2,441,128,000.00 in the last 6 months by "other officers"
That's incredible.
I'd only have to work for 61028 years to make that kind of money....
/me leaves to go play in traffic - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18@ SZ
you're wrong. the SEC defines this as insider trading.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19"Oh it's on wiki, it must be acurrate, ;) just kidding."
well, you could always go by the page heading or, you could ask the SEC
http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15The reason for the 0 is because as of today several executives swapped their Class A (10:1 votes) stock for Class C stock which counts as an "acquisition". Non-voting stock has less roadblocks towards mass selling than voting stock does.
Negative == selling, positive == acquisitions. Look closely at the axis labels. - k3n85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12down ... http://www.duggmirror.com/technology/Google_Insider_Trading_Goes_Off_the_Charts_(Literally)/
- btipling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13It's probably all the employees selling their stock options while the going is good.
- sho222, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16It's so sad to see that this has been dugg to the front page... "Oh wow, look, the chart hasn't been updated yet and shows a line from a large negative number to 0! Wow, zero is way off the chart!" BloodJunkie is LITERALLY an idiot. Same for those who digg this without understanding what the chart means. Take his advice: "take a look for yourself" and then mark this story as inaccurate.
- iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13it's insider trading as defined by the SEC you idiots.
http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm - kurrent, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16*gets out bubble maker*
- TheThirdWheel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12This is basically a copy paste from the June 1st posting at F***edgoogle.com. Normally I wouldn't care but I like that site.
- lordanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8To anyone that said this is not insider trading and to those that feel that this post is libelous, you represent one the largest problems facing digg. People who speak without knowledge as if it is the truth. The definition provided for Insider Trading from the Wikipedia is the correct definiton. Insider Trading is not simply this illegal action that you have heard about, and your definition is flawed and incomplete. To the idiots who said this is libelous, there is absolutely nothing harmful or untrue with this headline. Grow up.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8they re two different thngs with the same name.. Well actually just one thing just some people do it illegally.
Unfortunately that didnt invent a term to disguinish the two.
so illegal insider trading and insider trading are both insider trading. - twertyto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The graph is not totally clear. Can someone explain the meaning of the data plotted on the 'y-axis'?
- rileyjt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If this kind of behavior suprises anyone, they've never followed a successful IPO before. It is pretty much garunteed to happen as employees look to diversify their holdings. It usually does put a crimp in the stock price for a little while at least but it really is not an indication of how the company is doing. (not that I would buy Google at their current share price).
- lordanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Not at all, there are just many different rules and regulations that must be followed.
(from the SEC definition)
"Insider trading" is a term that most investors have heard and usually associate with illegal conduct. But the term actually includes both legal and illegal conduct. The legal version is when corporate insiders—officers, directors, and employees—buy and sell stock in their own companies. When corporate insiders trade in their own securities, they must report their trades to the SEC.
Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include "tipping" such information, securities trading by the person "tipped," and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information. - chrisgac, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12@ BloodJunkie:
Not all employees are considered insiders. I not I'm not at my company. I may get hold of information that might make me an insiders, but I don't have to do any SEC filings and I am not on any lists of insiders. Non-employee trade usually wouldn't get reported on such a sight, though. I'd check but the sight is diggdead. - fatb0b, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yeah it's just people selling their stock options. May 31st is the end of a fiscal period and outstanding stock options must be exercised before that date or they are lost. Same deal with the company I work for. And I agree this post is very misleading.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6geez do people even read the comments.. how many people are going to claim this isnt insider trading when the very people tht define the term say it is..
FOlks there is a difference between illegal insider trading and legal insider trading but it uses the same term.
My mom hs been a stock broker all her life and she watches insider trading and believe me she isnt watching something illegal. - ha1fway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I believe the word you're looking for here is "joke"
- twertyto, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8trillian years? How long is that? Friday morning math AND spelling for sure.
- koick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Because it's better than a 20% loss. Also, he gets to write-off those losses on his taxes. Finally, when you have THAT much @#$*% money, who cares? (o: By the way, these could be quarterly/yearly scheduled sales, or some other explanation besides "he knows something we don't"....
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It's marked inaccurate because there's no other way to mod down an entire article.
There are legions of Google fanboys on here, just like slashdot, who rabidly attack anyone who says anything negative about Google.
The article should be titled "Insider SALES go off the charts", to be accurate.
Last year Google employees sold more stock than the next 199 public companies in silicon valley combined. That's not a typo.
Google execs even sold 3 times as much stock as Microsoft- a company that while not in silicon valley, still had more than 10x the profit that Google did.
Quite simply- no stock in tech history has ever seen insiders sell so much, so quickly.
You can excuse it by saying "it's pre-planned, they were FORCED to sell, they had no choice" or "if i were in their shoes i'd do it to" but that's pretty weak logic. Those "pre-defined sales plans" by the way, are not public and there's no verification by the SEC or anyone else that they actually exist- there's a big scandal brewing about the whole issue.
And don't even get me started about the scandal of back-dating options so that all the top execs get their options grants on the exact day of the 52 week low for their stock. hundreds of tech companies are apparently guilty of doing that.. - flea2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4http://www.secform4.com/insider/showhistory.php?cik=goog
- shortkid422, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Come on stock split!
- LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4whoa...Page Lawrence unloaded $54 million+ in stock in one sale....damn...I'd say something is up...
- djspike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I also found this in Form4Oracle's FAQ
http://www.form4oracle.com/guide-faq
"Isn't insider trading illegal?
No. Corporate executives and other insiders can legally buy and sell shares of their own company's stock as long as they do so without benefit of material non-public information. To ensure that they comply with this rule, insiders must report all transactions involving their own company's stock to the SEC on a Form 4." - keane, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16because the submitter used the word "literally", i have no choice but to mark this inaccurate.
- xavi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I don't think you accounted for compound interest. It would only about 545 years at 2% interest to make 2,441,128,000 dollars if you invest 40,000 every year.
- smb3d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'd like to be the reciepient of one of the several "gifts" of ~11,000 shares that Eric Schmidt has given away.
- TTLKurtis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think it's funny how like a whole page length is:
SCHMIDT, ERIC E -> selling muchos stockos
SCHMIDT, ERIC E -> selling muchos stockos
SCHMIDT, ERIC E -> selling muchos stockos
SCHMIDT, ERIC E -> selling muchos stockos... and so on
heh.... i wonder if eric is diversifying his portfolio, or buying lots of cool stuff. what do you think?
i think he must OBVIOUSLY be building a giant swimming pool and filling it with money. and pudding. can't forget the pudding. - djspike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is how the site (Form4Oracle.com) describes what you are looking at:
http://www.form4oracle.com/guide-introduction - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3was it illegal fo martha stewart to sell her stock?? no but it was illegal that she got a tip from an insider and acted on it.
- syberghost, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Not only inaccurate, but since you're effectively accusing people of a committing a crime and you're doing it in print, libelous.
- csimpkins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Forget the chart. Look at the Transactions. Most of that activity is from one person on one day: Eric Schmidt. Chairman of the Executive Committee and CEO.
http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html#eric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt - BloodJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Of course they're automatic sales. However, personally I get a real kick out of the idea of Eric Schmidt sitting in his office all day pressing an oversized novelty "I'm Feeling Lucky" button every couple of minutes.
- ha1fway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2he's right in that the guy isn't deciding to sell stock every 20 minutes, but its not like he has no control over if he holds or sells, and they've all been dumping pretty evenly
Insider Purchases - Last 6 Months
Purchases N/A
Sales 7,645,870
Net Shares Purchased (Sold) (7,645,870)
Total Insider Shares Held 87.28M
% Net Shares Purchased (Sold) (8.1%)
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/71/1043.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Drop in the bucket" ?
First of all, you sound like every paid wall street shill that ever tried to explain away massive insider selling.
Second of all- the top three execs have sold over 5 billion dollars worth of stock in the last 12 months. How is that a "drop in the bucket" ? On what planet? That amount of money has thrown those guys into the top 100 wealthiest people in the world! If they were to try and sell every single share of stock they owned, the stock would crater and they'd all be screwed.
Using your logic, if they were to grant themselves 1 trillion shares tomorrow, then nobody should worry if they were to the next day sell every single share they had last week.. because after all, they still have plenty of shares left!
Anybody who calls selling 5 billion dollars of stock "a drop in the bucket" has got to be working for Google, or else hoping they one day will be able to pull of such a heist themselves. Are you aware google has only made 1.9 billion dollars of profit combined, since the day it was founded?
If it had remained a private company there's no way the execs could have made this much money, even if they took 100% of every penny of profit and put it in their bank account.
The reason they're making this kind of cash is because of STUPID INVESTORS WHO DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO MATH. That's the whole reason they went public in the first place. - rain9441, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Xavi: If you account for inflation, in 545 years, what was 2,441,128,000 dollars now may be worth 1,700,000,000,000,000 then (at 2.5% constant inflation rate, which wont happen). Thus investing 40,000 every year at 2% is actually pretty much throwing your money away!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Topher
Braaains. BRAAAAAINS! - ki1022, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3One thing I dont get is why their CFO is selling a ton of shares at an 8% loss...
- sleze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wow...there was -700,000 THOUSAND activity at the beginning of may and then 0 activity at the end of May.
What is -700,000 THOUSAND activity? Does it mean shares traded? Does it mean dollars acquired? This must have been a graph similar to the ones that Morton Thiokol's engineers used to show that the booster rocket O-rings were no good at low temperatures.
There are lies, damn lies and there are statistics. - snowballs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Usually a stock split will put blocks of shares in a more reasonable range to encourage trading. A $40 stock will trade more frequently than a $100 stock.
- PaulOwen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There's no evidence yet that this is illegal activity.
If google discloses news that could damage the share price soon, then it could be investigated by the SEC however, and rightly so.
Just because the article is negative about google doesn't mean it should be marked inaccurate though. - The_Dude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not a paid schill at all for the record. I was referring to ha1fway's statistics. 8% of the insider shares were sold. In total there are 303 million shares outstanding. His statistics show almost 8 million shares sold. That's the drop in the bucket I was referring to. Look at this: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GOOG The daily volume of the stock traded daily is almost 7 million shares. In one day, almost the same amount of Google stock is sold as what these insiders sold over 6 months.
Why would anyone expect them to buy at this price? Just because they are insiders and it's some kind of obligation on their part?
They are just exhibiting rational economic behavior. They are loaded with so much stock and the price is so high, it's a no brainer. It doesn't mean something nefarious is going on or that they don't believe in the company.
Could it mean that they think the stock is fairly priced now at these levels or even overpriced? Well that's part of the reason people look at insider activity. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+56 trillion = 6000000000000
60 thousand = 60000
Pretty hard to get those two mixed up :| - tickle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.secform4.com/insider/showhistory.php?cik=goog is much more intuitive
-
Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is