770
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
770 points (99.1% liked)
Games
16407 readers
849 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I wonder if this will result in the shareholders holding the ex-EA CEO accountable for destroying their revenue stream.
Good luck. If the SEC hasn’t already started building a case against him for insider trading, then nothing is going to happen to him. He’ll get a golden parachute and scurry off to ruin some other company.
"Selling shares before the announcement" was a pretty egregious misrepresentation. He has scheduled pre-registered sales on a regular basis because he gets paid partly in stock.
It was always going to be relatively soon after a sale of stock.
As if you can't schedule your announcements to fall just after the scheduled stock sales... Or just before them, if you want.
Just want to add you’re right but what pisses me off is that they still can influence decisions based on this. Let’s say his shares are sold at x day, just do some decisions before that and boom your auto sell share price is now either higher or lower. Only because it’s predetermined they still influence it and SEC now can’t do shit.
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.
In what universe?
If he didn't think the announcement would improve the value of the company, why did they do it?
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.
So he would get a huge bonus from the short term gains, and then dip before the company suffered the long term damages.
You know, that might just make it worse. As in, this wasn't some 5d plot, he genuinely thought this would work.
Don't you bring facts into this! We want to be outraged!
Being serious though, they ought to be investigating whether there were any changes in those sale orders. If they've been the same and unchanged for the last two years or some long period of time, I don't think there's a case. But if they're was an adjustment a month or two ago, that would be very problematic.
I think he might autosell his stock so that wouldn't be insider trading, but since of the board members might.
Ha, yeah, that defense worked so well for Martha Stewart.
This was a board decision, not the CEO as an individual.
They are all equally resonate and if they fire him it's to save face and kick him as a scape goat
Going to need proof of that.
In nearly every company, CEO makes the plan. Board wants a process and results. CEO is the one who spearheads it.
I think you mean a nice golden parachute to reward them for taking the heat, so they can swap in a new expensive face to implement slightly less unpopular fees.
The American dream.
Why, it was THEIR idea in the first place.
Yes, it was their genius idea, if it worked. Must be blamed on somebody else if it does not work.
He resigns. gizmodo