Oh good, this must mean that they'll solve the problem of me not having money by raising the cost of my home and debt incurred from not having enough money.
Please find another way other than raising interest rates again.
You'll have to compete in a saturated market full of people underpaying for a service. If you produce quality work, hopefully you can rise above the masses.
It only looks like insider trading if you forget the definition of insider trading and only read a headline curated to ignore the important details that show small, consistent sales across time regardless of company activities.
If they legit sold their stock because they believed they would lose the value of their asset in the timeframe they were planning on owning it because of their company's policy change, then yes absolutely they should be held accountable.
My argument is that this isn't insider trading, but rather the movement of money for other, legitimate, purposes. I'm not saying it looks good, but it may just be coincidental bad timing that someone wanted to, for instance, pay for a year of their daughter's tuition, or buy their son a home as a wedding present.
A clearer example of insider trading is a politician's husband buying and selling shares of companies prior to public announcements of major government policies, coincidentally the companies directly impacted by those policies which their spouse was involved in enacting.
It's not insider trading because this decision will make the stock price climb in the long term, and any sales would need to be significant to be worth the penalties.
Stock was $39, dropped to $36. $3 difference x 2000 shares sold is a difference of $6000, something considered a rounding error when talking about the sums of money these people have.
This sounds like someone was selling their stocks and buying their kids a house by making small sales to have minimal impacts on stock price, not insider trading.
In reality the people that know their intentions are the ones that pressed the "SELL" button
The small nosedive the stock price took agrees with your assessment. It'll get an emotional reaction from some, but decisions like this are made in the interest of the shareholder, not the consumer - this is a calculated move to generate profit. They decided that the losses of people abandoning the product will be outweighed by the profits of this new revenue steam.
The stock is down 5.5% today. It's down 6% from a week ago.
The stock is up 0.5% from a month ago, and up a whopping 32% from 6 months ago.
It's down 50% from five years ago.
What I'm getting at is that this announcement has very little movement on the stock price overall. Unless these bosses were clearing out their inventory thinking this news would kill the company, its possible these sales were normal transactions.
We're in a strange new world where authority yields to party over country. It's ingrained so well now that it'll get a lot worse before people rise up to regain country over party.
I had to bump start my first car for a period of time. It was a challenge to always find a hill to park on. Another cool trick was shifting gears without using the clutch by rev matching.
Oh good, this must mean that they'll solve the problem of me not having money by raising the cost of my home and debt incurred from not having enough money.
Please find another way other than raising interest rates again.