Nothing out of the ordinary. Guy sold 4m shares over a few months (all of which have to be pre-announced 90 days in advance). Still has over 25m shares.
The administration is trying to find who leaked this to the NY Times originally, which was a form of leaking classified information. Its obvious the recent market correct was kicked off by insider trading like this.
Oddly enough there are two main suspects, Rubio and Bessent or their teams. Bessent has more of a motivation to leak the story so the export controls would have to be enforced. If it turns out to have been traced back to the Treasury dept, the Treasury Secretary days in office are almost up.
Also, why would he be so motivated to leak it? Lower Treasury yields...
the subtlety is that this was knowledge to the US Admin a year ago. reasonably, nvidia adopts the posture that it will sell as many chips as possible to all comers. if the USG blacklisted a company, they would stop immediately
now it emerges that factions within the gov either through malice or negligence or any other reason did not sanction the chinese shell company a full year after it was in the NYT. easy to blame on WH but just as much capitol hill boomer incoherence
jensen is collateral damage of a power struggle between other factions. thats why it was such a surprise for him and the only person really standing up for him is david sacks. tide went out on the midterms
None of these executive can sell company stock on a whim. They are “insiders” and if they want to sell they have to schedule it a year plus out in advance.
Yet another example of the media failing to do the most basic research into the topic they report on.
> In Stevens's case, he didn't have such a trading plan, but that's not necessarily a red flag on its own.
Sounds like it’s not necessarily required and wasn’t followed here?
The format of the article makes it seem like it ends because it has a list of links to other articles but then it continues on. Confusing formatting for sure. And I’m not sure I understood it correctly.
It wasn't under a 10b5-1 plan, but in a large company like Nvidia there is zero chance the guy didn't go through a strict compliance process to document his preplan sales.
When I sold company stock (no where near a board director) there were so many hoops jump through and blackout period (even without seeing insider info) there were only small period you could actually trade.
The idea a board director, who is under an SEC microscope, didn't check all the boxes is just silly. Without an 10b5-1 plan (which provides an affirmative defenese), he has to prove his own innocence. Even without insider trading he's at risk of being convicted because someone didn't like his trades.
Just pointing out that even with the notice there is still room for shenanigans.
Think about what the denominator might be.
Oddly enough there are two main suspects, Rubio and Bessent or their teams. Bessent has more of a motivation to leak the story so the export controls would have to be enforced. If it turns out to have been traced back to the Treasury dept, the Treasury Secretary days in office are almost up.
Also, why would he be so motivated to leak it? Lower Treasury yields...
the subtlety is that this was knowledge to the US Admin a year ago. reasonably, nvidia adopts the posture that it will sell as many chips as possible to all comers. if the USG blacklisted a company, they would stop immediately
now it emerges that factions within the gov either through malice or negligence or any other reason did not sanction the chinese shell company a full year after it was in the NYT. easy to blame on WH but just as much capitol hill boomer incoherence
jensen is collateral damage of a power struggle between other factions. thats why it was such a surprise for him and the only person really standing up for him is david sacks. tide went out on the midterms
Yet another example of the media failing to do the most basic research into the topic they report on.
Do better yahoo news!
> In Stevens's case, he didn't have such a trading plan, but that's not necessarily a red flag on its own.
Sounds like it’s not necessarily required and wasn’t followed here?
The format of the article makes it seem like it ends because it has a list of links to other articles but then it continues on. Confusing formatting for sure. And I’m not sure I understood it correctly.
When I sold company stock (no where near a board director) there were so many hoops jump through and blackout period (even without seeing insider info) there were only small period you could actually trade.
The idea a board director, who is under an SEC microscope, didn't check all the boxes is just silly. Without an 10b5-1 plan (which provides an affirmative defenese), he has to prove his own innocence. Even without insider trading he's at risk of being convicted because someone didn't like his trades.