Hacker News Reader

Comment by sooheon | Hacker News Reader

Unless the advance scheduling is completely binding, I don't see why that should sidestep insider trading. What's to stop these guys from always having a cascading series of sells and buys 6 mo. in advance, and just cancelling them?

View on HN

SEC rules also cover cancellation of orders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Rule_10b5-1#A_possible_loo...

What is to "stop these guys" is the legal parties and officials involved have brains that they can use. The engineer idea of "mwa ha ha, I found a bug, I can walk" is rarely true in practice (n.b.: having quite a lot of money is a different kind of exception).

Basically this: https://xkcd.com/1494/

A good rule of thumb is that if you think you've discovered a loophole that would allow insider trading, and it only took you a few moments of thinking, the SEC thought of it already.

What, they are never allowed to sell shares then? There are constantly bugs being found in major software and hardware.

Surely this is a material design defect that anyone would expect to hurt Intel's business in a very significant way.

>Unless the advance scheduling is completely binding

It gets filed with the SEC so should be suitably permanent

The orders registered with the SEC and all these cancellations would attract a lot of their attention. I have no doubt they would see through it pretty easily once they started investigating

Reply on news.ycombinator.com