It was probably part of his contract. It wasn’t $40 when he sold it. As probably allowed by his contract, he sold it back to the company and bought it back for pennies. It’s just compensation not some conspiracy on his individual part.
What you said doesn’t make any sense. Either it wasn’t $40 a share when he sold it like you said in this comment or it was $40 a share like you said in the previous comment.
It makes sense if the company had agreed to buy the shares off of him at market rates and then sell him stock back at a significant discount. Doing this would allow him to claim the money gained as capital gains rather than employment income, and it wouldn't count as insider trading if it was an arrangement made and timelines settled upon before the bullshit was planned.
It could be something like having his contract say that the company will buy back X shares when the share price hits $Y in value, for instance.
When you sell your time and labour for a living, you tend to not have any idea about how people who own property for a living get paid. And the ownership class does a pretty good job at misinforming the working class about those details, since it benefits them to be seen as just doing the same things at a different scale.
They want us to believe they're playing baseball in the major leagues while we're on the company softball team, instead of highlighting that they're actually playing poker with a stacked deck.
EonNShadow@pawb.social 1 year ago
Which means he sold at the top, then bought more at the bottom so he can ride the train back up to do the same thing again.
This isn’t a good thing.
nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
Pretty much the dream insider trading plan.
KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s definitely not. It’s probably just a free $80k his contract allowed him to get.
KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It was probably part of his contract. It wasn’t $40 when he sold it. As probably allowed by his contract, he sold it back to the company and bought it back for pennies. It’s just compensation not some conspiracy on his individual part.
dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 1 year ago
What you said doesn’t make any sense. Either it wasn’t $40 a share when he sold it like you said in this comment or it was $40 a share like you said in the previous comment.
Kichae@kbin.social 1 year ago
It makes sense if the company had agreed to buy the shares off of him at market rates and then sell him stock back at a significant discount. Doing this would allow him to claim the money gained as capital gains rather than employment income, and it wouldn't count as insider trading if it was an arrangement made and timelines settled upon before the bullshit was planned.
It could be something like having his contract say that the company will buy back X shares when the share price hits $Y in value, for instance.
Kichae@kbin.social 1 year ago
When you sell your time and labour for a living, you tend to not have any idea about how people who own property for a living get paid. And the ownership class does a pretty good job at misinforming the working class about those details, since it benefits them to be seen as just doing the same things at a different scale.
They want us to believe they're playing baseball in the major leagues while we're on the company softball team, instead of highlighting that they're actually playing poker with a stacked deck.