>Notice that for long term shareholders that didn't panic, this whole affair has ended up pretty much a non-event.
The NYT article was time stamped 4:02, so obviously the writer was able to read, digest, and gush. In the meantime all the other tippees (g) were selling like crazy.
I suspect that there was prior disclosure to reporters, subject to embargo. My evidence for this is that ABC News first aired teasers for their story several days ago. So they had the benefit of discussions with the principal investigators.>
Peter, I suspect that only reporters and investment community people acted to effect the stock price. It just doesn't make sense that physicians (JAMA subscribers) read the article as soon as it arrived in their offices, misinterpreted it, and drove the price down. What seems much more likely is that unknowledgable secondary consumers of JAMA read only a little, or heard about it with limited understanding, and did a knee-jerk in the market, which was quickly corrected as more information got out.
The bottom line is that very few JAMA subscribers are likely to have violated the embargo, though others obviously did.
Some of those exploited the situation by putting out false negatives, and (probably) buying 'em back. I'd like to see the SEC look into that. Of course, I also dream of going to heaven-:) |
