SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Ashton Technology (ASTN)

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (2337)8/16/1999 5:00:00 PM
From: jsavage  Read Replies (2) of 4443
 
auric,
Thanks for the links! Three small problems: a) I don't and won't subscribe to the first link to access the "sale" . b) as copied from that sites "definitions";
An Insider
When the U.S. Congress of 1934 legislated the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) into existence to protect individual investors, it realized that corporate executives had an unfair advantage when trading their own companies' shares. But these pols also realized that they could not ban such transactions. Even then, shares were used as incentives for employees, and who would start a public company if they couldn't participate in its success?
In lieu of banning insider transactions, the Congress dictated disclosure. If insiders did trade, they would have to fill out a form and tell the world about it.

According to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, an insider is defined as an officer or director of a public company, or an individual or entity owning 10% or more of any class of a company's shares. The definition in all its legal speak is given in Section 16 of the 1934 Act. There are further words sparred on how more specifically to define an "officer" and "beneficial owner" in Rule 16a"-1" of the Code of Federal Regulations. Though both are lovely pieces of prose, be content with the knowledge that the definition of an insider is intended to cover the people who have the most knowledge of the inner workings and future prospects of a publicly traded company.



Says right there:
"But these pols also realized that they could not ban such transactions. Even then, shares were used as incentives for employees, and who would start a public company if they couldn't participate in its success? "

So what is the big deal with this particular sale?

And the third and final "problem"; I did locate and read the NY Times article but I never saw ASTN mentioned as you implied by the format of this post:
Message 10969931

Thanks again for the links and the attempt to justify what you do, it was, however, unsuccessful. I will stop asking you for the links though! <GGGGGGGG>
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext