399
Unity bosses sold stock days before development fees announcement, raising eyebrows
(www.eurogamer.net)
This isn't insider trading?
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
399 points (93.3% liked)
Games
16834 readers
1002 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My friend told me about this earlier and that's exactly what I thought. They knew this wouldn't be popular and would drop the value so they sold before the announcement, that's got to be insider trading
Now the share price will drop and he will buy his share back at a discount. Then they will revert the policy and share prices will rise. Boom! Free monies!
And when it's all said and done, we just have to wait, on our knees, for the trickle down Yay! Unfettered Capitalism working just as intended.
When you think about it, trickle down economics is essentially getting a golden shower from the rich.
Oh, if we're lucky its just a golden shower...
Trickle on me, daddy.
He’s actually sold over 50,000 shares and not bought any. It’s just unloading.
It's too early to buy back.
Read even the text posted in the OP. They’ve been selling all year, likely due to being paid in stock.
They probably have automated sell of dates or automated sell of prices.
This is part of a consistent pattern over the last year.
He probably hasn’t bought any stocks due to receiving stock as part of his employment contract.
It could be insider trading, but considering how companies have been doing pricing structures and rapid shifts from free to subscription based and then seeing sales/profit increase I imagine it’s worth it for them to simply keep the stock long term, but an initial sell off was put in place at a certain price. Sometimes there’s smoke and there’s fire, and sometimes it’s just simply the fumes of capitalism creating a system that’s uniquely imbalanced for everyone else, but isn’t really insider trading.
Not if it is an automated scheduled sell and reported to the SEC.
I feel like a scheduled sell shouldn't mean insider trading investigation is off the table.
Does it really matter if they decided to sell just before they devalue their company, or they devalued their company right after a sell? They knew about both before hand, and they can have the same intent either way.
I suppose, but that's a different crime under a different statute Im guessing. (Tanking the company because gou have a scheduled sell, versus selling because you tanked the company.)
They’ve been consistently selling off stock for the last year as noted in the article. Many of these execs get paid in a combination of cash and shares. To get their full wage they sell shares.
According to the Form 4 filed with this sale, the trade was planned at least as of May 19 using a 10b5-1.
The sales reported on this Form 4 were effected pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan adopted by the Reporting Person on May 19, 2023.
No, as the article says they’ve been doing it all year. Many execs and important employees often get paid a big chunk of their wage in stock. To get cash they need to sell stock.
I think the part where they had a trend of selling over the course of a year makes this not insider trading (or harder to prove if they were playing the long game).
Yes.
Selling 2000 shares while retaining over 3000000 shares seems to indicate that this is for quarterly tax payments, which are due this week.
I'm not defending any actions of Unity.
The author / headline writer are being disingenuous or just clickbait chasing.
quarterly tax payments, which are due this week.
Uhh... Q2 was Jul 31, and Q3 is Oct 31... At least according to my calendar.
Are you sure?
The information in the article is from here:
Having the scumbag of a CEO in the headline may have been a mistake. Riccitiello sold the least shares in the recent transaction history of the company. Also, I don't know where you get your "retaining over 3000000 shares' from. The source says Riccitiello sold all his shares in his possession.
The article mentions two others:
Tomer Bar-Zeev who sold 37.5k shares on 1st September, for around $1.4m. Shlomo Dovrat, meanwhile, sold 68k shares on 30th August for around $2.5m.
Bar-Zeev sold 37500 shares of ~1300000 owned on automated sell. That's a factor of ten and a fair bit away from 2k sold from 3 mil, but that might be normal. It was automated, after all.
Dovrat's transaction is mostly the same, roughly double the shares sold and roughly double the shares owned. However, it was not automated.
I believe the article mentioned them because they sold the most, but they clearly weren't taking the amount retained into account. The third most sold, however, by Robynne Sisco was a sell of 25768, retaining 14700 (sold ~64%).
There are a fair number of other sells, but if the Bar-Zeev and Dovrat sells don't look suspicious, nothing else will stand out.
What does seem a little odd- and I have no idea if this is at all unusual- is that in the last twelve months, more shares have been bought than sold (net shares almost 10,000,000), and in the last 3 months more shares have been sold than bought (net shares almost 3,500,000). In the last 3 months, the number of insider traders is a little over 1/3 of the amount of insider trades over the last 12 months (under the assumption it should be about 1/4). All of the insider buys seem to be the options granted for working for Unity. I assume it isn't too odd for the board of directors to sell and never buy, but they have increased selling a fair bit in the last 3 months, and it seems specifically the last two weeks.
It is right in the SEC filling which anyone can look up. The 2000 shares sold were by the CEOs wife, which is why they are marked as indirect.
$80k is rich people walking around money when compared to ~$100 million. It was part of an automated selling plan and not suspicious in any way.
There's an old Peter Lynch quote about many reasons to sell but only one to buy.
More confusing accounting that I've never learned, and probably never will.
At first I thought it was because of direct/indirect ownership. But what is the point of "5. Amount of Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s) (Instr. 3 and 4)" being 3mil with no transaction, but the 2000 stock transaction showing they owned none? I see nothing on the form or in the definition showing that direct or indirect ownership show be reported differently. They are all owned by the 'reporting person'. But clearly this is all me just not being able to read how they filled it out.
I agree $80k is nothing to $100mil, I do believe that if they have 3mil of securities, then it doesn't matter, no matter how high or low the securities are worth. I disagree with the idea that automation makes it not suspicious, though. If the stocks were all automatically sold off, then the company devalues itself afterwards, it has the same intent and outcome as any other insider trading.
Ok, so the report is on the person (CEO in this case). Only directors and certain executive levels are required to report.
Table I shows 'non-derivative securities' (regular stock). The CEO holds in their own name 3 million+ shares. No transaction was reported for those, but they have to be listed.
The CEO's spouse aquired 2000 shares at a cost of $1.425 each. After this transaction, they had 2000 shares total (column 5).
They then sold those shares for $40 each. After, they weren't holding any stock, so column 5 shows 0.
The CEO financially benefits from this, so the transactions are listed on their form, as (I) for indirect. If the spouse also had a position within Unity which required reporting this would be listed on their own SEC form as well.
Riccitiello made EA the money guzzling shithole it is today. Who thought he might change when he was given the reigns of unity?
Nobody at Unity expected him to change. It was the entire point that this shit heel got to helm the company. The three founders are billionaires now, that’s why. Two years ago one of the founders, Joachim Ante, sold $40million in stock. They dgaf anymore they just keep selling.
Remember when he wanted to charge players per digital bullet fired in FPS games?
SEC has entered the chat
"Oh no! Not the eyebrow raise! We'll never do it again! We promise!"
Curious to see if he actually buys any of it back, then that’s an issue. Pump stock and sell high, tank it to buy low.
CEO runs his business like a business that makes him money. This and more at 10.
The irony of a bunch software devs about to sue the shit out of Unity to get EULAs invalidated.
It's almost like they knew it was a shitty decision...
First thought: If this was done on purpose, don't these people know how many bigwigs get caught. Like, all the time. Even martha stewart got caught. Jeeze.
Why would they think they would special? One would think they would give it up at this point.
Second thoughts: if CEOs, etc, keep this up, it makes me wonder how many people get away with it all the time, for them to take a chance like that.
Third thought: they really think the consequences for insider trading are less problematic to them than facing jail, and paying a fine up to, what, 3 times the amount they made? That makes no sense. Back to the second thought, I guess.
Reality, is this happens SO OFTEN it is like "speeding" is to normal people... all the CEOs do it. After awhile, they do it worse, eventually you have few doing 100+ mph or someone gets killed. Then the government steps in...
They keep doing it because they know they'll probably get away with it, and if they get caught they'll get a slap on the wrist. Martha Stewart went to jail for perjury, not insider trading. If she hadn't lied she probably would have just paid a fine instead of going to jail.