Pfizer CEO selling shares

[HeffDoesWant]

It’s funny that people like you actually exist. Dude sold on a $6 per share bounce and the prices have done nothing but fall since. There’s just no helping you folks in the Dunning Kruger valley,

My point dear sir is that when executives dump huge portions of their holdings its a MASSIVE red flag.
It's a standard consideration for a professional investor.

Usually they go to great lengths to explain why they did it so as not to upset the market price, as no 2 ways about it it looks bad.

Its very very very rare for a ceo to dump 60% of his holdings on a single day.
Can you provide another example?


Edit, the "$6 jump" is near meaningless the number of interest is "15% jump". But even that pales in significance to the real story which is "60% of his holdings"

 

[Gunny]

My point dear sir is that when executives dump huge portions of their holdings its a MASSIVE red flag.
It's a standard consideration for a professional investor.

Usually they go to great lengths to explain why they did it so as not to upset the market price, as no 2 ways about it it looks bad.

Its very very very rare for a ceo to dump 60% of his holdings on a single day.
Can you provide another example?

You’re not owed any examples. The sale was perfectly legal and the thread is a nothingburger. You’ll come to realize that soon enough. From Pfizer’s statement...

"The sale of these shares is part of Dr. Bourla's personal financial planning and a pre-established (10b5-1) plan, which allows, under SEC rules, major shareholders and insiders of exchange-listed corporations to trade a predetermined number of shares at a predetermined time," Pfizer said.

"Through our stock plan administrator, Dr. Bourla authorized the sale of these shares on August 19, 2020, provided the stock was at least at a certain price."

 

[Jack V Savage]

You’re not owed any examples. The sale was perfectly legal and the thread is a nothingburger. You’ll come to realize that soon enough. From Pfizer’s statement...

"The sale of these shares is part of Dr. Bourla's personal financial planning and a pre-established (10b5-1) plan, which allows, under SEC rules, major shareholders and insiders of exchange-listed corporations to trade a predetermined number of shares at a predetermined time," Pfizer said.

"Through our stock plan administrator, Dr. Bourla authorized the sale of these shares on August 19, 2020, provided the stock was at least at a certain price."

You're all wrong, IMO, you a little less so. Not unreasonable to think that he'd set a price threshold that took into account the news dropping later. It's naive to think that 10b5-1 plans mean that execs aren't trading on the basis of material, non-public information. Look at the NVTL situation. Though contrasting how it happened at NVTL with this shows why there's no reason to be alarmed here. In that case, you had all five proxy-named execs dumping almost everything they had on an incredibly accelerated schedule. While here, you have one guy selling a decent chunk of his ownership, but not comparable.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

You’re not owed any examples. The sale was perfectly legal and the thread is a nothingburger. You’ll come to realize that soon enough. From Pfizer’s statement...

"The sale of these shares is part of Dr. Bourla's personal financial planning and a pre-established (10b5-1) plan, which allows, under SEC rules, major shareholders and insiders of exchange-listed corporations to trade a predetermined number of shares at a predetermined time," Pfizer said.

"Through our stock plan administrator, Dr. Bourla authorized the sale of these shares on August 19, 2020, provided the stock was at least at a certain price."

I have no idea of American laws on the subject.

My point is exclusively that it is a very bad sign for a company when the CEOs chooses to dump 60% of his stock.

Any legal trouble he faces afterwards means SFA to me, im interested in things that affect me like a covid vaccine and the share market.

 

[Mcountry]

I love that you spent 20 minutes writing this. Have a rotten day.

Guy. You are a double yellow card walking a tight rope slinging personal insults on a mod...

"Rules
Flaming- There are limits to the mild flaming that is allowed in the War Room. If you find your posts only containing flaming, you'll likely receive infractions. This is a form of derailment in which you are no longer discussing the topic at hand and choosing to just personally attack another poster."

God speed lil doodle.

 

[mkess101]

Yeah you're a completely illiterate imbecile, as usual, rofl.

Actually, the way you constructed your sentence would absolutely imply that you'd view his transaction as a financial crime. Albeit one that you believe is "not a big deal". Go reread what you wrote.

You then clarified in your next post by saying you meant you are glad people are caring about the "concept" of financial crimes. Which is fine, but that's not how your original post was worded. So calling someone else illiterate in this instance...bad form, kid.

 

[Fawlty]

If he sold after the news of the vaccine then I don't see the issue.

Holding those shares, if they expect the vaccine to make it to market first, would be a massively horrible financial decision. It only jumped less than 6 points. So people are going to be skeptical of whether they are being totally honest about their vaccine. Obviously if he's trading on public perception, that's not illegal.

 

[brackis1]

Actually, the way you constructed your sentence would absolutely imply that you'd view his transaction as a financial crime. Albeit one that you believe is "not a big deal". Go reread what you wrote.

You then clarified in your next post by saying you meant you are glad people are caring about the "concept" of financial crimes. Which is fine, but that's not how your original post was worded. So calling someone else illiterate in this instance...bad form, kid.

No, the way I structured it made it pretty clearly to anyone who doesn't drool fulltime, that the concept of financial crimes being an issue to people is a good thing after prefacing that with a comment about a stock sale being a minor thing.

There is a chance it's a financial crime. Just like there's a chance I didn't prepay for my Chipotle when I walked in and grabbed an order off the to-go rack without checking with the staff first.
You're the child here barely discussing a derivative portion of a topic lol.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Holding those shares, if they expect the vaccine to make it to market first, would be a massively horrible financial decision. It only jumped less than 6 points. So people are going to be skeptical of whether they are being totally honest about their vaccine. Obviously if he's trading on public perception, that's not illegal.

Definitely nothing illegal. The question is just what, if anything, he's saying with the sale. Could be "I need five million cash right now." Could be, "I have too much of my portfolio invested in PFE." Could be "those suckers bid the price up and I better get out now before everyone finds out." The fact that the sale was executed pursuant to a trading plan doesn't affect this all that much. For one thing, he might have known when he implemented the plan that price would spike here. For another, the SEC has ruled that canceling a plan isn't insider trading (no trade=not insider trading), though there is a good-faith clause designed to prevent people from, like, constantly implementing and canceling plans unless there's a good reason to dump (companies internally discourage cancelation of plans, though). Not sure if that's ever been invoked, though. Anyway, if anyone's acting on the basis of this trade, I think they're making a mistake, and at this point, there's nowhere near enough evidence to say he did anything remotely wrong.

 

[mkess101]

No, the way I structured it made it pretty clearly to anyone who doesn't drool fulltime, that the concept of financial crimes being an issue to people is a good thing after prefacing that with a comment about a stock sale being a minor thing.

There is a chance it's a financial crime. Just like there's a chance I didn't prepay for my Chipotle when I walked in and grabbed an order off the to-go rack without checking with the staff first.
You're the child here barely discussing a derivative portion of a topic lol.

No asshat, you worded it in a way that anyone who's not a window licker like yourself would assume you were referring to it as a financial crime. Then tried to clarify by adding a word in your next post.

I tried being somewhat cordial but you just had to double down on your stupidity because your sad little pride is incapable of taking a hit. Even on an internet forum LMAO.

Normally I wouldn't wish for someone to be banned, I've reported exactly zero people here in 13 years or however long I've been here. But hell, if @Madmick decided to give your dumb ass the boot he'd be more than justified.

 

[drstrangelov]

I’m a little bit familiar with Pfizer’s internal compliance rules around stock sales by employees, basically from a few weeks before the analysis he was outright prohibited from buying or selling any Pfizer shares, that prohibition lifts after the results of a major development trial go public.

I’m not sure how standard that is, but given the nature of the science, and the possibility of leaks before formal analysis, Pfizer is pretty rigid about covering their asses around insider trading.

It would be a bigger concern if he bought in the week prior when shares were low, knowing the vaccine results would lift them.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I’m a little bit familiar with Pfizer’s internal compliance rules around stock sales by employees, basically from a few weeks before the analysis he was outright prohibited from buying or selling any Pfizer shares, that prohibition lifts after the results of a major development trial go public.

Wouldn't a plan get around that, though? Varies from company to company, but I think most companies allow trading plans to drive sales during a blackout period.

 

[drstrangelov]

Wouldn't a plan get around that, though? Varies from company to company, but I think most companies allow trading plans to drive sales during a blackout period.

The plan is subject to delays based upon release of material information, this probably qualifies. I’m operating on the assumption that the massive downgrading of some oncology assets (combined with covid) over the summer drove the plan and the sell off, which was basically a research outcomes driven price cliff, so stricter interpretation here. I could be wrong, but the additional vaccine franchise income won’t offset the losses relative to lily in breast cancer, so sell high on the news.

 

[chardog]

When you think your company is about to make billions of dollars you don't go unload stock right before it happens.

you can always buy back after initial hype. Avid traders do this all the time, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. I figure if other companies start jumping the wagon and releasing vaccines, pfizer would drop. All I can do is speculate, and the wife and I do this on a daily basis. Dropped out zoom shares as soon as the election was over, simply because I speculated that schools would plan to be in session again (they did the friday following, and it tanked 100 points).

I'll acknowledge that when a CEO of a trillion dollar company does it, raised eyebrows is the right reaction.

 

[Benjamin Burton]

The ceo made a smart move. He told trump back then a vaccine was coming this year, trump said it (libs called him a retard) stock pumps, vaccines announced, sell share.