[steve B]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

While I agree that one should not speculate why an officer decides to sell his shares, in the same fashion I would not put too much stock (no pun intended) into the accuracy of his/her legally mandated public explanation. If the real reason is concern that the price is about to plummet, regardless whether for known or as not yet publicly disclosed information, the officer is unlikely to list that as the motivating reason. In saying this, I am in no way implying that is the explanation for the sale in this instance, but simply opining that a publicly disclosed sale and explanation in and of itself means very little and that no inferences should be drawn from it.

Bob, as to your question whether PWCC ultimately decides to invoke the PSA grading guaranty and seek reimbursement from PSA, I think they would have a lot of trouble doing that. The guaranty proscribes the original submitter from invoking it. So to the extent that the cards at issue were cards Moser bought from PWCC and then had PWCC submit for grading, by the technical wording of the guaranty, PWCC would be out of luck. If Moser on the other hand was the person who submitted them to PSA, I suspect PSA would still resist payment arguing that PWCC and Moser were in cahoots over the doctoring scheme and therefore should be legally regarded as one and the same.

So PSA saying that people should take the card back to the dealer is worse than I'd thought. It's not circumventing their own guarantee to avoid some liability. It's circumventing their guarantee to avoid all liability.