Darren's Rovell take on PWCC, etc.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Because you misstated the legal disclosure requirements, and suggested we shouldn't necessarily take the Form 4 at face value when it reports clearly verifiable or falsifiable facts such as when Joe's shares vested and what his trading plan provides - points which you're ignoring. Your analogy to testimony is misplaced in my opinion.

PS I don't think I've distorted what you said. If your only point was people shouldn't speculate, you should have stopped your post right there. The rest of it clearly is insinuating the Form 4 might be false.

And yes I have very serious issues with PSA, and Joe, but that doesn't mean I am going to insinuate Joe is or may be dumping his shares and lying about the reasons or that that's even a possibility based on the documentation I have seen. This is obviously a routine securities transaction, nothing more, and you're being unfair in my opinion insinuating there is some other possibility.

PS I don't think I've distorted what you said. If your point was that people shouldn't speculate you could have ended your post right there. But you went on to suggest the possibility the Form 4 might not be truthful.

10b5-1 trading plans are not ends in and of themselves. They have been criticized as a potential for abuse and it has been reported that there have been SEC investigations regarding their abuse.

Yes, in the great majority of instances a person acting pursuant to one does so for plainly routine and legal reasons. And such might very well be the case here. I do not have any idea what a person is thinking when he/she devises his/her trading plan, and my point remains that I don't believe mention of Joe's sale of his stock was appropriate or relevant.