689
The Unity Games That Could be Impacted Most by Controversial Fees, From Silksong to Cult of the Lamb - IGN (www.ign.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
200 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The CEO did sell a bunch of shares before this was announced, I hear.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That's clickbait journalism.

    He sold 2000 shares for $40/share, which he then immediately bought back for $1.42/share.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/screener/insider/RICCITIELLO%20JOHN%20S

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Which means he sold at the top, then bought more at the bottom so he can ride the train back up to do the same thing again.

    This isn't a good thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It was probably part of his contract. It wasn't $40 when he sold it. As probably allowed by his contract, he sold it back to the company and bought it back for pennies. It's just compensation not some conspiracy on his individual part.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago*

    When you sell your time and labour for a living, you tend to not have any idea about how people who own property for a living get paid. And the ownership class does a pretty good job at misinforming the working class about those details, since it benefits them to be seen as just doing the same things at a different scale. Insights into the actual process of their compensation will look like some sort of conspiratorial scheme because... Well, because it is. It's just not the one people will tend to tie it to. And it's not an illegal one.

    They want us to believe they're playing baseball in the major leagues while we're on the company softball team, instead of highlighting that they're actually playing poker with a stacked deck against a casino they own.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    What you said doesn't make any sense. Either it wasn't $40 a share when he sold it like you said in this comment or it was $40 a share like you said in the previous comment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    It makes sense if the company had agreed to buy the shares off of him at market rates and then sell him stock back at a significant discount. Doing this would allow him to claim the money gained as capital gains rather than employment income, and it wouldn't count as insider trading if it was an arrangement made and timelines settled upon before the bullshit was planned.

    It could be something like having his contract say that the company will buy back X shares when the share price hits $Y in value, for instance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    I guarantee you his contract looks like something like this, "If you meet X performance metric, the company will buy N amount of shares (maximum 2000) back at the maximum/average stock price within Y days and sell you back the amount of shares sold (maximum 2000) for Z dollars."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent