If he reveals key sales data to myself, an outsider who works for another large silicon valley tech company, then he'd be in trouble for insider trading laws, regardless of whether I did anything with the information. If I did anything with the information other than report it to authorities, then I'd be charged against those same laws. My company makes all of us do training classes on the subject and I'm sure he's had training on the subject too.
Just because you heard it at some corporate seminar does not make it so.
First, the SEC can do nothing to you or Dave unless you actually traded securities based on the information. They have absolutely no power or standing to do anything if you did nothing with the information. They'd be laughed off the court. (It is not illegal to receive information, only to act upon it.)
Second, it seems to me that your company is making the SEC a bogeyman just to get its employees to not reveal corporate information that they do not want revealed -- your company could, however, fire you (and Amazon, Dave) for something like that. Don't blame the SEC for that.
More importantly, I should have added the "/sarcasm" tag to my original post, I guess -- sorry about that. To be explicit about it, I was making the implied point that (i) Amazon does not reveal numbers for Kindle, so there's no way for us to know whether the Kindle is doing well or not; (ii) Most tablet makers provide data, but only for 'shipments'; (iii) Apple is the only company that not only provides shipments data, but also channel inventory data, so we can infer actual sales; (iv) I surmise that Amazon does not reveal its numbers because Kindle sales are not as good as everyone claims it is; (v) I agree that Amazon will come down hard on anyone (Dave included) who reveals such information.
What I meant is that they were reviewed well. I don't know sales numbers and I doubt Dave would tell me if I asked (major SEC violation). The Fire didn't exactly set the world on fire (pun intended) when it was reviewed. It was solid, but solid isn't enough in this market.
The Fire Phone was only "solid" because liquid and gaseous phones don't work.
Gee. And here I thought dumping (deliberately selling product below cost to undercut the competition) was illegal. Silly me.
I'm glad the Justice Department sued Apple to protect us and authors in book pricing. I hope they sue Spple for its obviously high prices which are anticompetitive too!
I know a lot of people discuss how Amazon never exposes actual sales numbers to the world, and just tell us how great things are going. Well, just seconds before I posted here, I checked the hot stuff at Alexa "http://www.alexa.com/whatshot" and on the hot products Top Ten list are seven Amazon hardware products with the Amazon Fire Phone 32GB being #3 on the list:
I wonder how "hot" these things really are in light of the above loss/mea culpa
not surprising, Alexa is an amazon company..
bit (maybe except the Fire TV stick) if Alexa's so called amazing insight analytics engine really finds most of the above as hot items, i would be surprised if customers using Alexa would trust it at all
1 Nobody wants to buy a mobile phone whose primary purpose is to sell you stuff. People aren't stupid -they know if they're being set up to be induced and seduced into buying stuff.
2 You cannot insulate or exempt yourself from a race to the bottom merely by saying "Well, I'm not going to sell at a low price like you guys."
Amazon is all about big data and little data (they can tell you whether an item is on the shelf in their warehouse or in a box ready to ship) YET has NEVER, NEVER announced ANY Kindle sales numbers. NOT ONCE in the 10 years the thing has been around.
Amazon is all about big data and little data (they can tell you whether an item is on the shelf in their warehouse or in a box ready to ship) YET has NEVER, NEVER announced ANY Kindle sales numbers. NOT ONCE in the 10 years the thing has been around.
I’m certain I’ve been told already, but tell me again so that I can forget it within seconds and ask next month: how is that legal? Don’t they have an obligation to their shareholders to prove they’re not lying?
The paradox is that the cheaper they make it, the less desirable it will be & the less likely the type of consumer (very cost-conscious) it will appeal to will use it to buy Amazon stuff.
They are doubling down but they will lose because shareholders will demand an end to this nonsense.
I'm holding out for an Amazon branded fitness band, because you know, everyone is doing one. Their "Amazon twist" is that it monitors your heart rate when you are browsing through product catalogs or walking through stores. If it detects an uptick in your heart rate it tells you "dude, you seriously need to buy that product, and buy it from Amazon." If you're going to cave to impulse buying, why not have a device to help reinforce the behavior? The down side of course is if you're with your significant other and you're looking at things other than products and your Amazon impulse-o-meter starts buzzing ... you've got some 'splainin' to do. Not a perfect solution, but we can fix that with appropriate pricing and a complementary one year Prime membership.
I'm holding out for an Amazon branded fitness band, because you know, everyone is doing one. Their "Amazon twist" is that it monitors your heart rate when you are browsing through product catalogs or walking through stores. If it detects an uptick in your heart rate it tells you "dude, you seriously need to buy that product, and buy it from Amazon." If you're going to cave to impulse buying, why not have a device to help reinforce the behavior? The down side of course is if you're with your significant other and you're looking at things other than products and your Amazon impulse-o-meter starts buzzing ... you've got some 'splainin' to do. Not a perfect solution, but we can fix that with appropriate pricing and a complementary one year Prime membership.
Just because you heard it at some corporate seminar does not make it so.
First, the SEC can do nothing to you or Dave unless you actually traded securities based on the information. They have absolutely no power or standing to do anything if you did nothing with the information. They'd be laughed off the court. (It is not illegal to receive information, only to act upon it.)
Second, it seems to me that your company is making the SEC a bogeyman just to get its employees to not reveal corporate information that they do not want revealed -- your company could, however, fire you (and Amazon, Dave) for something like that. Don't blame the SEC for that.
More importantly, I should have added the "/sarcasm" tag to my original post, I guess -- sorry about that. To be explicit about it, I was making the implied point that (i) Amazon does not reveal numbers for Kindle, so there's no way for us to know whether the Kindle is doing well or not; (ii) Most tablet makers provide data, but only for 'shipments'; (iii) Apple is the only company that not only provides shipments data, but also channel inventory data, so we can infer actual sales; (iv) I surmise that Amazon does not reveal its numbers because Kindle sales are not as good as everyone claims it is; (v) I agree that Amazon will come down hard on anyone (Dave included) who reveals such information.
Actually, you're wrong on this one. First, I took my company's course on this only two weeks ago so my memory is fresh on all this. But I also have some real world examples where people got into trouble. The easiest example I can think of is my former company that got acquired into the company I work at now. Back over a decade ago, our CFO got into trouble with the SEC for revealing what's known as "material information" about the company to a group of large investors at a meeting. The problem is that this information could be used to make investment decisions on the company and weren't also published to the general public, either in filings with the SEC, PR releases or interviews that are broadly published. It doesn't matter if the information was actually acted upon...the laws still make the person and company liable for the inappropriate release. Although the release was considered inadvertent, our company ended up paying a fine to the SEC for the release of the information. Then a year later, the exact same thing happened AGAIN. The same CFO revealed material information to large investors without publishing the information widely to all investors. This time the SEC came back harder with a much bigger fine. Sometime later, we had a new CFO.
Actually, you're wrong on this one. First, I took my company's course on this only two weeks ago so my memory is fresh on all this. But I also have some real world examples where people got into trouble. The easiest example I can think of is my former company that got acquired into the company I work at now. Back over a decade ago, our CFO got into trouble with the SEC for revealing what's known as "material information" about the company to a group of large investors at a meeting. The problem is that this information could be used to make investment decisions on the company and weren't also published to the general public, either in filings with the SEC, PR releases or interviews that are broadly published. It doesn't matter if the information was actually acted upon...the laws still make the person and company liable for the inappropriate release. Although the release was considered inadvertent, our company ended up paying a fine to the SEC for the release of the information. Then a year later, the exact same thing happened AGAIN. The same CFO revealed material information to large investors without publishing the information widely to all investors. This time the SEC came back harder with a much bigger fine. Sometime later, we had a new CFO.
No, I am not. As I suspected, you're conflating issues of Regulation FD (link from sec.gov) with issues of insider trading.
The former applies to provision of information selectively to securities market professionals and institutional investors, typically. The latter is the situation that would apply if Dave were to share info with you over a drink. You would not be trouble with the SEC unless you or he traded on it (or passed it on to someone who traded on it). Dave could, however, be in trouble with Amazon (if they found out).
No, I am not. As I suspected, you're conflating issues of Regulation FD (link from sec.gov) with issues of insider trading.
The former applies to provision of information selectively to securities market professionals and institutional investors, typically. The latter is the situation that would apply if Dave were to share info with you over a drink. You would not be trouble with the SEC unless you or he traded on it (or passed it on to someone who traded on it). Dave could, however, be in trouble with Amazon (if they found out).
I'm not really disagreeing with you on your last sentence. If the receiver of the information does nothing with it, then they will generally escape prosecution. If they act on it or pass it on to someone else, then they are setting themselves up for prosecution.
I may be conflating the regulations, but the spirit of what is trying to be enforced is consistent. Don't reveal material information about the company in a manner that is not consistent with securities laws, period. That means don't reveal it to me as an outsider, or don't reveal it inconsistently to some investors but not all investors. As an officer in Amazon, I'm sure I don't have to lecture Dave on this...he already knows it and despite having had previous executive positions in other companies, I'm sure that Amazon would retrain him to keep all of their executives up to date with current laws, rules and regulations.
The paradox is that the cheaper they make it, the less desirable it will be & the less likely the type of consumer (very cost-conscious) it will appeal to will use it to buy Amazon stuff.
They are doubling down but they will lose because shareholders will demand an end to this nonsense.
Yup, Amazon has set up the perfect mechanism to get the most parsimonious customers to self-select who they then sign up in droves. It's like you're meticulously setting aside the scrawniest kernels from your crop not to discard but to use as your seed corn. The Next Steve Jobs my ass. If you suggested such a scheme to Steve, his response would be in line with what he once told the president of ESPN: "You're phone is the dumbest f**cking idea I have ever heard."
Gee. And here I thought dumping (deliberately selling product below cost to undercut the competition) was illegal. Silly me.
I'm glad the Justice Department sued Apple to protect us and authors in book pricing. I hope they sue Spple for its obviously high prices which are anticompetitive too!
/s
I could be wrong, but I think dumping charges in the US have only ever been applied to foreign companies, not other American companies. It's a political move to protect one's own markets.
I could be wrong, but I think dumping charges in the US have only ever been applied to foreign companies, not other American companies. It's a political move to protect one's own markets.
Possibly. But, predatory pricing is one indicator of monopolistic behavior.
Comments
Just because you heard it at some corporate seminar does not make it so.
First, the SEC can do nothing to you or Dave unless you actually traded securities based on the information. They have absolutely no power or standing to do anything if you did nothing with the information. They'd be laughed off the court. (It is not illegal to receive information, only to act upon it.)
Second, it seems to me that your company is making the SEC a bogeyman just to get its employees to not reveal corporate information that they do not want revealed -- your company could, however, fire you (and Amazon, Dave) for something like that. Don't blame the SEC for that.
More importantly, I should have added the "/sarcasm" tag to my original post, I guess -- sorry about that. To be explicit about it, I was making the implied point that (i) Amazon does not reveal numbers for Kindle, so there's no way for us to know whether the Kindle is doing well or not; (ii) Most tablet makers provide data, but only for 'shipments'; (iii) Apple is the only company that not only provides shipments data, but also channel inventory data, so we can infer actual sales; (iv) I surmise that Amazon does not reveal its numbers because Kindle sales are not as good as everyone claims it is; (v) I agree that Amazon will come down hard on anyone (Dave included) who reveals such information.
I'm glad the Justice Department sued Apple to protect us and authors in book pricing. I hope they sue Spple for its obviously high prices which are anticompetitive too!
/s
I know a lot of people discuss how Amazon never exposes actual sales numbers to the world, and just tell us how great things are going. Well, just seconds before I posted here, I checked the hot stuff at Alexa "http://www.alexa.com/whatshot" and on the hot products Top Ten list are seven Amazon hardware products with the Amazon Fire Phone 32GB being #3 on the list:
Hot Products
I wonder how "hot" these things really are in light of the above loss/mea culpa
not surprising, Alexa is an amazon company..
bit (maybe except the Fire TV stick) if Alexa's so called amazing insight analytics engine really finds most of the above as hot items, i would be surprised if customers using Alexa would trust it at all
"When you're taking risks, they're not all going to pay off. Those are the facts," he said.
Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait.
Did anyone think to share this fact with GTAT when they "assumed all the risks"?
1 Nobody wants to buy a mobile phone whose primary purpose is to sell you stuff. People aren't stupid -they know if they're being set up to be induced and seduced into buying stuff.
2 You cannot insulate or exempt yourself from a race to the bottom merely by saying "Well, I'm not going to sell at a low price like you guys."
I’m certain I’ve been told already, but tell me again so that I can forget it within seconds and ask next month: how is that legal? Don’t they have an obligation to their shareholders to prove they’re not lying?
Yep - that's the whole problem: charging for it...
It won't charge, it's on fire, so why don't they just give one to each customer ?
They are doubling down but they will lose because shareholders will demand an end to this nonsense.
I'm holding out for an Amazon branded fitness band, because you know, everyone is doing one. Their "Amazon twist" is that it monitors your heart rate when you are browsing through product catalogs or walking through stores. If it detects an uptick in your heart rate it tells you "dude, you seriously need to buy that product, and buy it from Amazon." If you're going to cave to impulse buying, why not have a device to help reinforce the behavior? The down side of course is if you're with your significant other and you're looking at things other than products and your Amazon impulse-o-meter starts buzzing ... you've got some 'splainin' to do. Not a perfect solution, but we can fix that with appropriate pricing and a complementary one year Prime membership.
Lol
Just because you heard it at some corporate seminar does not make it so.
First, the SEC can do nothing to you or Dave unless you actually traded securities based on the information. They have absolutely no power or standing to do anything if you did nothing with the information. They'd be laughed off the court. (It is not illegal to receive information, only to act upon it.)
Second, it seems to me that your company is making the SEC a bogeyman just to get its employees to not reveal corporate information that they do not want revealed -- your company could, however, fire you (and Amazon, Dave) for something like that. Don't blame the SEC for that.
More importantly, I should have added the "/sarcasm" tag to my original post, I guess -- sorry about that. To be explicit about it, I was making the implied point that (i) Amazon does not reveal numbers for Kindle, so there's no way for us to know whether the Kindle is doing well or not; (ii) Most tablet makers provide data, but only for 'shipments'; (iii) Apple is the only company that not only provides shipments data, but also channel inventory data, so we can infer actual sales; (iv) I surmise that Amazon does not reveal its numbers because Kindle sales are not as good as everyone claims it is; (v) I agree that Amazon will come down hard on anyone (Dave included) who reveals such information.
Actually, you're wrong on this one. First, I took my company's course on this only two weeks ago so my memory is fresh on all this. But I also have some real world examples where people got into trouble. The easiest example I can think of is my former company that got acquired into the company I work at now. Back over a decade ago, our CFO got into trouble with the SEC for revealing what's known as "material information" about the company to a group of large investors at a meeting. The problem is that this information could be used to make investment decisions on the company and weren't also published to the general public, either in filings with the SEC, PR releases or interviews that are broadly published. It doesn't matter if the information was actually acted upon...the laws still make the person and company liable for the inappropriate release. Although the release was considered inadvertent, our company ended up paying a fine to the SEC for the release of the information. Then a year later, the exact same thing happened AGAIN. The same CFO revealed material information to large investors without publishing the information widely to all investors. This time the SEC came back harder with a much bigger fine. Sometime later, we had a new CFO.
Actually, you're wrong on this one. First, I took my company's course on this only two weeks ago so my memory is fresh on all this. But I also have some real world examples where people got into trouble. The easiest example I can think of is my former company that got acquired into the company I work at now. Back over a decade ago, our CFO got into trouble with the SEC for revealing what's known as "material information" about the company to a group of large investors at a meeting. The problem is that this information could be used to make investment decisions on the company and weren't also published to the general public, either in filings with the SEC, PR releases or interviews that are broadly published. It doesn't matter if the information was actually acted upon...the laws still make the person and company liable for the inappropriate release. Although the release was considered inadvertent, our company ended up paying a fine to the SEC for the release of the information. Then a year later, the exact same thing happened AGAIN. The same CFO revealed material information to large investors without publishing the information widely to all investors. This time the SEC came back harder with a much bigger fine. Sometime later, we had a new CFO.
No, I am not. As I suspected, you're conflating issues of Regulation FD (link from sec.gov) with issues of insider trading.
The former applies to provision of information selectively to securities market professionals and institutional investors, typically. The latter is the situation that would apply if Dave were to share info with you over a drink. You would not be trouble with the SEC unless you or he traded on it (or passed it on to someone who traded on it). Dave could, however, be in trouble with Amazon (if they found out).
No, I am not. As I suspected, you're conflating issues of Regulation FD (link from sec.gov) with issues of insider trading.
The former applies to provision of information selectively to securities market professionals and institutional investors, typically. The latter is the situation that would apply if Dave were to share info with you over a drink. You would not be trouble with the SEC unless you or he traded on it (or passed it on to someone who traded on it). Dave could, however, be in trouble with Amazon (if they found out).
I'm not really disagreeing with you on your last sentence. If the receiver of the information does nothing with it, then they will generally escape prosecution. If they act on it or pass it on to someone else, then they are setting themselves up for prosecution.
I may be conflating the regulations, but the spirit of what is trying to be enforced is consistent. Don't reveal material information about the company in a manner that is not consistent with securities laws, period. That means don't reveal it to me as an outsider, or don't reveal it inconsistently to some investors but not all investors. As an officer in Amazon, I'm sure I don't have to lecture Dave on this...he already knows it and despite having had previous executive positions in other companies, I'm sure that Amazon would retrain him to keep all of their executives up to date with current laws, rules and regulations.
The paradox is that the cheaper they make it, the less desirable it will be & the less likely the type of consumer (very cost-conscious) it will appeal to will use it to buy Amazon stuff.
They are doubling down but they will lose because shareholders will demand an end to this nonsense.
Yup, Amazon has set up the perfect mechanism to get the most parsimonious customers to self-select who they then sign up in droves. It's like you're meticulously setting aside the scrawniest kernels from your crop not to discard but to use as your seed corn. The Next Steve Jobs my ass. If you suggested such a scheme to Steve, his response would be in line with what he once told the president of ESPN: "You're phone is the dumbest f**cking idea I have ever heard."
I could be wrong, but I think dumping charges in the US have only ever been applied to foreign companies, not other American companies. It's a political move to protect one's own markets.