carnegie

coolfactor said:

danox said:

“A Sucker is born every day”

robin huber said:

I have little sympathy for those who fall for schemes. Putting a little something in high risk is fun and exciting, but like Las Vegas gambling is not a sound financial plan. 

Cryptocurrency is not a scheme, not a fad. But often it's run by greedy, get-rich-quick-minded folks that aren't looking at the long-term plan. It's a very volatile type of currency, so as long as you invest with that in mind, it can be very lucrative. In other words, don't put all of your eggs into one basket.

It can be lucrative, sure. But cryptocurrencies aren't currencies, they're assets. That may seem like semantics, but it's an important distinction and as-assets rather than as-currencies is how people should think of cryptocurrencies if they hope to profitably invest in them.

We know that cryptocurrencies aren't currencies for a number of reasons. For one, at least in the U.S., buying things with crypto creates potentially taxable events. You aren't really buying things with crypto, you're trading crypto for things. Every time you do that you potentially create a capital gain or a capital loss depending on whether the value of the crypto has gone up or down since you first acquired it. For another, we don't think of swings in the trading value (or supposed buying power) of crypto as inflation or deflation, we think of it as gains or losses. For another, we'd never accept such wild fluctuations in the value of a currency. The primary point of a currency is as a stable and reliably recognizable store of value.

The clearest way that we know crypto isn't currency is that we think of its value almost exclusively in terms of actual currencies, and not just in FX contexts. If you ask what 1 Bitcoin is worth, the answer is most often going to come in terms of dollars (or some other currency). We don't first think of a bitcoin as being worth one Tesla or one bottle of soda or the value of an hour of labor. If you ask what 1 Dollar is worth, the answer isn't likely to come in terms of bitcoin or any other currency unless the context of the question is with regard to the relative values of particular currencies. The value of 1 Dollar is rather vague, it's generally conceived of based on what we could buy with it and/or what it would take to earn it. It's a store of general, not definitively defined (other than by specific contexts), value. Put another way, a currency is the way we measure the value of other things. The value of 1 Dollar is 1 Dollar. The value of 1 Bitcoin is, currently, something like 17,000 Dollars.

That said, the value of crypto assets is derived from the belief (or hope) that at some point in the future they will become actual currencies. And their value is based on other people's beliefs regarding the likelihood that that will happen. How likely is it that a given crypto asset will eventually become an actual currency and, at its current valuation, would it then be under supplied or over supplied? So, if one is interested in investing in crypto, they should be thinking about the possible paths by which given cryptos might become actual currencies. Is there any way they can? Importantly, is there any chance (the major) governments around the world will allow them to become actual currencies rather than just the speculative assets which they currently are allowed to exist as?

If you can see the path whereby they might become actual currencies, then maybe they have some long-term value. If you can't see such a path (or think it sufficiently unlikely), then the only thing left supporting their value is that some others don't yet recognize what you do. To the extent that's the case, investing in crypto is just a dicey game of trying to figure out (or recognize) when you would (or did) transition from being one of the people taking advantage of the suckers to being one of the suckers.

I'm not suggesting that investing in crypto is a bad idea. I am, however, suggesting that if crypto investors aren't thinking about crypto in the way I just described, then they don't understand the fundamentals of the game they're playing and, as a consequence, the likelihood of them winning at that game is reduced.

B-Mc-C said:

mikethemartian said:

B-Mc-C said:

Is that a thing now – the government “participating” or intervening in civil cases between two private parties? Merrick Garland has crossed the line. Such an abuse of power. If you hate Apple, sue them yourselves.

Yes that has been a thing since long before you have been born since a judge’s ruling sets binding precedent and effects all other antitrust cases that come after it that the DOJ and other third parties will be involved with.

Name one other civil suit between two private entities that the executive branch has interfered with, and especially only late in the appeals process, which is not supposed to consider new evidence not introduced in the original trial. I am not talking about the judicial branch of government – that’s not what this story is about – obviously judges are involved in a civil suit.

As others in this thread have stated, this is about the leader of the executive branch sending his DOJ to squash an American innovator as a favor to the Chinese, simply because he and his son have multiple business relationships with them.

Let’s not forget, news of a DOJ readying antitrust action against Apple was leaked about a week ago. They are injecting themselves last minute into an *appeal* on an existing case to fast track their own ambitions with regard to Apple, as any decision will have one less appeal available, than if they started from scratch with their own suit against Apple.

If you only want one case, I'd point you to Apple v Pepper (USSC, 2019) as particularly fitting.

The reality is that the executive branch 'interferes' with cases between private parties quite often. It files amicus briefs and, less often but it still happens, asks to participate in divided oral arguments. Other kinds of parties do these things as well. This is how our judicial system works. Interested parties get to weigh in (or at least ask to weigh in) on issues being considered by appellate courts. The rules of appellate procedure allow for this. The U.S. Supreme Court's rules allow for this.

Also, to be clear, this isn't about introducing new evidence. It's about arguing legal issues. The DOJ wants to argue its positions relating to how federal antitrust law should be applied. It asked to do something similar in the Apple v Pepper case I referred to above and the Supreme Court allowed it to participate in oral arguments. We get such divided oral arguments (i.e. with argument time being divided up to accommodate the participation of interested parties) from time to time.

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

Kuyangkoh said:

Did Epic sue Google too? Why not Epic

In the time it took for you to type out that post you could have done a 10-second search and discovered...
Yes Epic also sued Google. 

But Epic lawsuit against Google is now for different anti-competitive reasons. At first Epic also sued Google for being anti-competitive with regards to being monopolistic with their Play Store, when Fortnight was ejected from the Play Store for policy violations. Epic initial claim was that since Google Play Store control over 90% of the app downloads, it was essentially a "monopoly". But they amended the lawsuit, probably because it's tough to prove a monopoly, when Epic once took advantage of side loading Fortnight on Android. Thus avoiding the Play Store and Google's commission. Unlike the Apple App Store, there was no reason (except to make more profit) why Epic had to have Fortnight in the Play Store.  

They are now suing Google for anti-completive behavior by claiming that Google stood in their way when they wanted to make Fortnight available in the Samsung Galaxy Store, on Samsung Android phones. This amended lawsuit was meant to support 3 dozen States investigating Google for anti-completive behavior, claiming that Google used anti-competivie tactics to keep other apps stores from opening on Android phones. Investigations I'm sure that was brought about by the lobbying effort of the Coalition of App Fairness.   

https://www.androidheadlines.com/2021/07/epic-claims-google-tried-blocking-samsungs-galaxy-store-files-amended-lawsuit.html

Epic filed an amended complaint in its suit against Google, yes. That happens in a lot, if not most, of these kinds of cases.

But, to be clear, Epic didn't fundamentally change its bases for its suit or drop any of the counts from its original complaint. It just added some information and arguments based on what it found in discovery. Epic still accuses Google of, e.g., violating the Sherman Act by illegally monopolizing the Android App Distribution Market and the Android In-App Payment Processing Market. Its accusations against Google are pretty similar to its accusations against Apple.

B-Mc-C said:

Is that a thing now – the government “participating” or intervening in civil cases between two private parties? Merrick Garland has crossed the line. Such an abuse of power. If you hate Apple, sue them yourselves.

Yes, it's a thing.

It's been a thing for a long time. Interested amici can, under federal rules of appellate procedure (or U.S. Supreme Court rules), ask for permission to participate in oral arguments. It's much more common for amici to just file briefs with appellate courts, but they sometimes ask for and are sometimes granted permission to participate in oral arguments even though they aren't otherwise parties in the cases being argued. The federal government in particular often files amicus briefs and sometimes asks to participate in oral arguments. This can happen for various reasons but, notably, it often happens when interpretations of federal law and how it should be applied are at issue. Such is the case in Epic v Apple. Antitrust cases, even between private parties, typically involve the kinds of issues which the federal government is inclined to weigh in on.

This isn't something new. This happened under the last administration as well as previous administrations.

Stabitha_Christie said:

carnegie said:

The reason for the timing of these sales is pretty clear. The shares were sold when the share price climbed back above the share price at their vesting.

In recent years Mr. Maestri has routinely sold newly vested shares shortly after their vesting (e.g., not the day after vesting but a few days or weeks later). But he doesn't sell them at a share price lower than the vesting price (i.e., the cost basis). This is true of his time-based shares which vest every April and his performance-based shares which vest every October. He receives the shares, minus the 50+% which is withheld for tax purposes, and then sells all of them shortly thereafter if the share price hasn't gone down. In this case the share price started to drop shortly after these shares vested and didn't get back to the vesting price until the day they were sold, more than 4 months later.

The SEC closely regulates how executives can sell sock and it has to be arranged well in advance. What you are describing "sells all of them shortly thereafter if the share price hasn't gone down" wouldn't fly. He has to set the date and gets whatever he price he gets. If he hasn't lost money on them them is more a product of AAPL doing well rather than him waiting for the price to go up. 

Mr. Maestri has a 10b5-1 trading plan in place, of course. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But such plans don't require that trading dates be specified. They can lay out all kinds of different criteria which would then be used to determine when trades are made. The key is that that insider can't have ongoing discretion (i.e. while they have current MNPI) as to when trades are made. The instructions they provide in a trading plan have to effectively determine when the trades are made.

Such a plan could, e.g., say: Sell X number of shares on this date. Or sell X number of shares when the share price reaches Y. Or, if the share price drops more than 20% from a peak, then sell X% of my shares when the share price rebounds back to within 5% of the peak. Or, sell all of my net newly vested shares 5 days after they vested, so long as that isn't a Tuesday and so long as a corporate earnings release isn't scheduled within the next 2 weeks and so long as the share price hasn't dropped below the closing share price on the day the shares vested.

I obviously don't know exactly what Mr. Maestri's current trading plan says. But, as I said, he routinely sells all of his net newly vested shares soon after they vest. Sometimes it's a few days, sometimes it's a few weeks. Further, for many years now, he never sells them at a share price below the share price at vesting. As for that just being a function of Apple doing well, the point is that's not always the case - the share price doesn't always go up or maintain shortly after Mr. Maestri's (and many other Apple executives') shares vest. Indeed, in this case the share price went down and stayed lower for quite a while. Mr. Maestri's shares from his April vesting were sold more than 4 months later on the very day the share price finally returned to where it had been when those shares vested. There's a pattern in Mr. Maestri's trades that makes it very likely that one of the instructions in his trading plans has been that shares shouldn't be sold at a price lower than their vesting price. There's too many data points to believe this is just a coincidence.

That said, to clarify a couple of things: An insider doesn't have to arrange sales in advance. It's just much safer to use a 10b5-1 trading plan because, if they comply with certain requirements, having such a plan can be used as an affirmative defense against charges of insider trading. Also, an insider doesn't even have to lay out definitive criteria as I described above in order to use a 10b5-1 trading plan as an affirmative defense. They can give another party discretion to decide when to make trades. The key, again, is that the insider can't have ongoing discretion and the party which does have discretion can't have access to current MNPI.