hello ..any one can see the crime scene?lol
when every insider dumps in flee mode, what does it reveal?
Technology cross venture crime partners cashed out......
who is in now:
Fidelity/metlife and rest Mutual fund crooks , who don't care for working class ..will hold scam bags
rest is Institutional Mafia Gangs ..LAST HURRAY FIGHTING EACH IN SCAM TRADING PIT
HASTINGS CROOK.........PLANNED THIS SCAM BUBBLE ..DID NOT USE FUNDS FOR CONTENT RIGHTS AND WHY?
LOOT IN SHORTEST TIME AND FLEE ............USED BOOK SALES NEW VENTURE SCAM next
Technology crossover ventures dumped all for great loot=major player in short squeeze scam planning in november, was instructed not to dump before bubble creation..............
reed hastings=goldman sachs + technology crossover ventures + fidelity are key players for planning this short squeeze in nov 2009 , debt raised was to execute the plan to short squeeze and create this bubble
reed hastings planned all news pump scam: canada launch scam was for pump and no streaming rights was worked out yet
reed hasting scam pump criminal lies are crystal clear
TCV CRIMINAL GANG CASHED OUT TOO
you old info that criminals dumped in flee mode;
WHOLE SHORT SQUEEZE SCAM GAME PLAN PLAYERS
THESE CROOKS:TECHNOLOGY CROSSOVER... 6/30/2010
3,699,865 (1,822,322) (33.00%) $379,421
AND BY NOW THEY ARE ALL OUT...................
FIDELITY/MET LIFE...THESE KING OF CROOKS HOLDING IN USA WORKING CLASS PENSIONS AND LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES
CRIMINAL GANGS CREATE SCAM BUBBLES AND FLEE WITH DUMPS
for sure it will
Buybacks: The Bad
I get nervous when companies buy back stock at the same time insiders are selling and the stock price is rising. One such example is Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX). In the past year (July 2009 to July 2010), insiders have sold $132 million of stock and made no purchases. Furthermore, the company is increasing the amount it is willing to spend on buybacks.
In 2009, Netflix bought back a record $324 million in stock. It even took on debt to finance these higher-priced repurchases. While Netflix's business and stock have performed exceptionally well over the past few years, it appears management might be being a bit reckless with its recent share repurchases.
Buybacks: The Ugly
The most egregious buyback situations usually show up in the related-party transactions, as listed in the annual report. Here's a past example from Fidelity National (NYSE: FNF):
In August 2007, FNF's chairman of the board, William P. Foley II, planned to sell 1,000,000 shares of FNF stock on the open market. Because the company was actively purchasing shares of treasury stock on the open market at the same time, the company agreed to purchase 1 million shares from Foley on Aug. 8, 2007, for $22.1 million, or $22.09 per share, the market price at the time of the purchase.
Fidelity National currently sits at just under $15 per share. I don't know about you, but I don't want an insider sitting on both sides of that decision. Is he serving his fiduciary obligation to shareholders or serving his best interests? It seems like an inherent built-in conflict to me. As it turns out, it seems like Mr. Foley the individual got the best of Mr. Foley the CEO on this one.
While buybacks are always pitched to investors as a wonderful opportunity to "return capital to shareholders," it's not always the case. They are only wonderful if the company has excess capital and is repurchasing shares at a discount to their intrinsic value.
These are scheduled stock sales. Most successful companies reward/compensate their officers with stock options. Sales of these stocks are scheduled way in advance per sec rules.
You're unfamiliar with this practice, or you are a desparate short hoping to convince folks to sell their shares so you don't have to cover your short and lose the nice gains you've made.
What a ridiculous posting. A few scheduled shares could be justified, but a
mass exodus, scheduled or not, shows that the CEO Hastings knows he is on
a ride to nowhere and the trip will soon end. I dont blame the man, but any
investor who thinks this is just another scheduled sale is headed for disaster
by holding in the face of this selling . The next few months will prove the point
as we head down in the fall selloff of the market.
"These are scheduled stock sales. Most successful companies reward/compensate their officers with stock options. Sales of these stocks are scheduled way in advance per sec rules.
You're unfamiliar with this practice, or you are a desparate short hoping to convince folks to sell their shares so you don't have to cover your short and lose the nice gains you've made. "
But most companies actually are accumulating a lot of cash from their earnings. They are not spending every dollar to buyback shares while Ceo is selling on a weekly basis.
Normally I don't mind this kind of Ceo activity but this case seems differenet to me. Just seems fishy...or odd.
although I do agree that stock options are a form of compensation and that you shouldn't begrudge someone for doing so.....Reed Hastings is the new Mark Benioff (CRM) as far as pulling cash out of a company. His sales are just ludicrous for a company of this age and maturity. Notice he is the only one still dropping $1.50 options on it. There is fair compensation and then there is this example.
But really what difference does it make if you sell it at $80, $90 or higher or lower..... if you paid $1.50 for it?
Stock buybacks were so good for him....and the others in the company. The time for doing that should have ended two years ago. However if you look at the recently released 8-k you get the idea of why the debt vs. cash situation has changed.
So in reality it is an accounting gimmick.
Instead of including the CEO's exuberant compensation as an expense it is hiddend in stock buy back.
So in reality Co is buying back the shares CEO (and the rest of the top brass)sold.
If you add the cost of the buy-back the company is making about 1/2 money....
Nice move you thugs!