None of these executive can sell company stock on a whim. They are “insiders” and if they want to sell they have to schedule it a year plus out in advance.
Yet another example of the media failing to do the most basic research into the topic they report on.
> In Stevens's case, he didn't have such a trading plan, but that's not necessarily a red flag on its own.
Sounds like it’s not necessarily required and wasn’t followed here?
The format of the article makes it seem like it ends because it has a list of links to other articles but then it continues on. Confusing formatting for sure. And I’m not sure I understood it correctly.
The basis of them stating this is the lack of a check for a formal 10b5-1 plan.
There are a variety of other ways that he could schedule triggered sales that aren't immediately transparent to the media.
A lack of 10b5-1 does not directly correlate to not having any pre scheduled plan.
The fact that they're acquitting months to weeks, makes me feel like they're inventing news to throw on the pile of Nvidia headlines.
There are defined "open windows" he can sell, and these were sold in those permitted window.
It was also multiple batches over months.
He gave form 144 notice and portions were through trusts and charitable / foundation.
He filed multiple Form 144s notifying the SEC of proposed sales under Rule 144. Notable examples include a September 2026 notice for up to 5 million shares (roughly $1.09 billion) and earlier notices (e.g., involving 1.7 million shares in June 2026).
He's got this exact same pattern of behavior for the last 43 sales dating back to 2021.. it's the furthest that I left before I stopped.
It wasn't under a 10b5-1 plan, but in a large company like Nvidia there is zero chance the guy didn't go through a strict compliance process to document his preplan sales.
When I sold company stock (no where near a board director) there were so many hoops jump through and blackout period (even without seeing insider info) there were only small period you could actually trade.
The idea a board director, who is under an SEC microscope, didn't check all the boxes is just silly. Without an 10b5-1 plan (which provides an affirmative defenese), he has to prove his own innocence. Even without insider trading he's at risk of being convicted because someone didn't like his trades.
Compliance is against publicly known and formally acknowledged facts. This whole huang affairs thing could have been known weeks in advance but not be formally acknowledged. Compliance measures usually do nothing and only serve as a cover to make the argument that you just made.
> and if they want to sell they have to schedule it a year plus out in advance.
No. That isn't the standard they are actually required to meet.
In this case, trading shortly after earnings is generally considered to be fine because at that time, investors have most of the same information the executives and board do. It isn't a guarantee and they can use trading plans to be really safe, but it is traditionally allowed.
This is a bizarre statement from Singapore to be honest.
Why would the US “compel” a suspect they are investigating to cooperate with an investigation in a foreign country?
Can anyone name a investigation in the past where one country “compelled” a suspect to cooperate with a foreign power?
People have to keep in mind Singapore loves to sit on the fence of US-China relations ask I can also imagine the US doesn’t feel like Singapore is going to be much help anyways.
Not sure if you actually read the statement or just skimmed the titles but it seems like Singapore is just offering their side of the story and I don't see any "compelling"
Also what does Singapore's foreign policy have to do anything here? The statement states it already begun investigations once it saw that there was some foul play.
And is your argument that a community who “champions freedom and progress” should be arguing for an authoritarian dictatorship to get access to the latest technology?
It’s not hard to “dominate” when you sell something at a loss. I can go to Australia and sell a $50,000 vehicle for $30,000 and it doesn’t make me a “shrewd businessperson”
In fact, China has been quite transparent about heavily investing and subsidizing key industries to dominate export markets.
That is true - that if AI reduced failure rates it would be a huge success.
However drugs fail because we don’t understand the biology well enough. Drug researchers develop drugs based on all their knowledge of biology, and when they fail it’s because the biology didn’t work the way they thought it did.
So if the current understanding is the cause of failure how can AI help? It can chug through vast amounts of data, but the data doesn’t explain the biology well enough.
Just like all the mathematicians were applying all that they know to solve the math problems.. and AI certainly can't do that...
Yes, biology is different and experimental evidence is very different than mathmatics, but the ability to pull from a lot of known information and formulate possible problems that biologists didn't anticipate isn't really a stretch from where we are on the capability curve right now.
Look at the showcase AI proof of the Naiver-Stokes existence. It basically took an equation and proved it was valid across all possible variables.
That’s a problem in a closed system. There is no question how the function works. The tools needed to solve it are known.
Biology is like solving a math equation we only have a crude approximation for. Parts of the equation are missing and there are variables we aren’t aware of. You also have a limited set of tools to test the equation.
This theories all fall flat when Japan refused to surrender after the first bomb. As the other comment mentioned there was an attempted coup to keep the war going.
It took two bombs to get Japan to surrender. “A surrender is in play” means zilch.
Yet another example of the media failing to do the most basic research into the topic they report on.
Do better yahoo news!
reply