YES! Hence why the new iPhone will be $100 more, so these guys can increase their millions
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Financial Chief Luca Maestri Sells Apple Shares Worth Over $16 Million
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
YES! Hence why the new iPhone will be $100 more, so these guys can increase their millions
Rising energy costs and chip shortage is global and not resolved for at least a year. The extra $100 will be paying for that, not going to into some Apple executives pockets.
It will be going to the shareholders of energy and metal mining companies.
I meant exactly what I wrote. I purposefully wrote it that way. And I purposefully wrote it that way because:
I do not currently own any ETFs and I do not currently own any mutual funds. 100% of my equity positions are through individual share ownership (none of which are Apple shares).
So again: I have no financial interest in Apple.
I also do not own any Apple bonds. Nor do I own any bond funds that hold Apple debt.
Also, I am not short Apple. And I have no options in Apple. I also don’t have any Apple warrants or anything else I might not have mentioned. Nothing. Not one single thing, lol.
No financial interest at all means no financial interest at all. I thought it was VERY clear when I wrote that, but I guess I can be even MORE clear with this reply, lol.
(Note: I have now said I don’t own Apple so many times that it might seem to some that I am actively avoiding Apple for some reason. That’s not the case. I am not actively avoiding Apple. I just happen to have no financial interest at all in Apple, lol.)
Last edited:
What you say in your first paragraph is true, though that principle generally applies to great companies that are in their growth stage. Odds are against AAPL going up further in the near term, because like I mentioned, its fundamentals AND technicals are working against it; not to mention a worldwide recession is just getting underway. Besides, no one should be short a company like AAPL long-term, but it should be used as a hedge to protect their investment.
As for banks, you definitely have that one backwards. History has shown us that tech companies come and go, but as the original bankers said when America was founded, banks will be around long after America is gone… and will be around long after AAPL is gone. Buy XLF and you’ll be fine a hundred years from now. Can’t say I have that same confidence in AAPL.
Also, the last financial crisis was caused, as if often the case, by the gov’t. In this case, the democrats, who pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give loans to low-income folks because affordable housing and housing for all was the platform they ran on. Of course, as we’ve seen time and time again, these socialist policies never work, leaving more people worse off in their wake, especially those who those policies are intended to help.
“Big bank stocks”
I said big bank stocks. Banks have been around for a long time and will continue to be around for a long time. That doesn’t mean that individual big bank stocks make for good investments.
How is a 30+ year investment in Citigroup shares working out? Very poorly? Yeah. Seems like.
How about an investment in Washington Mutual? Oh, bankruptcy? Wow.
(I could keep doing this because there were of course a lot of bank failures in 2008/2009. But it would take me too long to write out a sarcastic line or two for each and every one of them, lol.)
Last edited:
Precisely. I’m glad that has finally been cleared up and now we can all move… wait… what?! lol
When is the next report? Major risk off happening as we speak. Apple stock price is more dependent on inflation numbers and stock buybacks than Apple’s earnings. The rise of the dollar is doing a number on earnings from abroad. And the rise is only expected to continue.
You made me smile with those comments. I’m not being sarcastic, I have always appreciated the humor of MacRumors users. Thank you!
He took all your money? Really? Or did you buy a product he sold? I think the latter. You certainly didn’t have to buy it. No taking existed. A simple financial transaction. If you don’t want to or can’t afford to purchase items his company sells, then don’t.
I think it’s no more than a little green envy showing its face rather than anything else here.
These sales happened pursuant to a 10b5-1 trading plan, yes. But it's unlikely that plan specified the date on which the shares would be sold.
Such trading plans don't have to specify a date. They can set all kinds of criteria for when shares will be sold, so long as the criteria themselves effectively determine when shares are sold and the insider in question doesn't have ongoing input into the timing of sales. So, e.g., a plan might say that some number of shares will be sold any time the share price climbs more than 20% in a period of 60 days. Or it might say that, if the share price declines more than 15% from a peak, some number of shares will be sold as soon as the share price rebounds to within 5% of the peak. Or, of course, it might say that vesting shares will be sold 10 days after they vest.
In this case the triggering event most likely was the share price climbing back above the vesting price for these shares. Mr Maestri, like many other Apple executives, has time-based RSUs which vest every April and performance-based RSUs which vest every October. A large portion of the vesting shares are withheld for tax purposes at the vesting price - the closing share price on the day the shares vest. That price also becomes the cost basis for any capital gains or losses which might result from the sale of the remaining shares.
We don't know exactly what Mr. Maestri's trading plan says. But he routinely sells all of his net newly vested shares (i.e., what's left after most are withheld for tax purposes) fairly soon after they vest. But the sales are always at share prices above the vesting price. Apple's share price started falling soon after these shares vested on April 1st, and the share price didn't get back to the vesting price until the day they were sold more than 4 months later. So Mr. Maestri's plan probably dictates that vesting shares be sold fairly soon after vesting so long as the share price hasn't gone down and that, if the share price has gone down, they be sold at some later point when the share price recovers.
For a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan to be used as an affirmative defense to insider trading, the plan (among other requirements) must (1) specify the date of the transaction or alternatively the plan must (2) specify the formula/algorithm/computer program used for determining the date of the transaction. Whichever method the trading plan maker chooses, there most certainly is a predetermined date.
I won’t copy and paste the entirety of the rule here, but the part relevant to this conversation specifically states:
(1) Specified the amount of securities to be purchased or sold and the price at which and the date on which the securities were to be purchased or sold;
(2) Included a written formula or algorithm, or computer program, for determining the amount of securities to be purchased or sold and the price at which and the date on which the securities were to be purchased or sold;
Last edited:
Allows him to purchase a complete Happy Meal with Large Fries and Large drink whenever he wants. Not as a special treat for many USA families that are at the other end of the financial spectrum living hand to mouth..
You don't need to post the entire rule for my sake, I'm familiar with it. But at the end of the second provision you quoted there should be an "or" which is followed by:
So a trading plan (i.e. one based on 17 CFR §240.10b5-1(c)(1)) has to comply with one of those 3 clauses to be valid (i.e. used as an affirmative defense). Neither (2) nor (3) require that a predetermined date be specified. Clause (2) requires that the provided instructions can be used to determine the date on which sales will be made. That's what I was describing and providing examples of. The insider can't have ongoing discretion to determine, at a time when they might have (current) MNPI, when sales are made. Whatever party is executing the plan for them just follows the instructions for determining when sales are made. Under clause (3) that party might also have some discretion of their own.
So Mr. Maestri's plan could, e.g., say something like: Sell all net newly vested shares 4 trading days after they vest, provided the share price hasn't dropped below the closing share price on the day those shares vested and provided no corporate earnings release is scheduled within the following 2 weeks. Otherwise, sell all net newly vested shares on the first trading day on which shares trade, on an intraday basis, at or above the closing share price on the day those shares vested, provided the first trade at or above that price doesn't occur within the last 30 minutes of the regular trading day and provided no corporate earnings release is scheduled within the following 2 weeks.
It could say all kinds of things. The key is that Mr. Maestri can't have ongoing discretion to decide the timing of the sales. Someone else, who doesn't have access to the MNPI, has to decide that or the plan has to spell out how the timing of sales will be determined in a way that doesn't depend on someone's discretion - it's just based on following the clear rules which are laid out.
You could say the exact same thing about tech except tech is far worse. All the more reason why you shouldn’t put all your eggs in one basket, or believe that somehow Apple will continue going up forever.