EnderofGames

More confusing accounting that I've never learned, and probably never will.

At first I thought it was because of direct/indirect ownership. But what is the point of "5. Amount of Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s) (Instr. 3 and 4)" being 3mil with no transaction, but the 2000 stock transaction showing they owned none? I see nothing on the form or in the definition showing that direct or indirect ownership show be reported differently. They are all owned by the 'reporting person'. But clearly this is all me just not being able to read how they filled it out.

I agree $80k is nothing to $100mil, I do believe that if they have 3mil of securities, then it doesn't matter, no matter how high or low the securities are worth. I disagree with the idea that automation makes it not suspicious, though. If the stocks were all automatically sold off, then the company devalues itself afterwards, it has the same intent and outcome as any other insider trading.

I'm surprised, it does seem that this is true. I read a lot of articles where he announced that people could apply for medication, or medicaid would pay $0.01 per pill. I couldn't find anything about where to apply or one people who have applied and been able to get this medication, but there is already a generic alternative, so this program might be dead in the water.

As for smear campaign, I'm not so sure. Everytime I read quotes from him, it seems he just really likes to play the "bad boy". Maybe he just wants people to think pharmaceutical companies are scumbags, so when he ran one he purposefully made himself look bad. Shkreli definitely didn't seem to care that people got a bad impression of him.

The information in the article is from here:

Having the scumbag of a CEO in the headline may have been a mistake. Riccitiello sold the least shares in the recent transaction history of the company. Also, I don't know where you get your "retaining over 3000000 shares' from. The source says Riccitiello sold all his shares in his possession.

The article mentions two others:

Tomer Bar-Zeev who sold 37.5k shares on 1st September, for around $1.4m. Shlomo Dovrat, meanwhile, sold 68k shares on 30th August for around $2.5m.

Bar-Zeev sold 37500 shares of ~1300000 owned on automated sell. That's a factor of ten and a fair bit away from 2k sold from 3 mil, but that might be normal. It was automated, after all.

Dovrat's transaction is mostly the same, roughly double the shares sold and roughly double the shares owned. However, it was not automated.

I believe the article mentioned them because they sold the most, but they clearly weren't taking the amount retained into account. The third most sold, however, by Robynne Sisco was a sell of 25768, retaining 14700 (sold ~64%).

There are a fair number of other sells, but if the Bar-Zeev and Dovrat sells don't look suspicious, nothing else will stand out.

What does seem a little odd- and I have no idea if this is at all unusual- is that in the last twelve months, more shares have been bought than sold (net shares almost 10,000,000), and in the last 3 months more shares have been sold than bought (net shares almost 3,500,000). In the last 3 months, the number of insider traders is a little over 1/3 of the amount of insider trades over the last 12 months (under the assumption it should be about 1/4). All of the insider buys seem to be the options granted for working for Unity. I assume it isn't too odd for the board of directors to sell and never buy, but they have increased selling a fair bit in the last 3 months, and it seems specifically the last two weeks.

Unity clearly didn't think this part through- probably because they never intended it to do anything but rake in money as the company dies. They never had a real way of precisely tracking downloads, but they want all the info so they can decide how much to charge. So would they charge on a local installer? Almost certainly if they could find out it was used.

There aren't a lot of Unity Disney games out their, I would struggle to name any. And there definitely aren't any Nintendo ones.

I don't think devs that work for corporations really care about this change, if their group used Unity for some reason, they will just move on to their next job (and they're the ones who are worst paid). Every indie dev or otherwise small dev company that has used Unity ever in it's last ten years are now open to serious bad actors. A single person running a script can cost a dev hundreds of thousands of dollars on their own, whether a troll, just same guy pissed off for some reason or another, or even a competing dev. Hell, the one idiot living in his mother's basement who sent death threats to Unity could also do it.

There is no "relatively little interruption", as not only have people lost a lot of work on something they already paid for, they also have to remove all previous work they've made or published with the engine. It's all susceptible to attack.

I agree it's not on the same level as pharma scum, but saying "it's just a video games" is much too far off the other end of the spectrum. At least Shkreli never managed to bankrupt people who had purchased anything (from him) in the past, or made them 'regurgitate' any benefits they had seen. Though I'm sure he'd have loved to.

Really? Everyone who couldn't afford it had access through him? This is certainly a revelation, and not something made up from the internet.

Bruh it's people's livelihoods.

Not a sports watcher, completely confused and came by to figure out why they couldn't eat curry for the next two games.

It's directly Chrono Trigger inspired.

If this wasn't !PatientGamers, this'd be a lay up for Sea of Stars, and every comment would just say "Sea of Stars".

I feel like a scheduled sell shouldn't mean insider trading investigation is off the table.

Does it really matter if they decided to sell just before they devalue their company, or they devalued their company right after a sell? They knew about both before hand, and they can have the same intent either way.