Games

16834 readers

992 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works

396

Unity bosses sold stock days before development fees announcement, raising eyebrows (www.eurogamer.net)

submitted 1 year ago by geosoco@kbin.social to c/games@sh.itjust.works

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Unity executives sold thousands of shares in the weeks leading up to last night's hugely controversial announcement it will soon charge developers when one of their games is downloaded.

The company has subsequently softened its stance slightly on a couple of aspects - but fury across the industry remains.

Behind the scenes, CEO John Riccitiello shifted 2000 shares last week on 6th September, as noted by Yahoo Finance, which noted this move was part of a trend over the past year where the exec has sold more than 50,000 shares in total and bought none.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] EnderofGames@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] the_gmg@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Ok, so the report is on the person (CEO in this case). Only directors and certain executive levels are required to report.

Table I shows 'non-derivative securities' (regular stock). The CEO holds in their own name 3 million+ shares. No transaction was reported for those, but they have to be listed.

The CEO's spouse aquired 2000 shares at a cost of $1.425 each. After this transaction, they had 2000 shares total (column 5).

They then sold those shares for $40 each. After, they weren't holding any stock, so column 5 shows 0.

The CEO financially benefits from this, so the transactions are listed on their form, as (I) for indirect. If the spouse also had a position within Unity which required reporting this would be listed on their own SEC form as well.