If that's the case, it seems like the executives at Equifax who were dumping stock after they learned of the breach (but before it was reported) were jumping the gun. They should have just held on to it!

"Three senior executives including the company’s chief financial officer sold $1.8 million in shares three days after the company learned on July 29 hackers had breached personal data for up to 143 million Americans."

http://fortune.com/2017/09/29/equifax-board-executive-stock-...

That's short sighted - how you make money is sell when high, buy when low.

So you sell right before the dip and then buy again at the bottom of the dip. They knew there was going to be a dip.

Unfortunately, the SEC might notice if those executives sold a bunch of shares on insider info, quit, and then bought more shares after the crash.

I guess they probably wouldn't do anything, but they might notice.

They absolutely should notice and investigate (and I think they are) even the initial sale, I don't see how that's not insider trading.

It pretty clearly is, I just mean that in reality that sort of thing isn't going to be prosecuted or pursued.

That is incorrect. The SEC regularly pursue people for insider trading [1]. It's one of the things that's normally pretty clear cut and hard for politicians to lean on.

1. https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-212.html

I guess I'm just getting jaded about the scale; when you reach a certain dollar amount, there don't seem to be consequences at all. I'm sure I would get busted for insider trading if I tried it, but my company's CEO damned sure wouldn't.

Not that it'd be easy since you have to schedule big sales like that with the feds in the first place, but I mean...come on. The sheer blatancy.

Stock price seems to be the driving factor for corporate change in America. Until that price dips, or tanks, companies appear to use that as a barometer of their behavior.

How are their stocks priced reasonably well? They lost almost 1/3 of their value after the hack.

Still over $100 a share.

Absolute price has nothing to do with company value. For example BRK.A is $279,383.00 a share.

> The idea was that price would dip then it would go back up. Maybe enough people did that.

It's always the idea, unfortunately you can never predict if it's going to bounce enough to go back up hard, or if it's going to bounce and go down again deep...