https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/19/intels-ceo-just-sold-a-lot-of-stock.aspx
Motley Fool is a really old investing culture website.
Yooooooooooo
Motley Fool is a really old investing culture website.
Yooooooooooo
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
So Intel's CEO sold a lot of Intel Stock a month ago, now the Intel vulnerability was announced
- Thread starter Trojita
- Start date
Another successful CEO taking it one day at a time through hard work, dedication, and sacrifice.
If your money won't work for you then who will? Oh wait...
Supposedly they've known something since July. I'll have to see if I can find the article I read, but iirc this issue with the CPUs isn't new but rather the scope of it's effect is what's new news.
Edit: The best I can find on a quick google search is a blog post dating back to July. So yea, this doesn't in anyway prove intel knew something, but it points out a flaw people found months ago before this story blew up.
Last edited:
Intel's stock doesn't seem to have reacted to the vulnerability.
If the company announced some major scandal and the stock plunged 20%, then sure, this might be interesting.
But this is a non-event. Cue the uneducated drive-by posts about corporate management. Something something Trump. It's like the "thanks Obama!" meme in reverse.
It is interesting that BK is at the bare minimum threshold for ownership and it might make you think twice about being a shareholder. But then again he might just believe in diversification. He's not Page, Bezos or Zuckerberg. He didn't found the company. If Intel does poorly, he'll likely be out of a job. Does it make sense for him to also tie up his wealth in Intel stock? Every finance textbook in the world will tell you no.
If the company announced some major scandal and the stock plunged 20%, then sure, this might be interesting.
But this is a non-event. Cue the uneducated drive-by posts about corporate management. Something something Trump. It's like the "thanks Obama!" meme in reverse.
It is interesting that BK is at the bare minimum threshold for ownership and it might make you think twice about being a shareholder. But then again he might just believe in diversification. He's not Page, Bezos or Zuckerberg. He didn't found the company. If Intel does poorly, he'll likely be out of a job. Does it make sense for him to also tie up his wealth in Intel stock? Every finance textbook in the world will tell you no.
Evidence externally I imagine will be harder to come by, but in terms of my experience of working in a major tech engineering team statistically they could not have had less than at least three - six months internal awareness on this.
It's going to depend largely on how this upcoming update hits servers.
In the home market, I don't think the majority of consumers will notice the difference, not that it matters much given the shrinking consumer PC market.
But if servers see a 20% reduction in capacity, I would not want to be intel.
That's also largely looking at future servers using alternatives, and not including the probable lawsuit by Google and Amazon.
Never been so glad i picked Ryzen over intel until today lol#ryzen
#4life
Microsoft has been working on these patches since November.
https://twitter.com/aionescu/status/930412525111296000
Seems to me that there's plenty of evidence they knew back then:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
I really need to upgrade my 3570k to Ryzen already because fuck this Trump supporting asshole.
Shiiiiiet.gif
Keep up with the news and you'll know why people are even mentioning Trump in an Intel thread
Last edited:
The Linux kernel devs have been working on patches related to virtual address randomization in the kernel for a while, but have really been picking things up in the last couple (they developed and pushed through the fix in 3 months - a very fast time for such a major change). Based on the timing, if the kernel devs knew back in November, then Intel execs almost certainly did.
Now THAT sounds like evidence.
This is absolutely disgusting. If this guy knew what was up, sock it to 'em and may justice be served In a court of law.
It's entirely possible institutional players don't have the expertise to properly incorporate this information into the market yet. Sure there's a lot of people who know how to code on Wall Street, but this is getting into some really specialized low level programming, and maybe not terribly many people on Wall Street are following Linux patches and Windows reverse engineering efforts. While at this stage there is a lot of speculation, we can know with strong certainty that server performance will degrade and operating costs will increase for internet companies. How much isn't really clear yet. As we learn more and embargoes on security advisories are lifted I'd expect movement, not just for Intel and AMD but also any companies that provide or use servers.
Last edited:
i saw some people speculating that it had more to do with some 2018 change in tax laws or something than a potential insider trading scandal
i mean all the crony capitalism posts still apply at that point anywho
i mean all the crony capitalism posts still apply at that point anywho
This hasn't really broken yet as the vulnerability hasn't been announced, the precise ramifications are still unclear, and only tech sites rather than the financial or mainstream press have picked up on it so far. When it is revealed, if it turns out that large servers are going to lose ~30% capacity overnight and Intel is to blame, I can't see how there will be no impact. I doubt Amazon, Microsoft, etc, are going to want to pay extra for the capacity they already thought they had. They're going to want compensating.
This is not surprising. I know folks in tech companies and the security vulnerabilities they know of could spark legislative action if they became public at a quick enough pace. The heads of these companies surely are at least marginally aware of this.
There are plenty of software devs that work for hedge funds and on Wall Street. They often make even more money than the ones working at big tech companies.
If you think it's a great arbitrage opportunity, short the stock.
As it stands, it doesn't look like a major revelation.
It's not that open and shut.
The key words here are material non-public information. If the CEO knew of these issues, and it is judged that these issues had a material impact on the business and should have been disclosed to shareholders, then he's committed a crime.
However, this can be overridden if a case could be made that announcing this vulnerability to shareholders, and thus everyone would compromise the company further, and thus fixing it first meant nobody was harmed would suffice.
The kicker here is twofold. 1: If the share price reacts negatively once the investment community funds out, that would undermine the defence, and 2: If the fix causes harm to Intel processors leading back to 1, it'll be harder to defend.
As it stands, this looks very insider trady, unless if the news had no material impact, in which case, meh.
