Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › The rumor has it: QCOM is spinning off QCT
- This topic has 33 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 3 months ago by
JES.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 23, 2007 at 6:37 PM #80238August 23, 2007 at 7:19 PM #80119
davelj
ParticipantOk, FLU, I double-checked my facts (actually, just kidding – I didn’t – these things I know pretty well)…
It’s illegal to TRADE on inside information (material, non-public information) regardless of how it’s obtained.
It’s NOT illegal to REVEAL (such as a posting on the internet) inside information. HOWEVER, it would almost certainly be grounds for firing IF that person was classified by the company(s) involved as an INSIDER (that is, an officer, director, employee, consultant, investment banker, etc.).
For example… if the husband of a woman who works for an INSIDER tells the husband inside information, it’s NOT illegal for the husband to discuss it with other people or post the information on the internet (for example). It’s NOT illegal for the woman to have revealed the information to her husband. It’s also NOT illegal for the insider to have revealed the inside information to the woman, his subordinate. It’s likely, however, that should the insider and/or his subordinate be discovered as the source of the revealed (or “leaked”) information they will both be reprimanded or fired. It IS, however, ILLEGAL for any of them to TRADE on this information.
The REVEALING of inside information isn’t the illegal part, although it certainly puts one’s career at risk. It’s the TRADING on it that is, regardless of whether there’s a profit of not.
FLU, since you seem to think you know more about this than I do, please, I await your enlightenment.
August 23, 2007 at 7:19 PM #80248ParticipantOk, FLU, I double-checked my facts (actually, just kidding – I didn’t – these things I know pretty well)…
It’s illegal to TRADE on inside information (material, non-public information) regardless of how it’s obtained.
It’s NOT illegal to REVEAL (such as a posting on the internet) inside information. HOWEVER, it would almost certainly be grounds for firing IF that person was classified by the company(s) involved as an INSIDER (that is, an officer, director, employee, consultant, investment banker, etc.).
For example… if the husband of a woman who works for an INSIDER tells the husband inside information, it’s NOT illegal for the husband to discuss it with other people or post the information on the internet (for example). It’s NOT illegal for the woman to have revealed the information to her husband. It’s also NOT illegal for the insider to have revealed the inside information to the woman, his subordinate. It’s likely, however, that should the insider and/or his subordinate be discovered as the source of the revealed (or “leaked”) information they will both be reprimanded or fired. It IS, however, ILLEGAL for any of them to TRADE on this information.
The REVEALING of inside information isn’t the illegal part, although it certainly puts one’s career at risk. It’s the TRADING on it that is, regardless of whether there’s a profit of not.
FLU, since you seem to think you know more about this than I do, please, I await your enlightenment.
August 23, 2007 at 7:19 PM #80272ParticipantOk, FLU, I double-checked my facts (actually, just kidding – I didn’t – these things I know pretty well)…
It’s illegal to TRADE on inside information (material, non-public information) regardless of how it’s obtained.
It’s NOT illegal to REVEAL (such as a posting on the internet) inside information. HOWEVER, it would almost certainly be grounds for firing IF that person was classified by the company(s) involved as an INSIDER (that is, an officer, director, employee, consultant, investment banker, etc.).
For example… if the husband of a woman who works for an INSIDER tells the husband inside information, it’s NOT illegal for the husband to discuss it with other people or post the information on the internet (for example). It’s NOT illegal for the woman to have revealed the information to her husband. It’s also NOT illegal for the insider to have revealed the inside information to the woman, his subordinate. It’s likely, however, that should the insider and/or his subordinate be discovered as the source of the revealed (or “leaked”) information they will both be reprimanded or fired. It IS, however, ILLEGAL for any of them to TRADE on this information.
The REVEALING of inside information isn’t the illegal part, although it certainly puts one’s career at risk. It’s the TRADING on it that is, regardless of whether there’s a profit of not.
FLU, since you seem to think you know more about this than I do, please, I await your enlightenment.
August 23, 2007 at 8:12 PM #80157tangouniform
ParticipantIf you haven’t signed a NDA then you’re not an “insider”, no matter what you think. If you’re an officer then you’ll be signing one as part of your bonding and employment contract. If you’re a J6P employee with access to financial or business info that could get you entangled with the SEC then you’ll be signing an NDA before you get access.
One exception: if you’re the janitor that’s rifling desks in the quest to find the next big thing then you’re engaging in actionable activities that may get the Fan Belt Inspectors on your broom-pushin’ behind.
Rule One in the Corporate World: CYA with paper.
August 23, 2007 at 8:12 PM #80287ParticipantIf you haven’t signed a NDA then you’re not an “insider”, no matter what you think. If you’re an officer then you’ll be signing one as part of your bonding and employment contract. If you’re a J6P employee with access to financial or business info that could get you entangled with the SEC then you’ll be signing an NDA before you get access.
One exception: if you’re the janitor that’s rifling desks in the quest to find the next big thing then you’re engaging in actionable activities that may get the Fan Belt Inspectors on your broom-pushin’ behind.
Rule One in the Corporate World: CYA with paper.
August 23, 2007 at 8:12 PM #80310ParticipantIf you haven’t signed a NDA then you’re not an “insider”, no matter what you think. If you’re an officer then you’ll be signing one as part of your bonding and employment contract. If you’re a J6P employee with access to financial or business info that could get you entangled with the SEC then you’ll be signing an NDA before you get access.
One exception: if you’re the janitor that’s rifling desks in the quest to find the next big thing then you’re engaging in actionable activities that may get the Fan Belt Inspectors on your broom-pushin’ behind.
Rule One in the Corporate World: CYA with paper.
August 23, 2007 at 8:38 PM #80170p-dude
Participantp-dude
QCT is a one of biggest money producer for QCOM. As far
as I know most money for other entities in QCOM comes from
QCT revenue. Unless there are other patent issues with BRCOM and NOKIA which is forcing them to spin QCT out.If this rumor is true and there are more legal issue with
other companies, they are in much more trouble then it
seems. By the way, don’t worry about your posting. Its nothing worst than stuff I read in Yahoo Message board.August 23, 2007 at 8:38 PM #80299Participantp-dude
QCT is a one of biggest money producer for QCOM. As far
as I know most money for other entities in QCOM comes from
QCT revenue. Unless there are other patent issues with BRCOM and NOKIA which is forcing them to spin QCT out.If this rumor is true and there are more legal issue with
other companies, they are in much more trouble then it
seems. By the way, don’t worry about your posting. Its nothing worst than stuff I read in Yahoo Message board.August 23, 2007 at 8:38 PM #80322Participantp-dude
QCT is a one of biggest money producer for QCOM. As far
as I know most money for other entities in QCOM comes from
QCT revenue. Unless there are other patent issues with BRCOM and NOKIA which is forcing them to spin QCT out.If this rumor is true and there are more legal issue with
other companies, they are in much more trouble then it
seems. By the way, don’t worry about your posting. Its nothing worst than stuff I read in Yahoo Message board.August 23, 2007 at 10:29 PM #80216enron_by_the_sea
ParticipantIt is not really a new news. Back in 2006, Paul Jacobs, in an interview with Financial Times, hinted at exactly this. (Of course no details about unvested options)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3636c0f8-f968-11da-8ced-0000779e2340.html
His words
” So I want to keep the company together. We considered restructuring the company to protect the licensing business. If it comes down to that and that’s the best way to enhance shareholder value then that’s what we’re going to do. But we expect that we’re going to be able to keep the company together.”
August 23, 2007 at 10:29 PM #80346ParticipantIt is not really a new news. Back in 2006, Paul Jacobs, in an interview with Financial Times, hinted at exactly this. (Of course no details about unvested options)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3636c0f8-f968-11da-8ced-0000779e2340.html
His words
” So I want to keep the company together. We considered restructuring the company to protect the licensing business. If it comes down to that and that’s the best way to enhance shareholder value then that’s what we’re going to do. But we expect that we’re going to be able to keep the company together.”
August 23, 2007 at 10:29 PM #80369ParticipantIt is not really a new news. Back in 2006, Paul Jacobs, in an interview with Financial Times, hinted at exactly this. (Of course no details about unvested options)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3636c0f8-f968-11da-8ced-0000779e2340.html
His words
” So I want to keep the company together. We considered restructuring the company to protect the licensing business. If it comes down to that and that’s the best way to enhance shareholder value then that’s what we’re going to do. But we expect that we’re going to be able to keep the company together.”
August 24, 2007 at 11:16 AM #80460PadreBrian
Participantop, don’t worry. sorrento valley food court has the very same info. lol it’s the talk of the town. expect layoffs as well. this won’t help house prices.
August 24, 2007 at 11:16 AM #80590Participantop, don’t worry. sorrento valley food court has the very same info. lol it’s the talk of the town. expect layoffs as well. this won’t help house prices.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
