Replies to post #6316 on GTC Biotherapeutics (fka GTCB)

[croumagnon]

"If insider buying precedes a decline in the share price or if insider selling precedes a rise in the share price, there is no financial benefit to the insiders and hence no violation."

Again, I do not believe that is accurate. If insider buying or selling is viewed as a manipulative tactic to trigger buying for the purpose of overshadowing bad news, then I suspect it would be viewed as an illegal activity by the authorities.

My previous suggestion of insiders possibly knowing the results are bad and letting their relatives and friends act on that by selling may not be correct, but neither is your suggestion above. I think it would be quite a flagrant violation of morality, if not a legal violation, if Cox and company are already aware that the ATryn results are bad and are buying token shares in the open market to fool investors. If that is the case, then I suspect some lawsuits will ensue and I am sure the GTCB lawyers would have told them that. So I totally reject your premise and I think the only justification for the buying is that insiders are still not privy to the trial results but they are optimistic about the future, and are thus sending a clear message to shareholders...

[OKY]

I don't think bad news is imminent!

OK call me pollyanna,

What I believe is that it was a gentle confirmation
to the shareholders. In other words all is well. A Christmas gift, as it where. The number of shares purchased is what
I'm going by. Look 10,000 shares is to little to be an
additional investment IMHO.

Well, I can be as presumptive as every one else. LOL

[mouton29]

"I mentioned this as a theoretical possibility, and I am not saying that this is what is actually going on."

No, you offered not a possibility but a possible explanation. "The other possible explanation for the insider buying is that bad news of some sort is imminent. Let’s hope it isn’t that."

The difference is this. That a possible sequences of events is not illegal is not an explanation, to my way of thinking. If you tell me that he had flushed $10,000 down the toilet, the fact that that is not illegal is not an explanation of the deed.

If his purpose was to artificially support the stock price for some purpose that is not apparent to me, that sounds like market manipulation, which would be illegal.

I see no lawful explanation consistent with his purchase if he knows the results are going to be bad.