So this really gets me, bout the left media questioning stock sales.

[Gmoney4WW]

They know damn well that promising first results do not ensure success in the end. They say Moderna execs don't have faith in the company. No the execs are just ensuring they profit off this even if it fails in September(for example) to be the successful vaccine. It's just another headline to them. They don't give a crap if they are failing to point out the obvious. Both left and right media piss me off.

 

[TUMU]

If they met the requirements of what a10b5-1 plan is intended for, I wouldn't expect any problems.

 

[noble cane]

The left media hates capitalism. Pure and simple. Profit is evil in their eyes, unless of course you support the proper causes, act a certain way, and endorse the proper candidates. Then profit is OK.

 

[astonmartin708]

They know damn well that promising first results do not ensure success in the end. They say Moderna execs don't have faith in the company. No the execs are just ensuring they profit off this even if it fails in September(for example) to be the successful vaccine. It's just another headline to them. They don't give a crap if they are failing to point out the obvious. Both left and right media piss me off.

For me, it’s more about the sketchy stock sales combined with the fact that the execs were already sketchy to begin with. Anyone who’s preaching 100% effectiveness without a clinical trial of any sort is tantamount to a snake oil salesman. Add to that the fact that the exec was almost runout a couple years back by his board for questionable business practices.

 

[noble cane]

Maybe they sold the stock because they know that the vaccine works and that they will never be able to profit from it...

Seriously, the pressure to give it away for free as a humanitarian gesture will be greater than you can imagine..

They would get death threats, imprisonment threats, banishement from Bill Gates yacht, and no more invites to Bransons island if they sold it for profit.

The democrats would never let them sell it, or they would pass a special tax just to make sure they couldnt profit.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

For me, it’s more about the sketchy stock sales combined with the fact that the execs were already sketchy to begin with. Anyone who’s preaching 100% effectiveness without a clinical trial of any sort is tantamount to a snake oil salesman. Add to that the fact that the exec was almost runout a couple years back by his board for questionable business practices.

Thanks for your stock democratic response. The argument/thesis of these articles is a common thread. The primary argument is that they are selling the stocks, and that doesn't show faith in the product/vaccine. All the rest is just dross in the wind. Just because you apply the word sketchy doesn't make it so. It was stock sales, not sketchy stock sales. You think, like many leftist democrats that you are a hammer to right all the wrongs, and the stock sales don't meet up with your democratic 'equal money for all' belief system. So you create a wrong to right/nail to strike, cuz you is a hammer.

What the stock sales and subsequent selling of the stocks by the execs are, is a reality check. The execs know that a really incredible first trial doesn't guarantee a great final vaccine or even a working vaccine. So does anybody with half a brain know this, if they apply any analytical thought to the issue. At best it's a 60/40% Those people who have no brains, or an even slightly analytic filter to the news, are the ones that are taken in by this argument. You are advertising to the lowest common denominator and the unquestioning. That's just as repulsive as what Hannity, and the like do. You are proving no better than Hannity in this instance.

Then right after that, you pull 'past business practices' out of the hat, in order to add another place to insert the adjective sketchy. Past business practices have nothing to do with this issue. The articles(multiple media outlets) state as their general argument(thesis) that they sold the stock and it appears they don't have faith in the company/vaccine because they sold them. That is the only argument I am having a problem with, because it is not true. That has nothing to do with past business practices. So quit trying to drop in junk arguments to distract from the issue I am addressing. If you could just hear yourself talking, I wonder if you might catch youself sometimes. before you throw out your automated democratic response.

 

[astonmartin708]

Thanks for your stock democratic response. The argument/thesis of these articles is a common thread. The primary argument is that they are selling the stocks, and that doesn't show faith in the product/vaccine. All the rest is just dross in the wind. Just because you apply the word sketchy doesn't make it so. It was stock sales, not sketchy stock sales. You think, like many leftist democrats that you are a hammer to right all the wrongs, and the stock sales don't meet up with your democratic 'equal money for all' belief system. So you create a wrong to right/nail to strike, cuz you is a hammer.

What the stock sales and subsequent selling of the stocks by the execs are, is a reality check. The execs know that a really incredible first trial doesn't guarantee a great final vaccine or even a working vaccine. So does anybody with half a brain know this, if they apply any analytical thought to the issue. At best it's a 60/40% Those people who have no brains, or an even slightly analytic filter to the news, are the ones that are taken in by this argument. You are advertising to the lowest common denominator and the unquestioning. That's just as repulsive as what Hannity, and the like do. You are proving no better than Hannity in this instance.

Then right after that, you pull 'past business practices' out of the hat, in order to add another place to insert the adjective sketchy. Past business practices have nothing to do with this issue. The articles(multiple media outlets) state as their general argument(thesis) that they sold the stock and it appears they don't have faith in the company/vaccine because they sold them. That is the only argument I am having a problem with, because it is not true. That has nothing to do with past business practices. So quit trying to drop in junk arguments to distract from the issue I am addressing. If you could just hear yourself talking, I wonder if you might catch youself sometimes. before you throw out your automated democratic response.

My response has nothing to do with anything democratic. I didn’t appreciate these guys advertising their drug as a miracle cure when it performed apparently well on 8 people out of the dozens they have it to. Moreover their CEO was questionable prior to this announcement. The way their company has operated seems fishy is all I’m saying. I can’t prove it but I’m suspicious. I was suspicious before they sold a bunch of their stock and I’m more suspicious afterward. There’s nothing wrong with that.

I don’t have a problem with drug companies benefiting from this vaccine. But there is clearly an avenue for some people to take advantage of the world’s situation right now and I want to point that out. Trust but verify is all I’m saying.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

My response has nothing to do with anything democratic. I didn’t appreciate these guys advertising their drug as a miracle cure when it performed apparently well on 8 people out of the dozens they have it to. Moreover their CEO was questionable prior to this announcement. The way their company has operated seems fishy is all I’m saying. I can’t prove it but I’m suspicious. I was suspicious before they sold a bunch of their stock and I’m more suspicious afterward. There’s nothing wrong with that.

I don’t have a problem with drug companies benefiting from this vaccine. But there is clearly an avenue for some people to take advantage of the world’s situation right now and I want to point that out. Trust but verify is all I’m saying.

If they are being honest with the results of their trial then I stand by what I said. But if they are being dishonest about it then I agree with you. I did not realize that you were expressing suspicion of their trial and it's data.

 

[Clong83a]

If they are being honest with the results of their trial then I stand by what I said. But if they are being dishonest about it then I agree with you. I did not realize that you were expressing suspicion of their trial and it's data.

I don't know anything about the company's history, nor that of the executives. But I can easily see both sides of this issue. There is no problem with selling stock in your own company, people do it all the time. Often big option packages are part of executive's compensation package, so if they were able to option a bunch of stock and pick it up for a cost of 10% of the current going price, then why the heck wouldn't you cash in? There is nothing untoward about that, it is just taking advantage of one of the compensation packages you were given and have earned by providing a product that has driven up the stock price.

But it is also naive to say that it couldn't easily be interpreted in a fishy way as well. Whenever there is that much money changing hands, there may be all kinds of ulterior motives. They may be overhyping their trial results and cashing in via a pump and dump scheme. Please note that I am not accusing them of that, but I acknowledge that it is possible, and humans motivated by large sums of money can often do unethical things to achieve that goal. See: half of human history.

I think a bit of skepticism is not unhealthy toward these kinds of trades. They might be perfectly benign, or they might not be. To believe one or the other wholeheartedly as a default is probably going to get you burned, no matter which side your default is set to. Time will tell. It's possible their vaccine works and they are deservedly getting some compensation for their efforts thus far, and it is possible that these guys are just corporate opportunists taking advantage of a moment in the spotlight amidst a global health crisis. In the meantime, it is kind of silly to debate motivations that we can't really know.

It's also possible the vaccine doesn't work, but that everything released thus far is still on the up and up and the early results are fairly promising. My only point here is that even if the vaccine fails, it still doesn't necessarily mean they are crooks. If the vaccine fails, there will probably be reviews of their data. If the data looks like it was fudged, expect an enormous backlash. If not, well, that sucks, but sometimes things just don't work out and we shouldn't punish anyone over it. It especially happens a lot when you are trying to do things that nobody has ever done before, and we shouldn't discourage people from taking those kinds of risks by harassing them if their good faith early data proves to be a statistical anomaly.