Slashdot Mirror


Equifax Investigation Clears Execs Who Dumped Stock Before Hack Announcement (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Equifax discovered on July 29th that it had been hacked, losing the Social Security numbers and other personal information of 143 million Americans -- and then just a few days later, several of its executives sold stock worth a total of nearly $1.8 million. When the hack was publicly announced in September, Equifax's stock promptly tanked, which made the trades look very, very sketchy. At the time, Equifax claimed that its executives had no idea about the massive data breach when they sold their stock. Today, the credit reporting company released further details about its internal investigation that cleared all four executives of any wrongdoing.

The report, prepared by a board-appointed special committee, concludes that "none of the four executives had knowledge of the incident when their trades were made, that preclearance for the four trades was appropriately obtained, that each of the four trades at issue comported with Company policy, and that none of the four executives engaged in insider trading." The committee says it reviewed 55,000 documents to reach its conclusions, including emails and text messages, and conducted 62 in-person interviews. "The review was designed to pinpoint the date on which each of the four senior officers first learned of the security investigation that uncovered the breach and to determine whether any of those officers was informed of or otherwise learned of the security investigation before his trades were executed," the report states.

82 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...right

    1. Re:yeah... by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is there any way to find out how frequently execs sell their own stock and how much? Seems like you could prove whether or not its abnormal for execs to sell this amount in the period in which the company knew it had been hacked.

    2. Re:yeah... by jrumney · · Score: 2

      Trades by C level execs should all be listed in the public SEC filings. Presumably that is how this became news in the first place.

    3. Re: yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      At least one requested approval a day before the hack. Those ones should be cleared immediately for obvious reasons.

      Equifax only allows executives to sell shares during certain windows. The window in question started 7/28. The hack was found 7/29. This is adequate to explain the rush of sales by executives.

      The sales were all less than 10% of what these guys held (VP of investor relations percentage is not specified).

      It's not impossible that this was shady, but it's also plausible that it was not.

      https://investor.equifax.com/news-and-events/news/2017/11-03-2017-124511096

    4. Re:yeah... by SNRatio · · Score: 1

      Best practice would be for all potential insider traders (including Congress) to be forced to announce their trades (and place the orders) at least one full business day before the orders execute. No, they can't cancel or change their order if the market shifts in the meantime.

    5. Re:yeah... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I thought actual practice was 2 or 3 weeks notice, but those SEC filings seem to be announcing trades that already took place after the fact, so it may not be public notice, or the rules changed in the past few years.

    6. Re:yeah... by SumDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one executive from the 2008 financial collapse is in prison. 1% of Americans are in prison, more than any other country in the world.

      This is why your vote doesn't matter in America. The people don't dictate policies. The top 1% do. Everything else is a puppet show.

    7. Re:yeah... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

      Is there any way to find out how frequently execs sell their own stock and how much?

      Here's a list.

    8. Re:yeah... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      The rules have not changed, but they are complicated. Sales of restricted stock must be pre-announced. Sales of unrestricted stock only have to be announced after the sale.

      There are proposals to require pre-announcements of all sales by people presumed to have insider info.

    9. Re:yeah... by slashrio · · Score: 1

      And now an external investigation please, because, come on now, after all we are all friends... right?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    10. Re:yeah... by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      I don't now why you're modded funny instead of obvious.

      There is no way you're going to convince me the stock sale had nothing to do with this.

      Even if there is evidence that they were planning to sell the stock before the "hack" was known I would still think they knew about the data breach before they admitted that they did.

      And that's BEFORE I even put my tin-foil hat on which suggests to me a whole host of other conspiracies some of which includes the idea that they intentionally leaked the data. That may be some crazy idea that they would intentionally do this but can the incompetence be explained any other way? And does anyone really think that if they couldn't profit from putting basically every adult with any credit in the US at risk (and many in a few other countries as well) that they wouldn't?

      But what's a poor boy to do? I could protest I guess. I could vote against every incumbent from here on out. I could even vote for a third party. But we're powerless to do anything and I say that without my hat on.

    11. Re: yeah... by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I'm sure they're not happy about bring exempt. It's just that they haven't got around to the changing the law...

    12. Re:yeah... by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      An internal investigation overseen by the jerks who are subject to that investigation. Take everything the managers own, throw them in jail, and close that entire company down. Any proceeds from sales of goods is to be distributed to the victims....without lawyers getting a huge cut as is the case in the class action suits.

    13. Re:yeah... by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      By announcing this publicly the market WILL shift and typically down. It never looks good when the top managers drop a lot of stock at once. The much better way is to make it illegal for anyone in Congress or C level management of a publicly traded company to own any stock. Keeps them honest and forces the companies to pay them fully taxable salaries rather than company stock where gains are taxed much lower.

    14. Re: yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Pff I wouldn't clear the President of Information Solutions for that. He was in the direct line of command here. He would've had the ability to uncover the breach before it was initially reported. He could easily have been informed by a nervous technician, unofficially, because who would report this sort of thing by official channels when the news is this bad?

      So yeah, he learns there's some anomalies in the logs. Suspects there's been a breach. Gets approval for stock sale because hey, no one knows yet. Then he triggers an official review. Keep in mind *something* triggered the discovery of the breach. It sure as hell wasn't a routine action that uncovered it, given initial intrusions were done in March and it was only "discovered" July 29.

      Now he's got his alibi. He couldn't possibly have known through any channels because no emails were sent and he got approval before there was any reason to believe there was anything wrong, right? And just to be safe, he isn't informed officially of the breach until August 10. A president-level executive. How could there possibly be any wrongdoing?

      The most dubious part of this isn't that the stock was sold just before/after the breach was detected, btw. It's that executives weren't informed until 4 weeks after the breach was detected, and even the President of Information Systems wasn't informed until 12 days later.

    15. Re:yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then they form a shell corporation which purchases the stock on their behalf. There's so many loopholes that these types of laws are unenforceable.

      What needs to happen is that the majority of people have to realize that this game is completely rigged, and pull out of it. A massive shakeout of the corrupt actors is required to start fresh where some trust can be placed back int the system.

    16. Re:yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are some things that are shit in America, including your defeatist attitude. Not voting or thinking that your vote does not matter, is not a solution. Lets assume (for the duration of this post) that the voting machines were not hacked. 80,000 votes was the diffrence between HRC & Trump being president (Link below). 80,000...

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/donald-trump-will-be-president-thanks-to-80000-people-in-three-states/?utm_term=.048fcfb633d6

    17. Re:yeah... by geoskd · · Score: 1

      The much better way is to make it illegal for anyone in Congress or C level management of a publicly traded company to own any stock. Keeps them honest and forces the companies to pay them fully taxable salaries rather than company stock where gains are taxed much lower. Flag as Inappropriate

      How does that work for a founder of the company? Presumably one of the founders is going to own stock, and if the founders of the company can't be in leadership positions, the company will never get off the ground...

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    18. Re: yeah... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      One requested clearance the day before the hack was CONFIRMED.

      The hack itself was quite a while before that and confirmation follows suspicion. One needs to know if those suspicions had been communicated in any form to the people involved.

      As someone pointed out elsewhere, this is execs clearing execs. It doesn't mean the SEC won't investigate and decide otherwise.

       

    19. Re: yeah... by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      So yeah, he learns there's some anomalies in the logs. Suspects there's been a breach. Gets approval for stock sale because hey, no one knows yet. Then he triggers an official review. Keep in mind *something* triggered the discovery of the breach. It sure as hell wasn't a routine action that uncovered it, given initial intrusions were done in March and it was only "discovered" July 29.

      Reminds me of the argument that we do not really have free will. Typically, we are conscious of acts being acts of free will, or rather, we believe that they are. Yet before the act itself, the brain had accumulated the data and processed it, coming to certain beliefs. Then the action occurs.

      Example, I see a jar of pickles. I make the free choice to unscrew the lid, thereby opening the jar and having access to the pickles. If I was a caveman, I might be making the free choice to whack open the jar with a small stone. There was a free choice or free act, i.e., the action.

      Then again, the executive could say "What can I say? I was texting while juggling my portfolio."

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    20. Re:yeah... by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      At which point, their barbers and second cousins and such will become very good at stock market timing -- for a very very narrow set of stocks.

      And will somehow feel an urge to give tens of thousands of dollars to their C-suite acquaintance/relative/whatever.

      That might be a bit obvious. Maybe something a bit more subtle, like returning the favor, or another one of similar value, at some future date.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    21. Re: yeah... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      The title for the story should be "Equifax Execs Absolve Themselves of any Wrongdoing". They set up the inquiry, of course it's going to find they did nothing wrong, that was the whole point of having it.

  2. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Equifax finds Equifax not guilty.

    1. Re:Duh by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      Well, if they really found themselves not guilty they wouldn't have even said they were hacked. Hacked? Us? Of course not because such an occurrence would mean we were fallible.

      Meta thought

      Equifax sits in judgment of ALL. Who is a good creditor? Ask Equifax.

      On the one hand, that makes Equifax a big target, and they probably beat off hackers with a stick.

      But Equifax is fallible

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  3. The report, prepared by a board-appointed special by ChoGGi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Clears Execs (not like anyone expected anything different).

    So these supposedly important members of the company weren't (officially) notified or found out about this July 29th hack till August 10th?
    I assume they were notified of the previous March hack, and how it had yet to be disclosed?

  4. No harm, no foul by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The internal investigation by Equifax cleared the Equifax executives of any wrongdoing when they sold their stock in Equifax just before the story about how Equifax was so sloppy with the personal data of millions of people who aren't even customers of Equifax that hackers were able to get all of it.

    Well, I guess that settles it. Surely, if there was wrongdoing, the internal investigation by Equifax would have found it and brought the wrongdoers to justice.

    Now watch me hit this drive...See that? Right in the middle of the fairway.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. Classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "We have investigated ourselves and have found no evidence of any wrongdoing."

  6. Board's hiring record not good by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    These investigators were hired by the same board that hired a team of executives who had no clue about computer security and apparently had no idea that one of the largest failures of computer security ever had occurred several days earlier. With that sort of hiring record, I'm not sure I'd trust anyone they hired.

    1. Re:Board's hiring record not good by geekmux · · Score: 1

      These investigators were hired by the same board that hired a team of executives who had no clue about computer security and apparently had no idea that one of the largest failures of computer security ever had occurred several days earlier. With that sort of hiring record, I'm not sure I'd trust anyone they hired.

      Trust? What the hell makes you think this has to do with trust?

      To give you an idea of just how fucked up the system really is, the board members are going to get rewarded for this, which is exactly why the only acceptable result was the fabricated bullshit we're seeing. The board investigated and found executives to be not guilty, and thus of the highest caliber, affirming an excellent capability to select only the best personnel to run a company. Golden resume fodder right there.

      Executives had no idea of the largest breach in company history for days? What a load of shit. At minimum I'd be firing the CIO for not having a policy of immediate notification for a cyberattack of this magnitude. What fucking CIO wants to be kept in the dark about something like that? Same goes for the board for that matter; it's a public company. Attacks can (and did) affect stock price, which is also the reason executives were notified in person, also known as that old-fashioned untraceable way of informing stock holders of a good time to sell.

    2. Re:Board's hiring record not good by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      What fucking CIO wants to be kept in the dark about something like that?

      One that would like a chance to offload some shares before they tank?

    3. Re:Board's hiring record not good by geekmux · · Score: 1

      What fucking CIO wants to be kept in the dark about something like that?

      One that would like a chance to offload some shares before they tank?

      Exactly. And yet the investigation results amounted to nothing more than a Jedi mind trick, which will most likely be accepted by other equally corrupt regulatory agencies doing subsequent investigations.

      Don't even know why we maintain moral and ethical regulations in business anymore. Not like anyone actually enforces them.

  7. Shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Internal investigation" by "board-appointed special committee" (how do I fit more quotes around that?).

    I, for one, am shocked they they found no wrong doing!

    1. Re:Shocked! by ACE209 · · Score: 1

      I think its not the number but the placement of quotes.
      More like:
      internal "investigation" by board-appointed "special" comittee.

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
  8. Seems legit to me by theGhostPony · · Score: 1

    It's not as if any crimes were committed. Oh, wait...

    --
    /. Dissent will not be tolerated. Think like us or perish.
  9. Re:fox in control of henhouse, hens fucked by omnichad · · Score: 1

    I didn't know fox was into that.

  10. Deregulation by Waccoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any time someone says the free market can police itself, refer them to situations like this.

    1. Re:Deregulation by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Only idiots and liberals making straw man arguments say that. The question has always been enough regulation and oversight to keep businesses honest but not too much that you stifle industry and growth.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    2. Re:Deregulation by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Any time someone says the free market can police itself, refer them to situations like this.

      ... and then they will correctly point out that this is not a free market. Free markets have information transparency, and sales based on insider trading are inherently asymmetric.

      Here is the official Libertarian view on insider trading: It should not be a crime. Instead, individual companies should have policies and employment contracts restricting what insiders can do. Those companies that refrain from restricting insider trading will find their stock trading at a discount, and will pay more for capital. This will give companies a strong incentive to have robust rules and to enforce them rigorously. They will likely do a better job than the SEC, which has a rather pathetic record.

    3. Re:Deregulation by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Why, it worked, didn't it?
      The matter was investigated, no wrong doing found.
      Case closed. ...No?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    4. Re:Deregulation by johnnys · · Score: 1

      The golden calf named "information transparency" is exactly why "libertarianism" can never work.

      "Information transparency" is a ideal state which can never be achieved, since there will ALWAYS be a person or group who can benefit by manipulating, obfuscating or hiding information and will do so.

      Look at the efforts by Russia to influence elections around the world using social media: The original idea of social media was to allow people to freely communicate and share information for their own benefit, while allowing the providers to make some money off aggregating the information in a relatively harmless way.

      What we GOT from social media is a massive propaganda machine that is being used by power brokers to twist unsuspecting minds and commit mass surveillance. Much of the political polarization and build-up of angst in western culture can be traced to this massive and malicious abuse of social media. Note also it has been abused both by outsiders AND insiders.

      So the holy grail of "Information transparency" is right there on the web RIGHT NOW: Funny how it has been twisted and made into a weapon!

      --
      Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
  11. Yeah, I call bullshit... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    So they "reviewed" 55,000 documents. At just one minute per document, that works out to about 920 man hours of work just to look at them all, much less to understand them.

    And yeah, I'm going to trust the "internal review" of a company that has already proved it has a corporate culture as trustworthy and reliable as Kevin Spacey in a roomful of naked teenage boys.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  12. To be fair by aldousd666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    big companies that reward their executives with stock, or large numbers of options, usually put restrictions on the sale as part of the contract. For example, the most common contract is that they can sell their stock, but only on a 6-month schedule. So they had to have it scheduled for sale at least 6 months ahead of time. I have no knowledge of Equifax in particular, but this is SOP. It would raise a shit ton of eyebrows if not. And, if it's only just a little over a million bucks, that sounds to me like they had it scheduled. Because, if they were playing the inside they'd have made a shit-ton more than that between them.

    --
    Speak for yourself.
    1. Re:To be fair by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      big companies that reward their executives with stock, or large numbers of options, usually put restrictions on the sale as part of the contract. For example, the most common contract is that they can sell their stock, but only on a 6-month schedule. So they had to have it scheduled for sale at least 6 months ahead of time. I have no knowledge of Equifax in particular, but this is SOP. It would raise a shit ton of eyebrows if not. And, if it's only just a little over a million bucks, that sounds to me like they had it scheduled. Because, if they were playing the inside they'd have made a shit-ton more than that between them.

      And is it also SOP for the board of the company being investigated to be in charge of the investigation? To be fair, that is what reeks of the most bullshit here.

      Well that, and the fact that executives are playing dumb to not knowing about the largest breach in company history for days. Either they're corrupt and knew about the breach, or they're incompetent for holding a keep-me-in-the-dark policy regarding cyberattacks. Which is it?

    2. Re:To be fair by MikeDataLink · · Score: 2

      the most common contract is that they can sell their stock, but only on a 6-month schedule

      Yes, and many companies also have auto-buys and auto-sells for senior executives. They have no choice. This is designed to put the fire under their ass. If your stock will auto sell 1 million shares after the earnings call, it best be a good quarter! ;-)

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    3. Re:To be fair by helga+the+viking · · Score: 1

      Stock buybacks and whatnot. Talking to all kinds of engineers who have to deal with these people the whole corporate stucture is flawed by design. http://www.businessinsider.com...

  13. Thanks, I will wait for the Criminal Investigation by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nice try Equifax, but I will wait for the findings and recommendations of the federal investigators, not some stooges you hired to put out what amounts to a PR statement.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  14. Pre-Enter Sell orders by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about if you are an executive, then for every quarter you Pre-Enter a Sell Order assuming something bad will happen.... If you don't learn of anything catastrophic happening, then cancel or modify your sell order before it occurs and/or before it has to be reported.

    Any investigation will basically always show you knew nothing about what the bad thing was at the time you created the order ----- Because it's what you knew when you failed to cancel your order as otherwise intended that matters.

    1. Re:Pre-Enter Sell orders by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Can you do that? I mean selling when you know something bad happened and not selling when you know something good happened sounds like two sides of the exact same coin. I thought the entire point of the SEC filings was to say in advance that you've committed to selling stock to reduce speculation that the sale is due to undisclosed numbers or breaking events. Obviously if a crisis has been long in the making like this it doesn't always help, but it's only supposed to be a speed bump not a full protection against inside trading.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Pre-Enter Sell orders by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Can you do that? I mean selling when you know something bad happened and not selling when you know something good happened sounds like two sides of the exact same coin.

      I don't know.... It would still be insider trading, BUT impossible for an investigation that makes certain assumptions to prove.

      That's the the thing with trades is they can be cancelled at the last second. The decision to actually cancel is likely to be met with less scrutiny, although a long pattern of cancelling orders might cause some suspicion.

    3. Re:Pre-Enter Sell orders by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I found it interesting when I read that the SEC considers it NOT insider trading to cancel an order based on insider information.

  15. Re:Thanks, I will wait for the Criminal Investigat by SumDog · · Score: 1

    I doubt that anything will come of that either. Is anyone from the 2008 financial collapse in jail? No, of course not. There is a different standard of justice for the 1%, because they control everything.

  16. Re:The report, prepared by a board-appointed speci by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Even if they weren't sent an email, its hard to imagine they didn't hear something at the water cooler.

  17. Conclusion: executives were clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does this come as a surprise?

  18. Re:so the trick is... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    never email or text anyone about insider trading, got it.

    It is amazing how many people don't get it. I have read many email discussions where people openly discuss tax evasion strategies, stealing office supplies, driving stoned, etc. Never, ever, say anything in writing that you can't explain to a judge and jury.

  19. Re:Remove the beam by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Yet for some reason you can't see how this situation exactly mirrors having all of Hilldawg's cronies "investigate" her numerous wrongdoings.

    There have been dozens of Republican investigations into Hillary Clinton, by every far-right congressional jack-off you can think of. They've all come up with nothing

    Robert Mueller is a Republican. He's also a highly decorated war hero. His military decorations and awards include: the Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V", Purple Heart Medal, two Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals with Combat "V", Combat Action Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with three 316" bronze stars, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and Parachutist Badge.

    He served as FBI director under both Republican and Democratic administrations. And now, as Special Prosecutor, he's already taking Trump administration scalps. Number of arrests of Obama Administration officials over eight years? Zero. Number of Trump administration officials arrested or had to resign in disgrace just in the first 10 months of his presidency? I count an even dozen, including Trump's choice for chief scientist at the USDA, Sam Clovis.

    So take that beam and stick it straight up your alt-right ass.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  20. I'm not surprised, motherfuckers! by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the Equifax board, composed of people who play golf with and has hired these execs, has cleared the execs of wrongdoing? What a fucking surprise.

    In a better world, both the execs, the board, and the committee they appointed, would be chilling in the slammer right now.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  21. Re:Someone will file charges on this to be sure. by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Well, the results of that may still be funny, at least.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  22. Re: The report, prepared by a board-appointed spec by oobayly · · Score: 1

    That's my take on it. I'd be willing to accept that they didn't know specifically about the breach. However they probably had heard that something had happened which would negatively affect share prices.

  23. Re: Someone will file charges on this to be sure. by oobayly · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have so little confidence in Trump's abilities that I reckon he'd end up being found guilty by his own investigation.

  24. Re:Remove the beam by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Okay, to be fair, let's count the Obama administration officials who had to resign in disgrace Van Jones is one, pretty minor (as opposed to, say, Tom Price, who was a cabinet secretary), and it's arguable if it's in "disgrace" although he was forced out because of controversy, true enough. Any others?

  25. Re:The report, prepared by a board-appointed speci by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Culture? He was talking about Atlanta!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  26. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Last time I checked a company cannot clear someone of criminal wrong doing. These execs need to be looked at by the Justice department.

    Nice try Equifax.

    1. Re:What? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked a company cannot clear someone of criminal wrong doing. These execs need to be looked at by the Justice department.

      The Feds are part of the problem as they (both parties) are more corrupt than who you're asking them to prosecute. If you have enough wealth & power then what happens is along the lines of what we've seen occur in recent history

      "...found no criminal intent..."..."no reasonable prosecutor would...bring charges..."

      Since government touches almost everything, a corrupt government means corruption everywhere.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  27. Re:The report, prepared by a board-appointed speci by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    Watercoolers are for the interested or those managers that feign interest by talking down the line. This is Equifax we're talking about. I have no doubt that these people have an ivory tower built withing a cone of silence.

  28. Re:Thanks, I will wait for the Criminal Investigat by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    People get put in jail for insider trading all the time. The problem is what looks like insider trading often isn't more than pure co-incidence. E.g. they sold stocks the day before the announcement? Have you tried selling company stock options before? With the restrictions in place they likely had been working on this sale for months, or it was scheduled as part of the standard remuneration vesting.

  29. While it may be standard by Pollux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It needs to stop.

    About 8 years ago, I read a book called "The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism", by John Bogle, founder of Vanguard. In one of his chapters, he makes a case for ending executive stock-option compensation. The original intentions of stock-option compensation were to provide executives an incentive to perform well; as Bogle puts it, "align management's interests with those of shareholders".

    But Bogle went on to explain a key difference between executives and shareholders. Executive interests are short-term, while shareholders are invested long-term. Most individuals still invest long-term, and a substantial percentage of the stock market is locked away in retirement 401k's / 403b's, or in pension account investments. That money's not going anywhere anytime soon. But executives want their salaries as big as possible, as soon as possible. So, rather than executives making business decisions with long-term interests in mind, they selfishly make business decisions that maximize short-term values with little interest in how those decisions will affect the value of the company beyond the sell date of their stock compensation, 401k's be damned.

    And that's why we need to end stock-option compensation.

    1. Re:While it may be standard by trawg · · Score: 1

      Interesting! Book sounds cool, added to my "hopefully I'll have time to read this one day" list.

      The point totally makes sense, but isn't it an easy fix to tie stock option compensation to long term performance? Just make it so the shares don't vest for five years or more so the short-term incentive to pump and dump is removed?

  30. Re: Someone will file charges on this to be sure. by gweihir · · Score: 2

    Now that would be an event to remember for a long time!

    Of course, the actual problem is not Trump. He is just a symptom of the morons taking over.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  31. Once again, the facts don't support the mob by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 2

    As I said at the time, the amounts of stock the three execs sold in this particular date range were small percentages of their overall holdings and less than amounts they sold earlier in the year (and, I suspect if someone were to take the time to look, the prior year as well, etc.) If they really were trying to liquidate their holdings in response to bad news, they did a pretty poor job of it.

    And look at it this way: if they really did know about the breach, they would have well understood that selling into that bad news would have triggered exactly the reaction it did, creating a huge amount of both civil and criminal risk in exchange for what was for them a fairly small amount of money.

    I know conspiracy theories are fun, but I'm holding out hope for a thoughtful response this time.

  32. We have investigated ourselves... by BadTuna · · Score: 1

    ... and found we have done nothing wrong.

    --
    Your sig here!
  33. Forensic accounting, call in law enforcement. by helga+the+viking · · Score: 1

    Oh phew at least they acted legally says their own internal investigation.

    I burnt the house down then tried to incriminate the neighbour but hey my own investigation team says i am not guilty of the latter. Lets try and forget the house burning incident too ;-)

    Poor Americans, this is like most of you are enrolled in an anti-lottery. That means if you win some criminal chose your identity to conduct fraud.

    If USA had a real government department to enforce this stuff they would have shut down equifax immediately. In the same way as banks work: banks don't/cant go broke but if run badly at solvency risk the auditors come in and take over the administration of the bank. Equifax just uses this whole turbid event to try and sell dodgy insurance products against a breach they created. Ultimate white collar criminals.

  34. I wonder ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... if these executives will be able to clear their records of these events in the Experian and TransUnion databases.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  35. Great, more government overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The government needs to not be in how people buy/sell stock in any way, shape, or form. You can see the poisonous taint of socialism, pure and simple. Thankfully, the wise men of Congress are removing this from our government slowly, but surely, be it far better tax laws in front of Congress, to letting the engines of economic growth do what they do best without the burden of excessive taxation.

    If they have stock, it is their right to sell it at any time. If the security breach was known about privately, that doesn't change anything, and it is their right (like a salary perk) to dump stock and short it before the breach comes out, due to the company positions they hold. Don't like it, feel free to move to a socialist nation that likely will collapse, while the US rides the highest stock figures in history, showing the current libertarian values in place, are what a country needs.

  36. Anyone buying this by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Load of crap?

  37. Yeah. And if you believe that... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

    I have a fine vacation property west of Miami that you'll love. And I'm willing to part with it for a price that's practically a steal. In fact, I'll handle all of the work for you. Just post your checking account and routing transit numbers here and I'll handle the money transfer myself. I'll also need your DOB and SSN to properly change ownership of the property, and your home address so I can mail the deed to you. Don't miss this opportunity! You'll love it! Be the envy of your friends and family with a vacay home that's practically oceanfront.

    You can trust me. I say I'm honest and truthful, therefore, I'm honest and truthful, ipso facto, nolo contendere, de facto, ex facie, cosa nostra, jus primae noctis, in extremis, ustre eme, expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  38. Would we lie to you ? by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    "The report, prepared by a board-appointed special committee"

    That whole asking the " fox to guard the hen house " thing comes to mind.

    No wrong doing found here. No sir. Nothing to see, move along.

  39. In related news ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    An investigation performed by a skulk of foxes into the mysterious deaths of five chickens in a nearby coop revealed no obvious cause and that reports of chicken feathers found in piles of fox poop near the scene were fake news.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  40. We Have Investigated Ourselves.. by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    EQUIFAX: We have investigated ourselves, and found that we have done nothing wrong.

    SEC: Cool. As you were.

  41. Let us expand the scope now,. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Let us expand the scope of the criminal investigation by outside law enforcement agencies to include this investigation too. Let us check how diligent these investigators were, what documents these guys chose not to see, and see what this investigation did not know, and when they did not know it.

    Further let us also investigate why the top officials were not informed of important security issues. Also let us investigate the board for paying such salaries and compensation with no requirement to know, with no real responsibility.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  42. Re: fox in control of henhouse, hens fucked by sound+vision · · Score: 1

    You must not know many foxes.

  43. We asked them if they knew and they said "no". by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Glad that's all cleared up then.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  44. Re:Your ignorance and cynicism colluded by Maritz · · Score: 1

    That and an 11 day timeline? You've never sat on bad news before bringing it to your boss, ever. Particularly news so bad you're probably going to get fired? Right.

    Well, this shouldn't have to be said, but just because you're incompetent as fuck doesn't mean everyone is incompetent as fuck.

    The answer is no, I've never had to tell any boss something so bad I'd be fired, because I generally know what I'm fucking doing. These wankers knew what they were doing when they sold stock, and they did not know what they were doing when setting up a secure environment.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.