Insider selling - Fastly

It caught my attention that Artur Bergman (Fastly founder) has sold $50m worth of shares in the last few days. From the source, this seems a significant portion of his shares. I don’t know what significance this has (if any). Perhaps he just wanted to raise some cash and he wasn’t able to pre-earnings.

I know insider selling is often standardised, but this struck me as particularly high volume right after a 35% drop in value. The question is when does insider selling move from ‘standard’ to a potential red flag?

Appreciate any thoughts, I am no expert in trying to interpret insider moves, or what importance we should place on them

Source: https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/FSLY/insider-trades/

1 Like

Personally, I never place much significance on insider selling. Insiders can have a multitude of reasons for selling, many of them personal that aren’t related to the company or the company’s performance. I’m far more interested in insider buying since there’s only one reason an insider would buy shares.

4 Likes

Looking down the history it looks like he sells regularly. He had 500k shares and then suddenly over a million and then sold back down to 500k. Perhaps a big bonus or conversion event he unwound? Unless there was a stock split I missed it looks like he just converted some compensation to cash and still owns more shares then he historically has kept.

I’m just speculating here based on some numbers at the link you sent. I don’t really know anything. He would have had to file his intent to sell some time ago though right? I assume he could have decided to pass on the sale but perhaps he doesn’t want to play the market-timing game with so much money…? He did get almost 4x his price in May and April!


 Date	         Shares Price	    Total	  Shares After	

8/10/2020	 92,308	$79.09	 $7,300,639.72	  571,650
8/7/2020	542,308	$80.16	$43,471,409.28	1,021,650	
5/5/2020	  6,600	$22.50	   $148,500.00	  485,942
4/23/2020	 15,000	$23.24	   $348,600.00	  494,342	  
4/20/2020	 90,000	$25.00	 $2,250,000.00	  569,342	  

5 Likes

…Or maybe he just thought, “Wouldn’t it be cool if I made $50 million this month?”, and topped up his big transaction :wink:

(Adding humor to point out that we really don’t know the reasons)
(Also jealousy is real)

3 Likes

This site shows a pattern of sticking to a certain number of shares.

http://openinsider.com/insider/Bergman-Artur/1769490

4 Likes

This site shows a pattern of sticking to a certain number of shares.

http://openinsider.com/insider/Bergman-Artur/1769490

Need a way to edit our posts :frowning: !

Adding the part: He appears to have exercised options that came due and sold. At earlier sales, he limited his ownership to 379,889 shares. In more recent sales it was limited to 479,342.

Thanks all, looks like this is just a standardised sale.

Makes sense that insider buying holds a lot more weight, or perhaps even no insider selling at all (as AnalogKid70 had called out as a bullish indicator a couple months back with LVGO - though in hindsight this may have been due to the impending takeover https://discussion.fool.com/couple-thoughts-on-lvgo-34547132.asp…)

Agree re the edit post feature :slight_smile:

…Or maybe he just thought, “Wouldn’t it be cool if I made $50 million this month?”, and topped up his big transaction :wink:

(Adding humor to point out that we really don’t know the reasons)
(Also jealousy is real)

Yeah! I agree! And jealous too!

Zoom CEO sells about 140,000 shares every month. #Diversification

CEO’s selling is hard to interpret.

Now, CEO (and founder) not selling (a la LVGO) - that gets my attention.

1 Like

“though in hindsight this may have been due to the impending takeover”

Absolutely it had to do with the takeover. I’m pretty sure it would be illegal for them to sell stock when in negotiations regarding a merger. Even if it was not illegal, they would not sell before the announcement bc they knew payday was coming.

CEOs not selling is not always an indicator. But with LVGO, it was a relatively new IPO and most of the insiders had not been able to cash in yet. They had a funky secondary during the initial lock-up period and because of that the insiders had to commit to an extension of the lockup. So they were public a long time before insiders would have been able to sell. Then the stock went parabolic and they still did not sell. IMO that could only mean they knew they were going to keep crushing earnings so they were waiting for higher prices, and/or there was some major business deal in progress which prevented them from being able to sell.