Showing posts with label insider action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insider action. Show all posts

Thursday 22 December 2011

Rajaratnam Ordered to Pay $92.8 Million Penalty


BY PETER LATTMAN

Raj Rajaratnam, co-founder of Galleon Group, enters Manhattan federal court in May 2011.Louis Lanzano/Associated PressRaj Rajaratnam, co-founder of Galleon Group, enters Manhattan federal court in May 2011.
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the convicted hedge fund titan Raj Rajaratnam to pay a $92.8 million penalty, the largest ever assessed against a person in aSecurities and Exchange Commission insider trading case.
Combined with the fines and forfeitures ordered last month when he was sentenced to 11 years in prison for insider trading, Mr. Rajaratnam will be paying a total of $156.6 million.
“The penalty imposed today reflects the historic proportions of Raj Rajaratnam’s illegal conduct and its impact on the integrity of our markets,” said Robert S. Khuzami, the S.E.C.’s head of enforcement.

Article Tools

Legal experts say the S.E.C. fine against Mr. Rajaratnam is noteworthy because in many cases judges will not impose such substantial civil penalties against a defendant who has already been sentenced and ordered to pay stiff criminal fines.
Mr. Rajaratnam’s lawyers argued that given the financial penalties imposed in the criminal case — a $10 million fine and $53.8 million in forfeited profits — additional civil penalties were unwarranted.
Judge Jed. S. Rakoff of Federal District Court in Manhattan.Fred R. Conrad/The New York TimesJudge Jed. S. Rakoff of Federal District Court in Manhattan.
Judge Jed S. Rakoff, the presiding judge in the S.E.C.’s case against Mr. Rajaratnam, rejected that notion.
“This misapprehends both the nature of this parallel proceeding and the purposes of civil penalties,” Judge Rakoff said in his order. “S.E.C. civil penalties, most especially in a case involving such lucrative misconduct as insider trading, are designed, most importantly, to make such unlawful trading a money-losing proposition not just for this defendant, but for all who would consider it.” He added that it was a warning that, if caught, “you are going to pay severely in monetary terms.”
Judge Rakoff arrived at the $92.8 million figure by imposing the maximum penalty under the law of three times Mr. Rajaratnam’s illegal gains at his hedge fund, the Galleon Group.
“This case cries out for the kind of civil penalty that will deprive this defendant of a material part of his fortune,” he said.
The S.E.C. brought a parallel civil lawsuit against Mr. Rajaratnam in the Federal District Court in Manhattan on the same day in October 2009 that the Justice Department charged him with orchestrating a giant insider trading scheme. At the time, Mr. Rajaratnam was one of the most powerful hedge fund managers; Forbes magazine estimated his net worth at $1.5 billion.
It is unclear how much money Mr. Rajaratnam has left. Judge Rakoff said that he reviewed the government’s presentence report, which is not public, and said that Mr. Rajaratnam’s net worth “considerably exceeds” the penalties imposed in the criminal case. A federal jury in Manhattan convicted Mr. Rajaratnam in May.
Mr. Rajaratnam’s total fines and forfeiture paid to the government are among the largest ever paid by an individual white-collar defendant. Still, it pales in comparison to Michael Milken, the 1980s junk bond financier, who paid $600 million in fines and restitution along with his guilty plea on securities law violations. Jeffrey K. Skilling, the former chief executive of Enron, was ordered to forfeit $60 million for his role at the collapsed energy company, an amount that is still subject to his legal appeals.
Separately on Monday, in a hearing before Judge Rakoff, the S.E.C. said it wanted to question “one or both” of Mr. Rajaratnam’s brothers in an insider trading case against Rajat K. Gupta, a former Goldman Sachs director who was indicted last month on charges that he passed illegal stock tips to Mr. Rajaratnam.
One brother, Rengan Rajaratnam, has been named an unindicted co-conspirator of Mr. Rajaratnam. The other brother, Ragakanthan, who goes by R.K., kept an office at Galleon. Neither has been charged with any crimes.


Wednesday 24 August 2011

Insider Trading

Insider Trading Defined

Insider trading is buying or selling stock based on nonpublic information that will affect the stock’s price. A company’s executives and directors have access to significant information regarding the company’s activities. These people could easily profit by buying or selling the stock based on the private information they have. However, doing so is illegal. 

Insider trading, in certain circumstances, is prohibited by SEC regulations. The idea is that trading based on private information is unfair. If insider trading were legal, insiders could make huge profits by buying or selling a company’s stock just before important information is made available to the public. This behavior would put the investing public at a tremendous disadvantage in terms of buying and selling financial securities.

Insider trading is not always illegal. Typically, someone labeled an insider will have designated windows of opportunity throughout the year in which to legally buy or sell the company’s stock. Executives and managers are often awarded stock options, CEOs and directors often own significant amounts of their company’s stock. These people should be able to buy and sell their stock. And they can. But it must be done according to the rules. Insiders must notify the SEC regarding their buying and selling transactions. 

Under certain conditions, if an executive announces publicly that he will sell a certain amount of shares or value of stock at a specified date every year, then he may do so each year without it being considered illegal insider trading. Likewise, managers or executives with access to nonpublic information may buy or sell stock after that information has been made available to the public.

Insider Trading Example

For example, imagine an executive at a large publicly traded corporation who sees the company’s income statement before it is issued to the public via the annual report. The executive sees that the corporation suffered big losses in the current period. Once the Wall Street analysts see these numbers, the company will be downgraded and the stock will decline.

If insider trading were allowed, the executive could quickly go out and sell the company’s stock short, or else he could tell his broker and his friends and family members to sell the stock short. Selling a stock short makes a profit when the stock price goes down. When the reports are finally made public, the stock plummets, and the executive and his friends and family all make a lot of money. Meanwhile, the investors who owned the company’s stock but did not have access to the private information suffered losses.

Who is an Insider?

Technically, an insider is anyone who has access to material nonpublic information regarding a company. Examples of insiders include executives, directors, managers, shareholders with a 10% or greater stake in the company, and the close family members of these people. Insiders may also include lawyers, brokers, investment bankers, and printers of financial documents. It is illegal for insiders to buy or sell a stock based on material nonpublic information.

What is Insider Information?

Inside information is any material nonpublic information regarding a company that could affect the company’s stock price. The information is nonpublic if it has not yet been disclosed to the investing public. The information is material if its disclosure could impact the company’s stock price. Examples of insider information include access to unreleased earnings reports, knowledge of a pending or imminent takeover or merger, or knowledge of any other kind that is of value to investors.



http://www.wikicfo.com/Wiki/Insider%20Trading.ashx

Wednesday 20 April 2011

Billionaire Warren Buffett's Berkshire case highlights need for checks


Wednesday April 6, 2011

Billionaire Warren Buffett's Berkshire case highlights need for checks

Plain Speaking - By Yap Leng Kuen


THE case involving the purchase of shares by David Sokol a former manager ofBerkshire Hathaway Inc in Lubrizol Corp, whose takeover he helped to negotiate, highlights the need for higher governance in large funds.
In his statement following Sokol's resignation, Berkshire chief executive Warren Buffett admitted that Sokol had informed him in a “passing remark'' about his shareholding in Lubrizol but he (Buffett) did not pursue the matter.
“Shortly before I left for Asia on March 19, I learned that Dave first purchased 2,300 shares of Lubrizol on Dec 14, which he then sold on Dec 21.
“Subsequently, on Jan 5, 6 and 7, he bought 96,060 shares pursuant to a 100,000-share order he had placed with a US$104 per share limit price,'' said Buffett in the statement that appeared in the Telegraph last Thursday.
In this photo from May 1, 2010, David Sokol, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway's MidAmerican Energy, NetJets and Johns Manville units, speaks to shareholders at the annual Berkshire Hathaway shareholders meeting, in Omaha, Neb. Sokol, who suddenly resigned this week, said he wanted to start his own investment firm patterned after Warren Buffett's company. - AP
According to the statement, the two men first discussed the idea of buying Lubrizol in mid-January; however, Buffett became interested only after Sokol informed him of a talk with Lubrizol CEO James Hambrik on Jan 25.
Buffett then decided to buy Lubrizol, an engine lubricant maker, for US$9bil, in which Sokol may have made a profit of about US$3mil, according to Buffett's disclosure and data compiled by Bloomberg.
“Though the offer to purchase was entirely my decision, supported by Berkshire's board on March 13, it would not have occurred without Dave's early efforts,'' Buffett wrote in his statement.
Bloomberg reported, quoting an anonymous person, that the US Securities and Exchange Commission was examining if Sokol bought Lubrizol shares on inside information although there were opinions that this was more of a case of misconduct.
Buffett said in his statement that both men did not feel that Sokol's Lubrizol share purchases were in any way unlawful.
Sokol said in a CNBC interview that he didn't think he had done anything wrong.
This photo taken April 30, 2010, shows Todd Raba, left, president and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary Johns Manville, as he walks with his boss, investor Warren Buffett, in Omaha, Neb. Raba will become chairman of Johns Manville following the surprise resignation of David Sokol. - AP
“I can understand the appearance issue and that's why we made it public in the press release,” Bloomberg reported, quoting Sokol.
“The reality is that I have no control over a deal ever happening,'' he added.
Top managers and supervisors are responsible for the actions of their key staff especially when it comes to sensitive implications like insider trading and conflict of interest.
Reliance on self-discipline may not be sufficient; instead, a system of checks and risk controls need to be put in place for better investor protection.
Similar cases can occur elsewhere and unless exposed, or in this instance, mentioned by Sokol himself, money made on the sidelines is usually quietly pocketed.
The lure of big money can lead to dangerous actions which, if left unchecked, can have overall disastrous consequences such as in the recent US subprime housing crisis.
There are moves to regulate hedge funds in the US and Europe but the industry should not just sit back and wait for the guidelines and rules before taking preventive measures on its own.
Top managers should be carefully screened for the job and their progress subsequently monitored. While too much micro managing is bad, it is inevitable that some form of surveillance has to be in place, especially after what happened in the subprime rout.
  • Associate editor Yap Leng Kuen views that it is often from small incidents that big mistakes develop.

  • Saturday 25 December 2010

    Bursa Malaysia: Follow the 'smart money'


    It is probably wise to follow the "smart money" in investment. When smart money buys, we buy. When smart money sells, we sell.  What is smart money? How do we know which is smart money? When do we know smart money has started buying? Also, how do we know that the smart money is really "smart"?

    What is smart money?
    Smart money is a fund that is supposed to be influential and has a strong impact on stock prices. It is supposed to be well informed and know exactly when and what to invest.

    Its actions may also move prices. Because of its reputation as a market mover, it is able to attract many followers who also join in the purchases, causing stock prices to move further. If smart money can make money most of the time, then tracking the investments of smart money and following its footsteps can be a profitable strategy.

    In this article, we will discuss several types of smart money, some of which are really "smart" but some may have limited impact on the market.


    Accumulation by owners
    Purchases by owners of listed companies are deemed to be influential. As owners, they are required to make disclosures to the exchange after each purchase, and their transactions are regularly monitored by the market players.

    Owners are supposed to know what happens in their companies. They know the prospects of the company. The future direction of the company is literally in their hands. There are many plans that they have for the company, which may not have been brought to the board for consideration. In many instances, preliminary discussions on deals are engaged by the owners privately.

    Many dealmakers prefer to talk to owners who can make immediate decision on a deal, as getting the board's approval is probably just a formality if the owners have already agreed to the deal.

    On the other hand, if there are troubles ahead, owners are definitely the first to sense them. If the company is not doing well or if its earnings are not improving, it is unlikely that the owners will buy the stock. They will probably wait for a better time to buy. At least, this is the perception of investors.

    Investors will also feel more confident to participate in the stock if the owners have the confidence to buy the stock. Even if the stock price does not go up after a series of purchases by the owners, there is no pressure for other shareholders to sell.
    On the other hand, if the market comes to know that an owner has been disposing of his stock in the market regularly or in large quantities, they may become very uncomfortable and wonder what's going wrong. Is there something that the owner knows that the public is not aware of? As such, disposals by owners will have more impact than their purchases.

    However, owners of listed companies may have multiple objectives and it could be difficult to read their minds.

    ?
    First, the owners may own a big percentage of the company and what they are buying could just be a small fraction of what they own. They may just want to support the share price to instil confidence in the market.

    ?
    Second, if the owners pledged their shares to banks (owners' shares under nominees are likely to be pledged), they may need to support the share price to prevent force-selling by banks if the share price falls below a certain level.

    ? Third, owners prefer to invest in their own shares. Even if their stock is undervalued, there is no guarantee that it will go up, as there could be other stocks that are more attractive to fund managers.

    ?
    Lastly, owners may also give a false impression of their action, as they may buy smaller quantities under their names but at the same time sell larger amount using nominee names, which is not uncommon in this part of the world.

    As such, following this type of "smart money" may not be very reliable. Therefore, we need to know the character of the owners and whether they are credible or not.

    Purchases by the EPF
    The Employees Provident Fund (EPF) is the largest local equity investor in our stock market. It was reported that the EPF accounted for as much as 50% of the total traded volume during certain periods. Since the EPF is a large player, its actions have far-reaching impact on prices of many stocks.

    Since most of its investments exceed 5% of the stock's paid-up capital, the EPF make regular disclosures on their purchases and disposals.
    Sometimes, investors are puzzled why the EPF trades regularly between buy and sell.

    The presumably unclear direction of trades is because the provident fund also appoints external fund managers (EFMs) who have the full discretion to buy or sell. As such, sometimes the EPF could be buying a stock but their EFMs could be selling the same stock on the same day.

    In certain cases, one EFM buys but another EFM could be selling at the same time or a few days later. Hence, the disclosure by the EPF is a combination of trades by its internal fund managers as well as that of EFMs.

    Due to the difference in opinion between the EPF and its EFMs, there is no clear signal of the direction of this powerful domestic fund. The fund could be big, but they are not "united" and they are in fact competing with each other. This is also a way to generate liquidity in the market. As such, relying on the trades of this "smart money" for direction may not be very reliable.

    Even if the fund is buying a particular stock persistently, we observe that the stock price may not seem to rise substantially. This may be linked to the way the orders are placed - that is, they tend to buy lower after a completed trade. This is different from the trading style of foreign fund managers, which we shall discuss later in this article.

    Actions of local institutions
    Although other local institutions are smaller in size than the the EPF, they could be more focused when it comes to buying a stock. Generally, purchases on big-cap stocks by local institutions may not have much impact on the stock price.

    Since big-cap stocks are widely owned by most local funds, such as mutual funds, insurance companies and asset management companies, for every purchase to lift the stock price, there could be several funds waiting to sell to the buyer. Local institutions are competing with each other to achieve maximum returns as they have their own stakeholders to answer to.

    As the market continues to rise, more and more local institutions are seeking investment opportunities in undiscovered stocks and unpolished gems. Research houses are competing with each other to identify growth stocks with good earnings prospects and "good story" to satisfy the appetite of local funds and entice them to buy.

    Most of these stocks are the tightly held mid- to small-cap stocks, where the valuation is generally much cheaper than that of the big-cap stocks. If the "story" is compelling, more funds are likely to participate in the purchases. If there are also private placements from the owners or by the company, a stock may attract even more interest and can move quite fast.
    A stock may be attractive from various angles, but if there is no liquidity, most funds are hesitant to participate due to the lack of liquidity to get out when the need arises. When funds started to buy a stock, the rise in the share price is likely to bring out some sellers, which will lead to improved liquidity. The subsequent improvement in liquidity will in turn attract even more funds to partake in the "game". If there are sufficient "followers" the stock price will continue to climb; otherwise, it may just fizzle out a short jerk.

    As such, local institutions could be a useful "smart money" to follow if they start to have position in smaller cap stocks. A neglected stock may turn out to be a star performer if the stock has been successfully promoted. There are a number of such well-promoted stocks which have performed very well this year.

    Share buyback 
    In the case of share buyback schemes by certain listed companies, this provides yet another hint to investors that the management believes the stocks are undervalued. Although share buybacks may not be very popular among listed companies in Malaysia, there are a number of listed companies that buy back their own shares regularly. The impact on the stock price will depend on how aggressive the share buyback is conducted. The degree of "aggressiveness" depends on the percentage of shares being bought back and the proportion of the share buyback against the daily traded volume.

    From our observation, share buybacks seldom have much impact on stock price. Such repurchase of own share will definitely reduce the free-float of the stock in the market, but moving the stock price to a higher level is another issue. Share buyback may clear off some of the weak holders and place the stock in a good position to run if other strong buyers emerge. But for the stock to attract strong buyers, it must deliver results and show growth potential.

    Buying by insiders 
    Insiders are those who hold key positions in a company or those who have access to information not known to the public. Insiders include directors of the company, company secretary, senior management, corporate lawyer, auditors, merchant bankers who handle important corporate information for the company.

    Because key personnel have unfair advantage over the public, it is illegal to trade on insider information, which unfortunately is very difficult to prove. To reduce the incidence of insider trading, blackout periods for the trading of stock are imposed before the release of important announcements and these include the announcement of quarterly results, right/bonus/split issues and other material announcements, which may have a strong impact on the share price.

    The purchases made by insiders are difficult to detect. A sudden share price movement of a stock is usually suspected to be related to insiders who may use nominees to avoid detection. The only way to detect possible insider trading is through technical charts, which may reveal such activities from price movement as well as changes in volume. Otherwise, it is difficult to identify this type of "smart money".

    Syndicate buying
    A syndicate is also another influential force, as it normally focuses on a handful of stocks. The objective of such a syndicate is to make money. They may act independently or with the help of the owners or top management. They may or may not play based on insider information. If there is a stock worth buying with the intention to sell at a higher level, they will be interested. Stocks selected by a syndicate could be purely because of cheap valuation or some impending news, which could be entirely conceptual.

    Although syndicated play could be powerful, their movement is very secretive and hard to predict. As a syndicate is out there to make money, they will use all sorts of tactics to achieve their objectives. The tricks may include dissemination of untimely rumours just to lure in other punters to help them to stir the market. Unknowing speculators could be drawn in by their own greed.

    Going along with a syndicate is a risky game, as they will not disclose their game plan. They can play one game on the surface but at the same time be selling quietly at the back.

    Inflow of foreign funds
    Perhaps the most influential smart money is foreign funds. Foreign funds come in droves, which is more powerful than if they act individually. The movement of foreign funds, or simply hot money, follows certain investment themes for investment purposes. Their investment duration is normally fairly long to achieve maximum profit. One of the factors driving the flow of foreign funds is the direction of the US dollar. When the US dollar weakens, this hot money will flow to emerging markets and to Asia, causing market here to rise (See charts).




    There is a number of reasons why following the footsteps of foreign fund managers are more reliable:

    ? Purchases by foreign fund managers are more dynamic, as they normally push up the share price when buying. In this way, not only can they obtain the quantity of shares required, they can also record immediate price appreciation.

    ? The quantity allocated to each stock is normally larger, as foreign funds are normally bigger in size and hence have bigger allocations.

    ? Unlike local funds, which probably have two dozen or more stocks,
    foreign funds normally select a handful of local stocks to invest.

    Summary
    The strategy of investing by following the "smart money" must be very selective, as many of them are either not very effective or not reliable. It is better to follow foreign funds, which are more powerful and less deceitful.


    Source: The EdgeDaily
    Written by Ang Kok Heng   
    Monday, 20 December 2010 11:01
    Ang has 20 years' experience in research and investment. He is currently the chief investment officer of Phillip Capital Management Sdn Bhd.

    Saturday 17 April 2010

    Director who engaged in insider trading walks free


    LEONIE WOOD
    April 17, 2010
      JOHN Francis O'Reilly, a former director who pleaded guilty to insider trading, has averted jail after a judge said the businessman's judgment was ''clouded'' at the time and the nature and value of the shares he traded did not mark the offence as particularly serious.
      In sentencing O'Reilly, Justice Terry Forrest of the Victorian Supreme Court said the former Lion Selection director had obtained only a ''modest'' $29,045 profit from his purchase and sale of 50,000 Indophil Resources shares in mid-2008.
      The judge said that while the most troubling aspect of O'Reilly's conduct was that he traded shares as a ''true insider'' - from inside the boardroom - he acknowledged that O'Reilly conducted only one trade and did not embark on a sustained course of trading.
      O'Reilly was convicted of one count of insider trading. Justice Forrest imposed a jail sentence of 10 months and then wholly suspended the term, allowing O'Reilly to walk free. Justice Forrest said that but for the guilty plea, O'Reilly would have been sentenced to 13 months' jail and ordered to serve a minimum of five months.
      O'Reilly must be of good behaviour for 18 months and pay a $500 bond. The court also imposed a $30,000 pecuniary penalty on top of the $61,600 that O'Reilly must forfeit under the Proceeds of Crime Act. O'Reilly bought $38,880 of Indophil shares in May 2008, when he was privy to confidential information as Lion negotiated to sell its 25 per cent Indophil stake to Xstrata - a move that would trigger a takeover of Indophil and send its shares higher.
      ''By your conduct you have misled your fellow directors, acted in contravention of Lion's security trading policy, misled your shareholders and the Australian Securities Exchange, and undermined the integrity of the securities market,'' Justice Forrest said yesterday.
      He said the ''objective gravity'' of O'Reilly's offence emerged after considering that, as a director, O'Reilly was a ''true insider'', but he did not try to conceal the trading through secret or nominee accounts. This ''relative lack of sophistication'' suggested ''that your judgment was clouded at this time'', the judge said.
      ''Thirdly, I do not regard the nature of the trade, the amount invested or the anticipated profit as falling into a particularly grave or serious category. You did not seek to multiply your anticipated profit by choosing an exotic method of trading, nor did you invest a really large sum of money.''
      Justice Forrest said he considered it a ''mid-range example of a serious offence'' and accepted O'Reilly's conduct was ''an aberration''.
      Ian Ramsay, director of Melbourne University's Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation, suggested the sentence appeared ''relatively modest'' considering several earlier insider trading cases had attracted jail or periodical detention sentences.
      Professor Ramsay argued that the number of insider enforcement actions in Australia and the penalties tended to be ''relatively light'' compared with overseas.
      ''I actually think the Australian insider trading law is a mess in some respects,'' he said. In some ways it was too broad, he said, adding: ''You could be an insider by picking up a piece of paper on Collins Street.''
      And in other areas, the legislation was too proscriptive.
      ''What you do come to quickly, though, is the realisation that courts typically do not impose terms of imprisonment for offences under the Corporations Act,'' he said.
      Source: The Age

      Monday 22 March 2010

      What to do when insiders sell


      GREG HOFFMAN
      March 22, 2010 - 1:19PM

        CSL's McNamee sells down. Should you?
        Last week, CSL chief Brian McNamee announced the sale of $8.4 million worth of his shares in the company, amounting to about one sixth of his total holding. There is no doubt that this is a significant sale. How CSL shareholders interpret its significance is less certain.
        At times I have regretted not following the insiders' moves after holding on to my stock. Equally, there have been occasions where the share price has surged after sales like McNamee's. There is simply no clear-cut rule to follow when an insider in a stock you own disposes of a large parcel of shares.
        But there are two key questions to ask when considering such sales, the answers to which might provide some guidance for you:
        1. Is the stock expensive?
        In January 2008 The Intelligent Investor published an analysis of then-darling stock Reverse Corp (which offers the 1800-REVERSE service). Our analyst noted the combination of an expensive-looking stock price and sales by founder and executive director Richard Bell. We suggested investors steer clear and shareholders follow Bell's lead. The stock price is now down 95%. But how does CSL fare on this score?
        Coincidentally, the same analyst who pulled apart Reverse Corp also covers CSL for The Intelligent Investor. Almost two years to the day after issuing his negative view of Reverse Corp, he recommended CSL to our members at $31.30 per share.
        That price, Nathan Bell explained, was ''reasonable for such a high quality business''. Even though CSL shares have risen by 15% since January, we don't believe the overpriced condition applies in this case.
        2. Is this a series of sales by the same director or, more importantly, sales by multiple directors?
        Between October and December 2007 we noted nine sales by six individual directors of Roc Oil, at prices between $2.95 and $3.43. The share price today stands at 36 cents.
        In CSL's case, the previous director sale came from Ian Renard in August last year. To find the next most recent sale, you have to go back to McNamee's previous sale in April 2007.
        To me, this record is clean enough. McNamee is not a serial seller (at least, not yet) and nor are his fellow directors.
        When looked at in this light, McNamee's sale shouldn't send waves of panic through CSL's share register.
        But insider sales should always be taken seriously, even if they don't necessarily prompt a sale in your own portfolio. Director sales are not always a bad sign but they're never a good one. To wit, if you've had your CSL shares in the bottom drawer for a few years, it may be time to move them a little closer to hand and follow the story a little more carefully.  
        If you're interested in following share purchases and sales, the free site Directors' Transactions (run by The Intelligent Investor) is designed to help you do exactly that.


        Greg Hoffman is research director of The Intelligent Investorwhich provides independent advice to sharemarket investors