Insurance Companies - Robbers Or Victims?

[dave1]

[

It was nice to see that Tescos turnover and profits were down over the Christmas period.

The week before that Noel "Bob" Robbins, the UK chief operating officer, sold 50,000 shares on January 4, at 404.51p, netting around £202,000.

By selling last week, rather than today – when the shares had fallen to 316.8p – Mr Robbins was £44,000 better off.

Its called Insider Trading and it is illegal but will anything happen to them? Of course not.

He owned the shares and sold when he thought it prudent to do so. Nothing to do with insider trading. Is it possible that you think he should only be allowed to sell when the price has dropped?? Lets get real.

[abs66]

It wasn't just him if the reports are correct. other exec allegedly did the same. I can see the board meeting now, one exec turns to another and says by golly I think now would be a prudent time to sell my shares. the other exec says by jove you might be right old chap. Another exec asks "any other business?" "No, it was just about our losses over the last quarter and the possible effect on share price that's all" was the reply!

I wonder does that sound about right or should I get real?

[dave1]

It wasn't just him if the reports are correct. other exec allegedly did the same. I can see the board meeting now, one exec turns to another and says by golly I think now would be a prudent time to sell my shares. the other exec says by jove you might be right old chap. Another exec asks "any other business?" "No, it was just about our losses over the last quarter and the possible effect on share price that's all" was the reply!

I wonder does that sound about right or should I get real?

Your imaginary scenario doesn't sound at all real to me. Tesco have stated, whether or not you believe them, that he was not privy to the profit warning announcement at the time he sold his shares. To get to his position he is obviously a very astute businessman so he should have a fair idea of the performance of the company employing him. There appear to be no reports of any other execs who were at "your perceived meeting" selling masses of their shares.......I wonder why? It is also a fact that he sold less than 5% of his shareholdings in Tesco which again would not tend to point to insider trading.

Not quite sure what you mean when you state "the Tescos lot are making huge profits they denied the rest of their shareholders"

Out of interest, "insider trading" itself is NOT illegal within certain limits.

[Bluesman]

It wasn't just him if the reports are correct. other exec allegedly did the same. I can see the board meeting now, one exec turns to another and says by golly I think now would be a prudent time to sell my shares. the other exec says by jove you might be right old chap. Another exec asks "any other business?" "No, it was just about our losses over the last quarter and the possible effect on share price that's all" was the reply! I wonder does that sound about right or should I get real?

Your imaginary scenario doesn't sound at all real to me. Tesco have stated, whether or not you believe them, that he was not privy to the profit warning announcement at the time he sold his shares. To get to his position he is obviously a very astute businessman so he should have a fair idea of the performance of the company employing him. There appear to be no reports of any other execs who were at "your perceived meeting" selling masses of their shares.......I wonder why? It is also a fact that he sold less than 5% of his shareholdings in Tesco which again would not tend to point to insider trading. Not quite sure what you mean when you state "the Tescos lot are making huge profits they denied the rest of their shareholders" Out of interest, "insider trading" itself is NOT illegal within certain limits.

Do you work or are you a family relative or friend of Noel "Bob" Robbins, the UK chief operating officer because dispite what Tescos say about him not being told of an profits warning he should be sacked for not knowing what state the business was in.

It would be interesting to know when he last sold any Tesco shares.

What he did was insider trading pure and simple and he should face the courts.

Mike

[dave1]

"To get to his position he is obviously a very astute businessman so he should have a fair idea of the performance of the company employing him. There appear to be no reports of any other execs who were at "your perceived meeting" selling masses of their shares.......I wonder why? It is also a fact that he sold less than 5% of his shareholdings in Tesco which again would not tend to point to insider trading. Not quite sure what you mean when you state "the Tescos lot are making huge profits they denied the rest of their shareholders" Out of interest, "insider trading" itself is NOT illegal within certain limits".

Do you work or are you a family relative or friend of Noel "Bob" Robbins, the UK chief operating officer because dispite what Tescos say about him not being told of an profits warning he should be sacked for not knowing what state the business was in.

It would be interesting to know when he last sold any Tesco shares.

What he did was insider trading pure and simple and he should face the courts.

Mike

Sorry Mike but I just can't agree. Your logic and reasoning are flawed. You conjure up a "meeting" at which various parties discuss the effects on share price and agree it's a good idea to sell. Then only ONE of the execs actually sells a very small % of his holdings. Not much of a conspiracy then!

I have no connection to Tesco or any employees of Tesco. If you take the trouble to read what I wrote properly you will see that I said that he should have a fair idea of the performance of Tesco so why do you say he should be sacked for NOT knowingwhat state the business is in? When, or even whether, he sold any other shares he owns is immaterial, he decided to sell some (as stated LESS than 5% of his holdings) and he is quite within his rights to do so. As for facing the courts.....why? As I said, even if you want to call it insider trading, what he did was in no way illegal. Check it out and you will find that Insider Trading is not, in itself, illegal.

[Bluesman]

"To get to his position he is obviously a very astute businessman so he should have a fair idea of the performance of the company employing him. There appear to be no reports of any other execs who were at "your perceived meeting" selling masses of their shares.......I wonder why? It is also a fact that he sold less than 5% of his shareholdings in Tesco which again would not tend to point to insider trading. Not quite sure what you mean when you state "the Tescos lot are making huge profits they denied the rest of their shareholders" Out of interest, "insider trading" itself is NOT illegal within certain limits". Do you work or are you a family relative or friend of Noel "Bob" Robbins, the UK chief operating officer because dispite what Tescos say about him not being told of an profits warning he should be sacked for not knowing what state the business was in. It would be interesting to know when he last sold any Tesco shares. What he did was insider trading pure and simple and he should face the courts. Mike

Sorry Mike but I just can't agree. Your logic and reasoning are flawed. You conjure up a "meeting" at which various parties discuss the effects on share price and agree it's a good idea to sell. Then only ONE of the execs actually sells a very small % of his holdings. Not much of a conspiracy then! I have no connection to Tesco or any employees of Tesco. If you take the trouble to read what I wrote properly you will see that I said that he should have a fair idea of the performance of Tesco so why do you say he should be sacked for NOT knowingwhat state the business is in? When, or even whether, he sold any other shares he owns is immaterial, he decided to sell some (as stated LESS than 5% of his holdings) and he is quite within his rights to do so. As for facing the courts.....why? As I said, even if you want to call it insider trading, what he did was in no way illegal. Check it out and you will find that Insider Trading is not, in itself, illegal.

Wake up and smell the coffe Dave.

This was not something that was generated by my imagination but was reported by all the major financial Press together with the general press and news medias.

If there had been the sllightest untruth about it the writs would have been flying around as though they had gone out of fashion and there is not the slightest smell of a writ.

We can all be astute business men when privy to certain information.

He should stand trial together with any others that did it.

The result of his insider trading was that instead of making a poultry £160K he made £200,000 + and believe you me these people would sell their grandmothers if they thought there was a decent profit in it.

Mike

[abs66]

Couldn't agree more.

How does the saying go "give the man a gun he will rob a bank, give him a bank and he will rob the world"

[dave1]

Wake up and smell the coffe Dave.

This was not something that was generated by my imagination but was reported by all the major financial Press together with the general press and news medias.

If there had been the sllightest untruth about it the writs would have been flying around as though they had gone out of fashion and there is not the slightest smell of a writ.

We can all be astute business men when privy to certain information.

He should stand trial together with any others that did it.

The result of his insider trading was that instead of making a poultry £160K he made £200,000 + and believe you me these people would sell their grandmothers if they thought there was a decent profit in it.

Mike

The only thing which I said was in your imagination was the meeting of execs that you alluded to where they "that it might be a good time to sell". I haven't said that there was any untruth about him selling the shares either. What I have said however is that there is absolutely no evidence that he was privy to the info on profit warnings although, as I said before, at his level of employment he should be aware of general performance. He also kept over 95% of his shares, which on your calculations, would mean that the value of the shares he kept depreciated by over 3/4 million poundsin that week.

You keep stating that he should be prosecuted for selling these shares but why? If you are not conversant with insider trading regs then it might be an idea to look into it in order to realise that he did nothing illegal, no matter how distasteful you find it.

I cannot disagree with your comment about selling their grandmothers though as I'm sure they would.......now that would be illegal.

[Bluesman]

Wake up and smell the coffe Dave. This was not something that was generated by my imagination but was reported by all the major financial Press together with the general press and news medias. If there had been the sllightest untruth about it the writs would have been flying around as though they had gone out of fashion and there is not the slightest smell of a writ. We can all be astute business men when privy to certain information. He should stand trial together with any others that did it. The result of his insider trading was that instead of making a poultry £160K he made £200,000 + and believe you me these people would sell their grandmothers if they thought there was a decent profit in it. Mike

The only thing which I said was in your imagination was the meeting of execs that you alluded to where they "that it might be a good time to sell". I haven't said that there was any untruth about him selling the shares either. What I have said however is that there is absolutely no evidence that he was privy to the info on profit warnings although, as I said before, at his level of employment he should be aware of general performance. He also kept over 95% of his shares, which on your calculations, would mean that the value of the shares he kept depreciated by over 3/4 million poundsin that week. You keep stating that he should be prosecuted for selling these shares but why? If you are not conversant with insider trading regs then it might be an idea to look into it in order to realise that he did nothing illegal, no matter how distasteful you find it. I cannot disagree with your comment about selling their grandmothers though as I'm sure they would.......now that would be illegal.

[Bluesman]

Wake up and smell the coffe Dave. This was not something that was generated by my imagination but was reported by all the major financial Press together with the general press and news medias. If there had been the sllightest untruth about it the writs would have been flying around as though they had gone out of fashion and there is not the slightest smell of a writ. We can all be astute business men when privy to certain information. He should stand trial together with any others that did it. The result of his insider trading was that instead of making a poultry £160K he made £200,000 + and believe you me these people would sell their grandmothers if they thought there was a decent profit in it. Mike

The only thing which I said was in your imagination was the meeting of execs that you alluded to where they "that it might be a good time to sell". I haven't said that there was any untruth about him selling the shares either. What I have said however is that there is absolutely no evidence that he was privy to the info on profit warnings although, as I said before, at his level of employment he should be aware of general performance. He also kept over 95% of his shares, which on your calculations, would mean that the value of the shares he kept depreciated by over 3/4 million poundsin that week. You keep stating that he should be prosecuted for selling these shares but why? If you are not conversant with insider trading regs then it might be an idea to look into it in order to realise that he did nothing illegal, no matter how distasteful you find it. I cannot disagree with your comment about selling their grandmothers though as I'm sure they would.......now that would be illegal.

First things first. I never allueded to anyone sitting around a table. All my information came from the fianacial broad sheets. Read the thread again, carefully.

As for the rest of your post I dont believe you are serious and are just trying to wind us up.

Commentators from all parts of the financial world are asking for him to be investigated. They wouldnt do that if there was no truth in the matter.

As for proof, you would be amazed what they can prove these days as trhe Murdochs of this world and others like him are finding out to their cost.

The one thing to remember is that these people get where they are in only one way and that is by treading on whoever gets in their way on the way up, trouble is you have to meet alot of them on the way back down and now its their turn to stick their teeth into you. There is no love loss in the boardrooms of the coperate sharks.

Mike.

The definition of Insider Trading

Insider trading is the trading of a corporation's stock or other securities (e.g. bonds or stock options) by individuals with potential access to non-public information about the company. In most countries, trading by corporate insiders such as officers, key employees, directors, and large shareholders may be legal, if this trading is done in a way that does not take advantage of non-public information. However, the term is frequently used to refer to a practice in which an insider or a related party trades based on material non-public information obtained during the performance of the insider's duties at the corporation, or otherwise in breach of a fiduciary or other relationship of trust and confidence or where the non-public information was misappropriated from the company

[dave1]

First things first. I never allueded to anyone sitting around a table. All my information came from the fianacial broad sheets.

I offer my profuse apologies, it was indeed Pete not yourself.

[dave1]

As for the rest of your post I dont believe you are serious and are just trying to wind us up.

Commentators from all parts of the financial world are asking for him to be investigated. They wouldnt do that if there was no truth in the matter.

As for proof, you would be amazed what they can prove these days as trhe Murdochs of this world and others like him are finding out to their cost.

The one thing to remember is that these people get where they are in only one way and that is by treading on whoever gets in their way on the way up, trouble is you have to meet alot of them on the way back down and now its their turn to stick their teeth into you. There is no love loss in the boardrooms of the coperate sharks.

Mike.

The definition of Insider Trading

Insider trading is the trading of a corporation's stock or other securities (e.g. bonds or stock options) by individuals with potential access to non-public information about the company. In most countries, trading by corporate insiders such as officers, key employees, directors, and large shareholders may be legal, if this trading is done in a way that does not take advantage of non-public information. However, the term is frequently used to refer to a practice in which an insider or a related party trades based on material non-public information obtained during the performance of the insider's duties at the corporation, or otherwise in breach of a fiduciary or other relationship of trust and confidence or where the non-public information was misappropriated from the company

Guess we will have to wait and see if any action is taken. Tesco have said he was not privy to the info as follows (from Telegraph):

Noel "Bob" Robbins, the UK chief operating officer, sold 50,000 shares on January 4, at 404.51p, netting around £202,000.

By selling last week, rather than today – when the shares had fallen to 316.8p – Mr Robbins was £44,000 better off.

The company insisted that it and Mr Robbins have broken no rules. However, one shareholder watchdog described the sale as troubling.

"It doesn't look very good, especially in this case, when you are head of UK operations," said Simon Wong, a partner at corporate governance watchdog Governance4Owners.

UK listing rules, governed by the Financial Services Authority, say directors should not buy or sell shares in their company while in possession of unpublished, price-sensitive information.

The share sale technically came three days before the end of Tesco's Christmas trading period, which took the market by surprise. Underlying sales at Tesco's UK stores fell by 2.3pc, against City forecasts of about a 1pc fall.

Tesco said that though Mr Robbins may have been aware that UK trading was disappointing he knew nothing about the company's admission that profits for next year would be lower than expected, nor did he know that Philip Clarke, the chief executive, would announce that Tesco needed to invest "hundreds of millions" of pounds investing in the stores.

A spokesman said: "We are confident that Bob was not in possession of any price-sensitive information at the time that the sale was approved.

"In fact, the significant movement in the share price on Thursday was, we believe, primarily due to the announcement on profit guidance and UK investment plans for 2012/13. Bob was not party to discussions around the profit guidance or the investment plans at the time he made his sale."

The sale, which was signed off by Mr Clarke, was for "necessary family expenditure", said Tesco, but the company would not elaborate on why the share sale could not have waited until after the Christmas trading statement.

[Malc]

He should fall on his sword and give all the profit to a Charity.

That would give Tesco a breathing space to appease their Investors......... and the aware public

If summat like this doesn't happen then Tesco will never be forgiven for being insensitive to the rigours of morality in the Corporate world. Tesco needs all the friends it can find right now and Warren Buffet would be an even wiser old owl if he puts pressure on these guys to go fully down the morality route. The sage of Omaha can tell them to do this if he is in the mood and I don't doubt they would oblige.

No fear of him reading this tho' coz he doesn't use a computer ( so he says ! )

Malc

[Bluesman]

First things first. I never allueded to anyone sitting around a table. All my information came from the fianacial broad sheets.

I offer my profuse apologies, it was indeed Pete not yourself.

Accepted with thanks Mike

[Bluesman]

Guess we will have to wait and see if any action is taken. Tesco have said he was not privy to the info as follows (from Telegraph):

And Murdoch and company never knew anything about phone tapping.

He should fall on his sword and give all the profit to a Charity.

"Every little helps"

[The Editor]

......... Tesco have stated, whether or not you believe them, that he was not privy to the profit warning announcement at the time he sold his shares.

Sorry but in my opinion that statement is total bollox. There is no way that a COO with half a brain would not be privy to that sort of information a week before it was announced. If he was kept in the dark he should be sacked for being incompetent and not asking for that information in the first place!

I think the reason he only sold circa 5% of his shareholdings was an attempt to keep the transaction under the radar. Let us not forget that a lot of these multi million dollar/pound corporation are more corrupt than Mussolini. You only have to look recently at the Olympus corporation as a perfect example.

I'm not getting into a slanging match over this but companies the size of Tesco have more than their fair share of 'dodgy boardroom secrets' and turn out to be protected from blame or punishment by the nefarious political friends they keep.

Enough said

The Ed

[abs66]

Yes sorry it was me with boardroom scenario as I fully believe he knew exactly what he was doing. I think I would be incredibly naive to think that a man in his position wouldn't have a clue how tescos had done over Christmas and the effect that news would have on the share price.

Every little helps! Love it.

[abs66]

Well that day has come. My LS is now off the road, not because of no mot or tax but purely down to insurance price hikes.

I'm really quite upset more so than I have been with any other car, strange how you can get attached to a car.

I'm going to put her on auto trader this weekend as long as the weather lets me take some good pics. First refusal to anybody on here though. I will keep an eye on pm's. She won't fetch much but she has got a long mot and a few months tax so a good driver for someone.

I'll start saving for another soon.

[Bluesman]

Well that day has come. My LS is now off the road, not because of no mot or tax but purely down to insurance price hikes.

I'm really quite upset more so than I have been with any other car, strange how you can get attached to a car.

I'm going to put her on auto trader this weekend as long as the weather lets me take some good pics. First refusal to anybody on here though. I will keep an eye on pm's. She won't fetch much but she has got a long mot and a few months tax so a good driver for someone.

I'll start saving for another soon.

One of them badass days. Roll on the revolution.

Mike

[abs66]

Ha ha thanks Mike.

I will have another when my finances get better, I have never enjoyed driving as much as I have with my LS. Its been a joy to own.

[Redsteve]

Hello chaps,

I don't want to rub salt into the wounds here, but after reading this thread I was beginning to panic about my upcoming insurance price.

I am insured through Adrian Flux at the moment at the cost of approx £500. I did an online search yesterday and found a quote from Swintons for £350. I have full no claims, no accidents (that were my fault) and no convictions. I am in my 40s, my wife is in her 30s and my Father (a taxi driver), who is a named driver, is in his late 60s. I wonder why other people are having massive price hikes while mine has dropped like a stone?

Steve.

[abs66]

I think its just me being stitched up to be honest by the sounds of it. I'm convinced its my postcode although the insurance companies seem to believe its low to medium risk. I do have 3 points but I'm mid 40's with 6 years no claims.

Ironically I got a trade insurance quote as I have traded in the past and wanted to know the price even though I'm not going to take out a policy as I won't be trading anytime soon.

That quote was reasonable for trade at £800 ish, so where do they get the £1400 for private insurance from! Its a mystery to me.

[Bluesman]

I think its

1. Geography where you live more than anything else.

2. Greed.

Lets face it most of the LS 400s on the road should they be damaged in any way will be written off by the insurance company so they arnt actualy insuring you for crash damage other than offer you a poultry amount which is no more than an insult to any owner.

I have never understood why when you have an accident that clearly isnt your fault does your insurance company not fight tooth and nail to get you the value that you insured it for in the firest place and a value that they originaly agreed with.

Good luck with the your future motoring.

Keep popping in to let us know how your getting on.

Mike

[abs66]

Well she's all sorned up now to avoid any unpleasantness with the authorities.

I have left the tax on for a future buyer, I've never understood why people cash in tax for 60-70 quid when this allows buyers to haggle more than that off the asking price !!!!

Will give the carpets a good scrub before she goes if it ever stops raining long enough......I really miss my old garage.

[thatfatbloke]

Just to get back on topic,I've just phoned my current insurers (M+S) with the imaginary scenario of insuring an LS400, and the bandits wanted over £700!!. This is after I took the policy out for my 2000 Saab 9-3 2.0 turbo for £192. Where on earth are they getting these figures from?. Surely the Saab (as a bit of a pocket rocket) is much more liable to get binned or pinched than the Lexus isn't it?.

Bring on the revolution - off with their heads - power to the people and all that.