Twitter Blocked Ex-Employees From Selling Stock?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
According to this article, ex-Twitter employees are claiming Twitter blocked them from selling stock.

Twitter's stock is currently plummeting down almost 17 percent, but it could have been even worse. The lockup period expired yesterday, prompting fears of a crash should employees and investors decide to sell their stock. But former Twitter employees complained earlier today that they were blocked from cashing out.
Click to expand...
 
I was wondering, since the "news" had a piece on twitter now allowing you to purchase amazon goods straight through tweets that other people make about products.

That desperation is getting heavy.
 
How is this fucking legal?

You can't forbid people from selling stock after the initial stock hold has lifted
 
ShamisOMally said:
How is this fucking legal?

You can't forbid people from selling stock after the initial stock hold has lifted
Click to expand...
I would be surprised if it is. But lots of employers do things that are illegal presuming that employees won't push the issue because of how hard it can be to find a job.
 
lilbabycat said:
I was wondering, since the "news" had a piece on twitter now allowing you to purchase amazon goods straight through tweets that other people make about products.

That desperation is getting heavy.
Click to expand...

Ahaha.. F**k Twitter. Who in their right mind thought they were going anywhere? They've been doing the same thing for YEARS with zero innovation.
 
I don't know about the US, but an employee here in the UK could be royally shafted by something like this. You see, you have to pay tax on the value of the shares when they were issued to you, not when you sell them. So the normal practice is to agree to sell the shares at a fixed price to someone when they vest, so if the shares have plummeted in value, not only are you in hock to the taxman but you're also in breach of contract.
 
Quartz-1 said:
I don't know about the US, but an employee here in the UK could be royally shafted by something like this. You see, you have to pay tax on the value of the shares when they were issued to you, not when you sell them. So the normal practice is to agree to sell the shares at a fixed price to someone when they vest, so if the shares have plummeted in value, not only are you in hock to the taxman but you're also in breach of contract.
Click to expand...

So do you also pay taxes on when you cash them out? If not, that system may suck on a falling stock, but in a rising one it can be a beautiful thing.
 
You left out an important part from the Gawker (Valleywag) post. The "accidental" block that prevented rank and file vested employees from selling was not in place to stop ranking executives from also selling.
 
In the States taxes are generally paid taxes twice as well. Taxes are levied based on the presumed value at the time the stocks are granted and/or vested. Later, capital gains (long or short) taxes are paid based on any such gain in value at the eventual time when you sell
 
Teenyman45 said:
In the States taxes are generally paid taxes twice as well. Taxes are levied based on the presumed value at the time the stocks are granted and/or vested. Later, capital gains (long or short) taxes are paid based on any such gain in value at the eventual time when you sell
Click to expand...
As much as I prefer tax breaks for investments, this is not taxing twice. What is taxed in the second instance is the newly earn money on the original investment. The first taxing was the original equivalent money received when you got the stock.
 
jpm100 said:
As much as I prefer tax breaks for investments, this is not taxing twice. What is taxed in the second instance is the newly earn money on the original investment. The first taxing was the original equivalent money received when you got the stock.
Click to expand...

and I'm pretty sure you can write off a loss too. You paid taxes on a $40 stock, it fell and sold at $20, you write off the $20 loss.
 
Quartz-1 said:
I don't know about the US, but an employee here in the UK could be royally shafted by something like this. You see, you have to pay tax on the value of the shares when they were issued to you, not when you sell them. So the normal practice is to agree to sell the shares at a fixed price to someone when they vest, so if the shares have plummeted in value, not only are you in hock to the taxman but you're also in breach of contract.
Click to expand...

Same thing in the US, you are given stock options those are income at the value they were given and taxed accordingly, if the stock takes a nose dive however that loss can be applied as a deduction (assuming you sold the stock for a loss), and basically wipe out a portion of the income taxes applied to income of stock.

However this is a tax deduction not a tax credit, so if it doesn't tank until some years later while you still would be able to call it a capital loss, it can only be applied to that years income which unfortunately does not include the shares you were originally given.

So moral of the story is if your stock is going down, sell it all before the end of the taxable year, and apply the loss against the income of shares that were granted, if you want to ride it out simply buy it right back.
 
jpm100 said:
As much as I prefer tax breaks for investments, this is not taxing twice. What is taxed in the second instance is the newly earn money on the original investment. The first taxing was the original equivalent money received when you got the stock.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is still two separate tax events. The aggregate gain in income is only taxed once. Calling it taxed twice is one of the rallying cries to really wreck the U.S. tax code (as is the whole bogus double taxation of corporate dividends).
 
sfsuphysics said:
Same thing in the US, you are given stock options those are income at the value they were given and taxed accordingly, if the stock takes a nose dive however that loss can be applied as a deduction (assuming you sold the stock for a loss), and basically wipe out a portion of the income taxes applied to income of stock.

However this is a tax deduction not a tax credit, so if it doesn't tank until some years later while you still would be able to call it a capital loss, it can only be applied to that years income which unfortunately does not include the shares you were originally given.

So moral of the story is if your stock is going down, sell it all before the end of the taxable year, and apply the loss against the income of shares that were granted, if you want to ride it out simply buy it right back.
Click to expand...

Makes sense, though why wouldn't everyone do that?
 
I have a lot of experience with this. I've made a lot of money in my career from ISOs and RSUs. Some places had very few closed trading periods. They place I work now, it seems it's closed more than it's open. Doesn't really matter, I still make a lot of money from it. Companies can open or close trading windows whenever they like. They're 'incentive' stock opens. If you don't like the company's policy on trading windows, consider that an incentive to look for another place of employment. :)
 
Dr_John said:
I have a lot of experience with this. I've made a lot of money in my career from ISOs and RSUs. Some places had very few closed trading periods. They place I work now, it seems it's closed more than it's open. Doesn't really matter, I still make a lot of money from it. Companies can open or close trading windows whenever they like. They're 'incentive' stock opens. If you don't like the company's policy on trading windows, consider that an incentive to look for another place of employment. :)
Click to expand...

This wasn't about being subject top a trading lockout window, it's about the fact that some people were allowed to sell while others allegedly were not (the people allowed to sell being executives and those not able to sell being lower employees and former employees, allegedly).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top