Intellectual property question, page-12

You sound like you sold because of the GFC.
Well, so did many investors in a multitude of businesses, private and public.

I'm not sure how that correlates with a founder/director selling shares in his company.


"When there is a selldown or other event, there is very significant information asymmetry."

By definition, unless the Corporations Law is being breached, there can't be.

You say there is significant information asymmetry, but patently there is not.
Unless the party(ies) trading in shares are doing so illegally.

Outside of that, it is largely a level playing field (well, to the extent that it is not material, which is what really matters).

But you are right, RWC does have scope for surprises.

But how can the insights into any of those potential surprise be, legally, the exclusive domain of a company executive who sells shares as a result of those unique insights?

Put another way, what could Mr Munz possibly know that the broader market is unable to know, which could have been the catalyst of Mr Munz legally transacting in RWC stock in the way that he did?