How to read insider trading Form 4

Disclaimer: The analyses and opinions expressed in this account’s articles reflect solely the author’s subjective commentary and do not constitute any investment advice, nor do they bear legal liability for any investment decisions. Previously, we discussed insider trading and shared several websites where such transactions can be viewed. If you missed that post, click the link below: How to Track Insider Trading for Chinese-American or U.S. Stocks (Futu and Xueqiu Are Not Accurate) We received private messages asking about the original SEC Form 4 filings submitted by insiders—specifically, why certain trades appear on one website but not another, and which source should be trusted. Today, we’ll address exactly that. Take NVIDIA (NVDA) as an example. First, open the second recommended site, InsiderCow, and search for NVIDIA’s most recent insider trading records: You’ll see a list of insider sell transactions only. Next, open the third recommended site, J3sg, and search again for NVIDIA’s latest insider trades: In the “Action” column, you’ll notice not only the previously seen entries—AS (Automatic Sale) or S (Sale)—but also many additional codes absent from the first site. What do these mean? Scroll further down the page to find J3sg’s explanation of Action Codes: Among them, B and S are straightforward—“Buy” and “Sell.” But what distinguishes AB (Automatic Buy) and AS (Automatic Sell) from ordinary buys and sells? And what does D (“Disposed”)—which appears frequently on the second site but not the first—mean? Moreover, what are GD and GA, which don’t even appear in the Action Code glossary? To answer all these questions, we must turn to the original filing: Form 4, submitted by insiders to the SEC. Let’s use NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang (“Old Huang”), famed for his sharp execution, as an example. Click the “Form” button at the end of any transaction record (or go directly to the SEC’s EDGAR database and search for NVDA to view filed Form 4s). First, let’s examine a typical Form 4: The green-highlighted section contains basic personal information—name, title, etc.—which is self-explanatory. Our focus lies in Table I (Figure 1) and Table II (Figure 2) below: Table I records non-derivative securities (e.g., common stock), while Table II covers derivative securities (e.g., options). Let’s walk through the numbered fields in the figure: 1: Security type—for instance, “common stock” (most frequent), “preferred stock,” etc. In practice, you’ll mostly encounter common stock. 2: Transaction date 3: Transaction code—this is the most critical field. Beyond standard P (Purchase) and S (Sale) (note: the form requires “Purchase,” not “Buy”), there are numerous other codes. For example, the “F” shown here stands for “Delivery or withholding of shares to satisfy tax obligations arising from the receipt, exercise, or vesting of securities.” That sounds complicated—let’s simplify it. Essentially, Jensen Huang previously received shares—perhaps via equity incentives or other means—and under U.S. law, such grants trigger tax liabilities. To settle those taxes, he elected to sell a portion of the newly granted shares directly. That’s much clearer, isn’t it?

Stock splits truly boost share prices—but not for the reason you think.

The price rise following a stock split reflects correlation—not causation. Stock splits are experiencing a resurgence, and markets are swiftly rewarding companies that announce them. Alphabet (Google’s parent), Amazon, Tesla, and GameStop are among the latest batch of firms seeking shareholder approval for splits—each enjoying a share-price bump after its announcement. Beyond increasing the number of shares outstanding, a stock split changes nothing fundamental—making the subsequent price surge puzzling, especially for proponents of the efficient-market hypothesis. Ultimately, market enthusiasm stems less from the split itself and more from the signal it sends: that the company is likely on a path to continued success. Companies tend to initiate splits precisely because their share prices have recently surged—and stocks exhibiting positive momentum often continue rising. “A stock split neither creates nor destroys value,” says Christopher Harvey, Head of Equity Strategy at Wells Fargo Securities. “Stocks undergoing splits typically exhibit strong positive price momentum, solid overall fundamentals, and improving underlying business metrics. That’s what the market actually cares about—and splits usually occur only when such conditions are already in place.” In other words, the relationship between splits and price gains reflects correlation—not causation. Yet the numbers speak volumes: According to Bank of America Securities researchers, since 1980, S&P 500 stocks announcing splits have, on average, outperformed the index by 16 percentage points over the following 12 months. In recent years, major tech names—including Apple, NVIDIA (NVDA), and Tesla—have announced splits. While their share prices were exceptionally high, lesser-known firms like Sherwin-Williams (SHW), Amphenol (APH), and McCormick (MKC) have also opted for splits. Dow Jones Market Data shows that, over the past decade, roughly 20 U.S. public companies have executed splits annually. The true golden age of stock splits was the late 1990s tech bubble. From 1997 to 2000, an average of 65 U.S. companies split their shares each year as the broader market peaked. Split activity rebounded in the years preceding the global financial crisis—and again near the end of another bull market. Today, the median share price among S&P 500 constituents stands at approximately $118. Yet several firms trade far above that level—and may thus be candidates for future splits. The most expensive U.S. stock is Berkshire Hathaway’s Class A shares (BRK.A), which have never been split and recently traded at $517,000 per share—with only a few thousand shares changing hands daily. Warren Buffett may never split these shares—but investors have an alternative: Berkshire’s Class B shares, representing 1/1,500th of a Class A share, currently trading around $350.

Sherwin-Williams Co President Files Form 4 Transaction Report

Oct 23, 2026

Todd D. Rea, President of Sherwin-Williams Co's Consumer Brands Group, filed a Form 4 transaction report on October 20. The filing details insider trading activity without specifying the transaction nature.

Investing.com Canada

2026-04-09

Addenda Capital Boosts Stake in Sherwin-Williams

2026-04-09

Oak Thistle LLC Increases Stake in Sherwin-Williams Company

2026-04-12

Clear Creek Financial Management Buys Sherwin-Williams Shares

2026-04-12

Sherwin-Williams’ Q1 2026 Earnings: What to Expect

2026-04-13

Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Group Inc. Sells 37,029 Shares of The Sherwin-Williams Company $SHW