FirstAlerts

AMD CTO Mark D. Papermaster Sells 7369 Shares Under Trading Plan

Advanced Micro Devices Chief Technology Officer Mark D. Papermaster sold 7369 shares of common stock, according to an SEC filing.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 18, 2026, 10:15 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 18, 2026, 10:24 p.m. ET
According to an official SEC filing, . (AMD) Chief Technology Officer & EVP sold shares of common stock on August 14, 2026. The sale was executed under a trading plan at a price of $ per share, amounting to $3,591,208. Following the transaction, Papermaster retains 1,241,347 shares. Official filing records list both . and Papermaster in , California.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 18, 2026, 10:15 p.m. ETFirst report

    AMD CTO Mark D. Papermaster Sells 7369 Shares Under Trading Plan

    According to an official SEC Form 4 insider transaction record, Mark D. Papermaster, Chief Technology Officer & EVP of Santa Clara, CA-based Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD), executed a sale of common stock on August 14, 2026. This situation is developing. The transaction involved 7369 shares sold at $487.34 per share, for a total amount of $3,591,208. The record indicates the transaction was conducted under a trading plan. Following the transaction, Papermaster holds 1,241,347 shares. The insider's location is listed as Santa Clara, CA.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 119 Aug 2026, 02:24current

    First published.

  2. Version 119 Aug 2026, 02:15current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.