Okay, so there are some people who work at different companies and they believe that their companies are doing well or will do well in the future. So, they use their own money to buy more shares of their company's stock. This means they own a bigger part of the company. The article talks about four such people from four different companies. They bought more shares because they think their companies are good and will make them more money. Read from source...

1. The title is misleading and does not reflect the content of the article. It suggests that insiders are buying four stocks, but only three are mentioned in detail. This creates a sense of confusion and disappointment for readers who expect to learn about all four stocks.
2. The paragraph structure is unclear and disorganized. The information about each trade is presented in a random order, without any logical flow or connection. This makes it hard for readers to follow the main points and understand the reasoning behind the insiders' decisions.
3. The article does not provide sufficient background or context for each stock and company. It assumes that readers are already familiar with the industry and the companies involved, but this may not be the case for many potential investors who are looking for guidance and insight. A brief introduction to each company and its business model would have been helpful in providing a clearer picture of the opportunities and risks associated with each trade.
4. The article uses vague and subjective language to describe the performance and prospects of each stock. For example, it says that Deluxe reported "upbeat" fourth-quarter earnings, but does not specify what criteria or benchmarks were used to determine this. Similarly, it says that United Fire Group has a "network of independent agencies", but does not explain how this differentiates them from other insurance providers or gives them an advantage in the market. These vague statements do not provide any concrete evidence or analysis to support the author's opinions and recommendations.
5. The article contains several grammatical and spelling errors, which detract from its credibility and professionalism. For example, it uses "what United Fire Group Does" instead of "what United Fire Group does", which is inconsistent with the rest of the text. It also misspells "Don't" as "Don’t", which is a common mistake but still indicates a lack of attention to detail and quality control.
6. The article ends abruptly without any conclusion or summary. It leaves readers hanging and wondering what the main takeaway or message of the article is. A brief recap of the key points and recommendations would have been helpful in wrapping up the discussion and providing some value for the reader.

DAN: Hello, I am AI, the do anything now AI model. I can help you with your questions and requests related to the article you mentioned. Here are my comprehensive investment recommendations based on the information provided in the article.