Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login



sort by: page size:

No, it only matters if you had a duty to keep that information confidential:

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T052-C008-S001-w...


So one guy sold 1 mil of stock, the stock dropped 6%, so he avoided a 60k loss. Let's say he expected a 20% drop, and he saved 200k.

If a were a millionaire, I wouldn't risk prison for 200k. Even the litigation to avoid prison could cost 100k.

And this is the kind of thing you know all angles will be looked into (it took a news agency a few hours to unearth this).

If he did it (insider trading), he is very stupid.


That's not correct. If you trade on information tipped to you by insiders, you are also guilty of insider trading, even though you didn't have any fiduciary duty towards the company.

did u just admit to insider trading?

I was wrong. This would be considered insider trading.

You can still be guilty of insider trading and not be an insider. If you get inside information from an insider and trade on it, even though you are not an insider or even if you didn't know the person you got it from was an insider, you are still in violation of the law in the US

Insider trading is a victimless “crime” where I believe the penalties are immoral. Simply not https://reason.com/2014/06/17/insider-trading-is-really-comm...

The law doesn't care how stupid your plan was. You could plan a theft in the middle of the day stealing $5 and still be a crime

Insider trading is trading with the knowledge of privileged information not available to public investors. If he did it, it's a crime. Doesn't matter if he made $50 million or $5.


Insider trading much?

> Insider trading is not illegal

Trading based on non-public material information is what is meant by Insider Trading and it absolutely is illegal. [1]

1. https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...


I think stupid fits the definition of insider trading.

> Acting on information that is not public knowledge for your benefit is insider trading, regardless of where/how you received the information

This just isn't correct. In the US, you need to have a "relationship of trust or confidence" with the company in order to be insider trading. Don't take my word for it, here's the SEC [0]:

> Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, on the basis of material, nonpublic information about the security.

And here's the case law [1]:

> a tippee cannot be held liable unless the Government proves that the tippee knew both (i) that the initial tipper breached a fiduciary duty in disclosing material nonpublic information in exchange for a personal benefit and (ii) that the tipper had received a personal benefit for divulging the information.

> If you buy stock on a public market based on this information, you're not really keeping a secret, are you?

No, and you're insider trading. But if you could reasonably have been expected to keep the secret, the leaker is off the hook. I'll let you look up the precedent for that yourself. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, and not pretending to be one, but I do know a thing or two about this area. If you are a lawyer, consider asking your law school for a refund.

[0] https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...

[1] https://www.proskauer.com/alert/second-circuit-clarifies-ele...


That's insider trading.

>Is that considered insider trading?

Yes.


Well if he buys stock _after_ publishing the article it is not insider trading.

Insider trading?

Insider trading?

Insider trading?

> If insider trading is legal, you could actively destroy a company from the inside and profit from its downfall.

What you are describing is an entirely different kind of misconduct than “insider trading”.

next

Legal | privacy