4 ms·

> Doing it one stock at a time might raise some eyebrows; it sounds close to insider trading. That's not the definition of "insider trading". Insider trading

by anamax 17y ago

> Doing it one stock at a time might raise some eyebrows; it sounds close to insider trading. That's not the definition of "insider trading". Insider trading is you trading on your company's info - the company is free to do so. For example, Google employees can't trade Rackspace on knowledge that Google is about to make a big deal with Rackspace. Google, on the other hand, is free to do so. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading "In the United States and many other jurisdictions, however, "insiders" are not just limited to corporate officials and major shareholders where illegal insider trading is concerned, but can include any individual who trades shares based on material non-public information in violation of some duty of trust. This duty may be imputed; for example, in many jurisdictions, in cases of where a corporate insider "tips" a friend about non-public information likely to have an effect on the company's share price, the duty the corporate insider owes the company is now imputed to the friend and the friend violates a duty to the company if he or she trades on the basis of this information."

byrneseyeview 17y ago
The definition of insider trading is alarmingly flexible; it's safer to avoid the appearance of impropriety, since that can still get you convicted. I wasn't aware that a corporation could trade based on insider knowledge. That seems very unlikely; it would imply that, e.g. Boesky was busted because his fund was organized as a limited partnership. And wouldn't a corporation with one owner be equivalent to that owner in terms of economic interest? Could I just form byrneseyeview Inc. to take advantage of my insider knowledge? Do you have a source for the statement that corporations can engage in insider trading?
- Tuna-Fish 17y ago
  I think you misunderstood his point. Any entity is allowed to trade on information that's legally available to them without violating any duty of trust -- if for example, Google decides to buy rackspace, it is perfectly legal for them to buy call options in front of the announcement to profit from the spike in value caused by the announcement, as no duty of trust is broken. It would be, however, illegal for employees, shareholders or indeed anyone hearing about Google's intentions about the purchase to buy those options, as they would be breaking their duty of trust to Google by doing so. This holds regardless of the legal status of the entity in question -- a corporate shareholder getting privileged information from Google before the announcement would be just as screwed as an employee.
  - byrneseyeview 17y ago
    I assumed that a deal with Rackspace meant a purchase of Rackspace products. I agree that you can buy a stock before trying to buy out the company--but you can do that as an individual, too. But in this case, the company trading on credit card data is clearly analogous to a Google employee, not to Google. They have material information about the prospects of another company, and they use that information to trade.
    - Tuna-Fish 17y ago
      > But you can do that as an individual, too. If you are a secretary working for Google, and overhear talks about the buyout and proceed to load yourself on the stock, SEC is going to want to have a word with you. > I assumed that a deal with Rackspace meant a purchase of Rackspace products. I don't think this would be illegal either -- with whom would Google break it's duty of trust if they bought half of Rackspace just before announcing a large deal? > They have material information about the prospects of another company, and they use that information to trade. I have material information of the prospects of every company I trade -- I wouldn't trade them without. What turns this into illegal insider trading is receiving that information from a source that is bound by duty of trust to not speak about it. As long as the material information about the prospects of a company does not originate from the company in question, or anyone else bound to not divulge it, it's not insider trading. When visa data mines credit card transactions, the information so gained can be freely used to whatever purpose without fear from insider trading accusations. That being said, I do not think it's moral or right -- the laws just were written before large-scale data mining was feasible.
      - byrneseyeview 17y ago
        If you're an individual, and you plan on buying a company, you can accumulate stock in it first without doing insider trading. That's what I mean when I say you can do that as an individual, too. with whom would Google break it's duty of trust if they bought half of Rackspace just before announcing a large deal? This may be accurate. I was under the impression that insider trading referred to possessing and using information that would have a material effect on the stock price. i.e. nobody's "duty of trust" is breached if a cab driver overhears his rider talking about a big deal, but I'd assume that the cab driver could get in trouble for acting on the information. If it's really about trading based on information obtained through a breach of trust, you end up in an odd situation: either any breach makes all trades insider trades (i.e. executive tells information to his secretary, who leaks it to a journalist) or any non-duty-bound link in the chain obviates the trust issue (X tells it to Y who tells it to Z--who is overheard by A, who sells the tip to B, who makes the trade.)

by anamax 17y ago

byrneseyeview 17y ago

The definition of insider trading is alarmingly flexible; it's safer to avoid the appearance of impropriety, since that can still get you convicted. I wasn't aware that a corporation could trade based on insider knowledge. That seems very unlikely; it would imply that, e.g. Boesky was busted because his fund was organized as a limited partnership. And wouldn't a corporation with one owner be equivalent to that owner in terms of economic interest? Could I just form byrneseyeview Inc. to take advantage of my insider knowledge? Do you have a source for the statement that corporations can engage in insider trading?

Tuna-Fish 17y ago
I think you misunderstood his point. Any entity is allowed to trade on information that's legally available to them without violating any duty of trust -- if for example, Google decides to buy rackspace, it is perfectly legal for them to buy call options in front of the announcement to profit from the spike in value caused by the announcement, as no duty of trust is broken. It would be, however, illegal for employees, shareholders or indeed anyone hearing about Google's intentions about the purchase to buy those options, as they would be breaking their duty of trust to Google by doing so. This holds regardless of the legal status of the entity in question -- a corporate shareholder getting privileged information from Google before the announcement would be just as screwed as an employee.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  I assumed that a deal with Rackspace meant a purchase of Rackspace products. I agree that you can buy a stock before trying to buy out the company--but you can do that as an individual, too. But in this case, the company trading on credit card data is clearly analogous to a Google employee, not to Google. They have material information about the prospects of another company, and they use that information to trade.
  - Tuna-Fish 17y ago
    > But you can do that as an individual, too. If you are a secretary working for Google, and overhear talks about the buyout and proceed to load yourself on the stock, SEC is going to want to have a word with you. > I assumed that a deal with Rackspace meant a purchase of Rackspace products. I don't think this would be illegal either -- with whom would Google break it's duty of trust if they bought half of Rackspace just before announcing a large deal? > They have material information about the prospects of another company, and they use that information to trade. I have material information of the prospects of every company I trade -- I wouldn't trade them without. What turns this into illegal insider trading is receiving that information from a source that is bound by duty of trust to not speak about it. As long as the material information about the prospects of a company does not originate from the company in question, or anyone else bound to not divulge it, it's not insider trading. When visa data mines credit card transactions, the information so gained can be freely used to whatever purpose without fear from insider trading accusations. That being said, I do not think it's moral or right -- the laws just were written before large-scale data mining was feasible.
    - byrneseyeview 17y ago
      If you're an individual, and you plan on buying a company, you can accumulate stock in it first without doing insider trading. That's what I mean when I say you can do that as an individual, too. with whom would Google break it's duty of trust if they bought half of Rackspace just before announcing a large deal? This may be accurate. I was under the impression that insider trading referred to possessing and using information that would have a material effect on the stock price. i.e. nobody's "duty of trust" is breached if a cab driver overhears his rider talking about a big deal, but I'd assume that the cab driver could get in trouble for acting on the information. If it's really about trading based on information obtained through a breach of trust, you end up in an odd situation: either any breach makes all trades insider trades (i.e. executive tells information to his secretary, who leaks it to a journalist) or any non-duty-bound link in the chain obviates the trust issue (X tells it to Y who tells it to Z--who is overheard by A, who sells the tip to B, who makes the trade.)