5 ms·
> Material + non public = insider trading. Anything else is an excuse, not a defense Except you're wrong. Material and non-public are not sufficient conditions
by fwdpropaganda 9y ago
> Material + non public = insider trading. Anything else is an excuse, not a defense
Except you're wrong. Material and non-public are not sufficient conditions for a trade to be considered insider. I know the name and common lore seems to imply it, but legally there's many other details attached.
- DennisP 9y agoCan you give an example?
- notacoward 9y agoThere are details of how "material" and "non public" are defined, but those are the two criteria. Don't call people wrong when you have zero facts on your side.
- fwdpropaganda 9y agoA counter-example is enough to prove me right. I could give you at least one counter-example, ie a real court case from 2017 where two specific entities secretly coordinated a trade for stock in one of them on material and non-public information and was determined legal. (Obviously it went to court because people like you abound, who believe that a complex matters like inside trading come down to "material" and "non-public".) I'm not going to give you that example though, because I take issue with your arrogance, ie authoritatively claiming that someone has zero facts on their side when you have no idea what you're talking about :-)