Before getting outraged I try to apply the Matt Levine test: insider trading is about theft, not fairness. The first study talks about investments during TARP.

Before getting outraged I try to apply the Matt Levine test: insider trading is about theft, not fairness. The first study talks about investments during TARP. The premise of TARP was that credit markets were seized by irrational fears, and government investments could reestablish normalcy. It doesn't say what strategy those with government connections used, but... I wonder if we should be angry at people who defied the trend and were rational even before the government did anything. Maybe we want things like TARP to work, but not too well or too early. Certainly not with the help of anyone willing to accept the risk that the policy process might swerve at the last minute. The article then begrudgingly admits a benign explanation for the second study. Brokers looking for buyers or sellers naturally leak information. It turns out it's hard to try to sell something when you never ask anyone if they are willing to buy it. On the other end of the line, people who suddenly get offers to buy or sell a thing might change their mind about its value. That's not so much insider trading as it is how all markets work. Here's some more, from a far better writer than me: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-04-01/another-politician-wants-to-ban-insider-trading https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-04-01/another-p... https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-03/bill-ackman-s-allergan-insider-trading-dispute-doesn-t-look-bad https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-03/bill-ackm... He also writes about Bitcoin if you're into that.