4 ms·

Well, sure. I think the novelty is in the fact that this is not a single huge transaction of a high-profile corporation’s stock. Total profit was $200k over sev

Well, sure. I think the novelty is in the fact that this is not a single huge transaction of a high-profile corporation’s stock. Total profit was $200k over several trades – gross proceeds had to be a tiny blip in overall volume.

darawk 8y ago
> SELECT * FROM trades WHERE works_at = ticker;
- Lazare 8y ago
  The issue, of course, is that there's no such database, nor does the idea of one even make much sense. There's too many complex ways you can structure a transaction so that you gain an economic benefit when a company does well, but you haven't personally made an outright purchase of that company's equity. (Most obviously: You can tip an acquaintance and agree to split the profits, but that's just the start.) Since we can't get a categorical list of "transactions top executives at company X have made, or caused to be made, or otherwise may benefit from", traditionally enforcement has revolved around looking for super suspicious transactions, and then working backwards to figure out if they were made by someone who shouldn't have been making them. And since normal stock trades basically always look unsuspicious, that generally means looking for people, eg, buying short-dated out of the money call options[1]. It's not proof of wrong-doing, but it's a bit like finding someone who's won three lotteries in the past month: It's probably worth checking to see if they've got an uncle who works for the lottery commission. :) But the flip side of that is that it's generally been assumed that if you don't do something blatantly dumb like buying short-dated out of the money call options, you won't show up on anyone's radar, and you'll get away with it. But maybe not any longer! [1]: Hacker News's favourite financial journalist, Matt Levine, talks about this a lot, and with good reason. The vast bulk of SEC enforcement actions for insider trading involve people that seem to be almost trying to be caught.
- tschwimmer 8y ago
  surely the company name is stored separately from the stock symbol. you'd probably need to have at least one join somewhere :P
- icedchai 8y ago
  Not quite. Most stocks are held in street name (meaning, by the broker.) It would take a bit more digging.

darawk 8y ago

> SELECT * FROM trades WHERE works_at = ticker;

Lazare 8y ago
The issue, of course, is that there's no such database, nor does the idea of one even make much sense. There's too many complex ways you can structure a transaction so that you gain an economic benefit when a company does well, but you haven't personally made an outright purchase of that company's equity. (Most obviously: You can tip an acquaintance and agree to split the profits, but that's just the start.) Since we can't get a categorical list of "transactions top executives at company X have made, or caused to be made, or otherwise may benefit from", traditionally enforcement has revolved around looking for super suspicious transactions, and then working backwards to figure out if they were made by someone who shouldn't have been making them. And since normal stock trades basically always look unsuspicious, that generally means looking for people, eg, buying short-dated out of the money call options[1]. It's not proof of wrong-doing, but it's a bit like finding someone who's won three lotteries in the past month: It's probably worth checking to see if they've got an uncle who works for the lottery commission. :) But the flip side of that is that it's generally been assumed that if you don't do something blatantly dumb like buying short-dated out of the money call options, you won't show up on anyone's radar, and you'll get away with it. But maybe not any longer! [1]: Hacker News's favourite financial journalist, Matt Levine, talks about this a lot, and with good reason. The vast bulk of SEC enforcement actions for insider trading involve people that seem to be almost trying to be caught.
tschwimmer 8y ago
surely the company name is stored separately from the stock symbol. you'd probably need to have at least one join somewhere :P
icedchai 8y ago
Not quite. Most stocks are held in street name (meaning, by the broker.) It would take a bit more digging.