3 ms·

I have to admit I am confused on this point. I thought there was one theory that owning the stock makes one an insider because you are an owner. I find people

• jmalicki 8y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding their theory of why it would be bad? In the example where a hedge fund buys information from Best Buy about how many Panasonic TVs they sell, Best Buy may have a duty to Panasonic, and thus are an insider in that context, so if the hedge fund buys that data from Best Buy, they could potentially be trading on insider information. It's not because they own the stock.
  • projectramo 8y ago
    On rereading, that sounds right.
• Aloisius 8y ago
  That article appears to talk about whether it is insider trading to trade on information that originated with a public company (insiders) and privately sold - including sales information that hasn't been reported yet in public filings. There are serious questions about whether that, under US law, would be considered insider trading as it appears to be just that. Simply owning a single share of stock in a company does not make one an insider. An insider, in the US, is someone who either works for the company, owns more than 10% of a company or has some other kind of fiduciary duty to the company. Insider trading can include anyone trading on any information from insiders even if they themselves aren't. Mind, this is different in other countries.