5 ms·

> said the same criminals also stole advance press releases sent to three newswire services Yeah I remember the charges against those people too Basically new

> said the same criminals also stole advance press releases sent to three newswire services Yeah I remember the charges against those people too Basically newswire services get hacked and people get the earnings reports beforehand SEC gets hacked and people get the earnings reports beforehand I think public resources shouldnt be spent on that. Prosecute the hacking but just drop the “trading on material non public information but only in the equities capital markets and only when there is a duty from the source to keep things nondisclosed” sanctions. It is so narrow but extremely expensive to prosecute, has with little efficacy in stopping the behavior, and incorrectly effects the collective conscious on what can be traded and when. People at this point think its actually illegal to have a trading advantage in any context

dnadler 8y ago
I don't understand your argument for not prosecuting MNPI trading. Are you saying that because the general public doesn't understand what MNPI is, the law shouldn't be enforced? Are you taking issue with reason the law exists, or just that the people don't understand it? And what's your basis for saying it's ineffective? From my experience, insider trading laws are taken very seriously by most of the industry.
- gammateam 8y ago
  > basis for saying its ineffective Yes, they are effective at chilling speech and forms of legal trading. They are not effective at preventing trading on information, for example, the SEC and DOJ secured indictments against Ukrainians and Russians which it will never extradite. Wow a pen stroke after an expensive investigation, congratulations. Fix your damn IT systems if you want confidence in the securities market. > are you taking issue with reason the law exists Yes, I am. The industry takes these laws seriously without the SEC because all the SROs already had these prohibitions before the SEC copied and pasted some parts into the Code of Federal Regulations or created 10b-5 convictions that are SOMETIMES upheld by appeals courts before stripping them down in other circuits.
rocqua 8y ago
Insider trading is a balance. On the one hand, we want market prices to be accurate. This means we want people with material information to trade on that information. On the other hand, we need some fairness in a market. This is mostly to ensure people keep trading. In a world were inside-info is commonplace, trading without it is just stupid. This would cut off a lot of people from investing. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. The US approach of insider trading requires a broken 'duty to keep secret' isn't nice, but considering the above trade-off I think it is better than "All non-public information is off-limits". Especially because it captures the 'most disruptive' form of insider trading: people who work at a company that is getting acquired / going bankrupt.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > On the other hand, we need some fairness in a market American insider trading law has nothing to do with fairness. It is based on theft of information. In this case, the hacker’s stole information from the SEC that belonged to the reporting companies. (This is a commonly misunderstood alley of securities law.)
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    if that were the case, it would be legal for a company director to trade on information they gleaned from an internal meeting. Which, as far as I understand, it isn't.
    - mruts 8y ago
      That’s theft from the corporation they work for. GP is 100% correct in this case. Just read Matt Levine’s Money Stuff. He goes over this stuff a lot.
      - EpicEng 8y ago
        I'm not disagreeing with you because I have no clue about this stuff, but man that is an odd usage of the word 'theft'. Sounds more like improper use to me, e.g., getting a speeding ticket while using a company truck. I didn't steal the truck, but I used it in a way which is unlawful.

dnadler 8y ago

I don't understand your argument for not prosecuting MNPI trading. Are you saying that because the general public doesn't understand what MNPI is, the law shouldn't be enforced? Are you taking issue with reason the law exists, or just that the people don't understand it? And what's your basis for saying it's ineffective? From my experience, insider trading laws are taken very seriously by most of the industry.

gammateam 8y ago
> basis for saying its ineffective Yes, they are effective at chilling speech and forms of legal trading. They are not effective at preventing trading on information, for example, the SEC and DOJ secured indictments against Ukrainians and Russians which it will never extradite. Wow a pen stroke after an expensive investigation, congratulations. Fix your damn IT systems if you want confidence in the securities market. > are you taking issue with reason the law exists Yes, I am. The industry takes these laws seriously without the SEC because all the SROs already had these prohibitions before the SEC copied and pasted some parts into the Code of Federal Regulations or created 10b-5 convictions that are SOMETIMES upheld by appeals courts before stripping them down in other circuits.

rocqua 8y ago

Insider trading is a balance. On the one hand, we want market prices to be accurate. This means we want people with material information to trade on that information. On the other hand, we need some fairness in a market. This is mostly to ensure people keep trading. In a world were inside-info is commonplace, trading without it is just stupid. This would cut off a lot of people from investing. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. The US approach of insider trading requires a broken 'duty to keep secret' isn't nice, but considering the above trade-off I think it is better than "All non-public information is off-limits". Especially because it captures the 'most disruptive' form of insider trading: people who work at a company that is getting acquired / going bankrupt.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> On the other hand, we need some fairness in a market American insider trading law has nothing to do with fairness. It is based on theft of information. In this case, the hacker’s stole information from the SEC that belonged to the reporting companies. (This is a commonly misunderstood alley of securities law.)
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  if that were the case, it would be legal for a company director to trade on information they gleaned from an internal meeting. Which, as far as I understand, it isn't.
  - mruts 8y ago
    That’s theft from the corporation they work for. GP is 100% correct in this case. Just read Matt Levine’s Money Stuff. He goes over this stuff a lot.
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      I'm not disagreeing with you because I have no clue about this stuff, but man that is an odd usage of the word 'theft'. Sounds more like improper use to me, e.g., getting a speeding ticket while using a company truck. I didn't steal the truck, but I used it in a way which is unlawful.