11 ms·

Which part of the article do you think confuses MNPI with alternative data? It seemed that the purpose of the paper is to point out how the line between “publi

Which part of the article do you think confuses MNPI with alternative data? It seemed that the purpose of the paper is to point out how the line between “public” information and “non-public” information is blurring for those who can afford access. And given how difficult it is to define insider trading that seems like a pretty accurate assessment to me. Alternative data firms are the new expert network firms in the wake of Rajaratnam.

harryh 7y ago
The line is not blurring. Non-public information is information owned by the company. This is different from information that is hard to acquire and hence, not available to everyone. You are making the same mistake the article does when you state this line is blurring.
- elliekelly 7y ago
  > The line is not blurring. Non-public information is information owned by the company. This is different from information that is hard to acquire and hence, not available to everyone. I didn’t realize it was so cut and dry. How silly of me! I guess all of the work I’ve done providing legal advice to hedge funds on what is and isn’t insider trading since Preet Bahara first came to town was for nothing. Thanks for clearing that up.
  - kbenson 7y ago
    Do you have some qualified experience or situations you can point to? It sounds like you do, or should, given the qualifications you allude to. That would be a useful addition to this discussion.
tanderson92 7y ago
> And given how difficult it is to define insider trading that seems like a pretty accurate assessment to me. Alternative data firms are the new expert network firms in the wake of Rajaratnam. I fail to see the parallel with Rajaratnam, since Rajaratnam was accused and convicted of insider trading on the basis of leaking from corporate insider executives(!) That's precisely the distinction that is being drawn in the comments here, between theft of insider information and the acquisition of difficult-to-intuit public information. To answer your question, these parts: > But technology is increasingly blurring the boundaries between public and private information, creating data opportunities that are legal, but are expensive and often require special expertise to access. “Technology was supposed to level the playing field, but what I see is the fence separating sophisticated and unsophisticated investors growing higher,” says Patatoukas, who is passionate about teaching his students to analyze public sources of financial information and finds the trend troubling. “That’s the dark side of big data. Our evidence suggests that unequal access to alternative data leaves individual investors outside the information loop.” > In the aftermath of the financial crisis, there has been increased regulatory interest in the role of informed trading and disclosure requirements to protect the fairness and integrity of capital markets. With this in mind, Patatoukas hopes that the paper will get the attention of the regulators. “In a market setting where the line separating public from material non-public information is getting blurrier, the question that regulators need to answer is: What is their role in terms of leveling the playing field for individual investors?”

harryh 7y ago

The line is not blurring. Non-public information is information owned by the company. This is different from information that is hard to acquire and hence, not available to everyone. You are making the same mistake the article does when you state this line is blurring.

elliekelly 7y ago
> The line is not blurring. Non-public information is information owned by the company. This is different from information that is hard to acquire and hence, not available to everyone. I didn’t realize it was so cut and dry. How silly of me! I guess all of the work I’ve done providing legal advice to hedge funds on what is and isn’t insider trading since Preet Bahara first came to town was for nothing. Thanks for clearing that up.
- kbenson 7y ago
  Do you have some qualified experience or situations you can point to? It sounds like you do, or should, given the qualifications you allude to. That would be a useful addition to this discussion.

tanderson92 7y ago

> And given how difficult it is to define insider trading that seems like a pretty accurate assessment to me. Alternative data firms are the new expert network firms in the wake of Rajaratnam. I fail to see the parallel with Rajaratnam, since Rajaratnam was accused and convicted of insider trading on the basis of leaking from corporate insider executives(!) That's precisely the distinction that is being drawn in the comments here, between theft of insider information and the acquisition of difficult-to-intuit public information. To answer your question, these parts: > But technology is increasingly blurring the boundaries between public and private information, creating data opportunities that are legal, but are expensive and often require special expertise to access. “Technology was supposed to level the playing field, but what I see is the fence separating sophisticated and unsophisticated investors growing higher,” says Patatoukas, who is passionate about teaching his students to analyze public sources of financial information and finds the trend troubling. “That’s the dark side of big data. Our evidence suggests that unequal access to alternative data leaves individual investors outside the information loop.” > In the aftermath of the financial crisis, there has been increased regulatory interest in the role of informed trading and disclosure requirements to protect the fairness and integrity of capital markets. With this in mind, Patatoukas hopes that the paper will get the attention of the regulators. “In a market setting where the line separating public from material non-public information is getting blurrier, the question that regulators need to answer is: What is their role in terms of leveling the playing field for individual investors?”