3 ms·
> Insider trading is one of those crimes where it is a bit ambiguous as to what the crime is (at least to me). Information travels with some speed and there wil
by kovek 6y ago
> Insider trading is one of those crimes where it is a bit ambiguous as to what the crime is (at least to me). Information travels with some speed and there will always be people with access to better information making better decisions.
Someone explained to me once how ambiguous it can be. Let's say we have CEO and his Friend talking together in speech, in real life:
Friend: "Hey CEO! How are things going at company :)"
CEO: "Oh, things are going well."
Friend: "Oh yeah? Is it looking good?"
CEO: "Yes! ;) Looking really good" winks
Friend buys stocks, Press Release comes out, and Friend holds onto the stock for some quarters.
Here you can see that CEO gave a wink and said things are going really good. He could have not winked, he could have said things are going fine. He can also not communicate this over-optimistically with other people.
- Galanwe 6y ago_IANAL, but have been working in HF for the past 10 years, with quarterly compliance/regulatory trainings, where I asked numerous questions to lawyers about the subject._ That would not count as insider trading. For insider trading regulation to kick in, you need to prove the information given carried substantial certainty about the outcome of the trade. A wink is definitely not substantial certainty. In your situation, the CEO would have to clearly communicate information that led to a positive trade.