> Which side is it? That there are less people people who have insider information, or that it's harder to monetize insider information? It’s both. There’s no

> Which side is it? That there are less people people who have insider information, or that it's harder to monetize insider information? It’s both. There’s no reason to acquire the information if you cannot monetize it sufficiently. It becomes a liability to have it around. And the whole reason you cannot monetize it sufficiently is that the moment any event occurs, the SEC/FINRA combs through everyone whose trading patterns were suspicious. With the amount of surveillance, you’re almost guaranteed to get caught. There’s no secret meeting in a parking lot. There’s no Signal communications. I’m not saying there is no criminality in the financial world. Just that this particular crime is so heavily watched and carries such a strong punishment that no rational investor risks it. It mostly ends up being retail guys who got a tip, but didn’t know that the tip was illegal or they just had no clue the depth that the DoJ’s tentacles can reach. My evidence is that I’m in this world. HFs have departments that read research and then cross checks it to make sure it only includes public information. If somehow a nonpublic piece slips in, they kill the trade.