6 ms·
Because you'd get charged with insider trading if you do.
by boh 6y ago
Because you'd get charged with insider trading if you do.
- spockz 6y agoWhat is the minimum amount of time that needs to pass between announcements and selling of stocks before it is not considered insider training anymore? 1s, 1 day?
- ddispaltro 6y agoThe moment the information is public.
- Closi 6y agoYou have to leave a reasonable amount of time to ensure that the information can be priced into the market.
- Dylan16807 6y agoThe market's made of computers reading press releases, so that's well under a second.
- im3w1l 6y agoThat's just the market's "gut reaction" so to speak.
- adeelk93 6y ago“A reasonable amount of time” https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/traders-heard-a-speech-too-soon https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trader...
- jkingsman 6y agoThere have been cases where it happens after a certain amount of time after the announcement, technically, but where there wasn't enough time for speed of light delay to get the information to the place where the trade was executed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/09/24/traders-may-have-gotten-last-weeks-fed-news-7-milliseconds-early/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/09/24/trade...
- Filligree 6y agoHmm. In that case it didn't happen after the announcement. If the events have space-like separation, then neither 'before' nor 'after' are valid descriptions. (And "simultaneously" is right out.) Good luck telling regulators this, I suppose...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- vmception 6y agomilliseconds, nanoseconds if you can
- toast0 6y agoIt's pretty vague. I recall guidance of waiting for two trading days, but that seems pretty conservative. Otoh, who wants to have to argue it with the SEC.