3 ms·

Their actions meet the definition nearly exactly. The only difference is that Robinhood didn't directly execute the trades. However, the party making the trad

Their actions meet the definition nearly exactly. The only difference is that Robinhood didn't directly execute the trades. However, the party making the trade doesn't matter. If insider information was used to benefit someone else, it is still illegal. And this case, it is clear that Robinhood acted in close coordination with 3rd parties to benefit themselves and their friends. The actions they took and the order they took them could not have occurred without Robinhood sharing insider info.

fractionalhare 6y ago
> Their actions meet the definition nearly exactly. The only difference is that Robinhood didn't directly execute the trades. So...not "nearly exactly" at all. Moreover Robinhood isn't even an insider with respect to GME.
- liquidify 6y ago
  Robinhood gave privileged information regarding the details of securities to various capital groups, who directly benefitted. The 'exactness' of meeting the definition is a moot point. They certainly meet the spirit of the definition, and if we want to argue semantics, then yes they meet the exact definition.
  - fractionalhare 6y ago
    > Robinhood gave privileged information regarding the details of securities to various capital groups, who directly benefitted. No it didn't, because it didn't have privileged information about the securities. Just because it's a broker doesn't mean it has privileged information about the securities it brokers. Brokers do not typically have privileged information about the securities they broker. To have privileged information, Robinhood would need to be an insider to those securities. Which it isn't. I don't know what else to tell you - your understanding of the conditions required to meet the SEC's definition of insider trading is simply incorrect. You need to revisit the specific definitions of "insider" and its impact on confidentiality and fiduciary duty.

fractionalhare 6y ago

> Their actions meet the definition nearly exactly. The only difference is that Robinhood didn't directly execute the trades. So...not "nearly exactly" at all. Moreover Robinhood isn't even an insider with respect to GME.

liquidify 6y ago
Robinhood gave privileged information regarding the details of securities to various capital groups, who directly benefitted. The 'exactness' of meeting the definition is a moot point. They certainly meet the spirit of the definition, and if we want to argue semantics, then yes they meet the exact definition.
- fractionalhare 6y ago
  > Robinhood gave privileged information regarding the details of securities to various capital groups, who directly benefitted. No it didn't, because it didn't have privileged information about the securities. Just because it's a broker doesn't mean it has privileged information about the securities it brokers. Brokers do not typically have privileged information about the securities they broker. To have privileged information, Robinhood would need to be an insider to those securities. Which it isn't. I don't know what else to tell you - your understanding of the conditions required to meet the SEC's definition of insider trading is simply incorrect. You need to revisit the specific definitions of "insider" and its impact on confidentiality and fiduciary duty.