3 ms·
"about that stock" is not phrased well in that entry. It makes it sound like any information that isn't public that might impact that stock is legally "insider
by koheripbal 6y ago
"about that stock" is not phrased well in that entry. It makes it sound like any information that isn't public that might impact that stock is legally "insider trading".
That is not correct. It has to be non-public *company* information - not just ANY non-public information.
If you discover a comet in outer space that is going to crash into McDonalds HQ. Shorting that stock does not make you an insider.
That's why it's called INSIDER trading. Because it's all about the non-public information INSIDE the corporation in question.
- Consultant32452 6y agoIt seems clear to me that the government has insider information. For example, they get classified briefings on all manner of things and they determine how and where government money is spent. I would agree that it's not legally insider trading, because of course the people who wrote the laws on insider trading excluded their privileged knowledge from being considered insider trading in the law.