3 ms·
My understanding is that that would be considered insider trading. It's when you use material non-public information that has been misappropriated -- i.e. confi
by asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
My understanding is that that would be considered insider trading. It's when you use material non-public information that has been misappropriated -- i.e. confidential information from your employer or from some other entity where you had a duty not to disclose, or such information after conveyance to another party. On the other hand, if you were able to derive such information on the basis purely of what's observable in public, then you would be in the clear. For example, if you saw a Facebook engineer wearing a "Rooms" badge or using the product in a cafe, and traded based on that, then it would be considering public information. IANAL, don't blame me if you follow this advice and go to jail.
- jldugger 6y agoAlso not a lawyer, don't blame me if you follow this advice and go to jail. But as I understand it from reading Matt Levine's triply also not a lawyer blog, using knowledge only Facebook has to trade on the market of its competitors is insider trading, on the basis that you misappropiated Facebook's data, and exploited Facebook shareholders. Which sounds like if Facebook ran a quant fund that took information, traded on it and returned the profits to Facebook shareholders, there'd be no grounds for a suit. Might even be more profitable than whatever failure as a service FB intends to roll out.
- astrange 6y agoNote Matt Levine is a former lawyer, which is a lot like being a lawyer.