4 ms·

Is that not what happened? These idiots sucked at insider trading and got caught. The more fit insider traders don't get caught. Lying to the public and your i

Is that not what happened? These idiots sucked at insider trading and got caught. The more fit insider traders don't get caught. Lying to the public and your investors as some kind of game to "stick it to the man" is not fun, it's obscene (and thankfully criminal). These "retail investors" you defend are morons and gamblers who are leading a flock of other morons into bankruptcy. You should be rooting for them to get screwed, not people who play by the rules.

dheera 5y ago
I don't condone lying, but if you have access to inside information why can't you use it? It's not like my brain can differentiate anyway. If I find security bugs in some company's git repo is that insider info? The code was public. I should be rewarded for my ability to read code. Those who can't read code are less fit to be investors. If I overhear company X employees talking trash on a public hiking trail near their office is that insider info? I actually went hiking, I have a higher probability of overhearing insider conversations, I should be rewarded for putting myself out there, doing the legwork, and not sitting in an armchair at home expecting people to feed information to me.
- Armisael16 5y ago
  Neither of those would be considered insider trading in the US.
  - dheera 5y ago
    Okay so now let's take person A and person B. A is super friendly. B is an asshole. A and B both indepedently go solo hiking to the same park. A ends up making some friends with some company X employees on the trail, hikes with them for part of the trail, and hears inside info, and then they depart ways. B is an asshole and so those people don't want to talk to B. B makes no friends, hikes alone the whole time, and therefore gets no inside info. A should be rewarded by the markets for their people skills, no?
    - jiofih 5y ago
      The employees in that scenario are sharing insider information, and are all committing a crime. Whatever you hear from them and is probably non-public info is also illegal to trade on. I mean, what exactly do you expect to happen if this is allowed? Put everyone who works on finance and the executives under 24/7 surveillance? Pay them ransom for not sharing their employer’s data? It would simply be an institutionalized racket.
      - drdavid 5y ago
        I think they might be one of those 'free-market' types, with a whiff of Ayn Rand. I read a number of their other comments. I am not answering for them, merely observing a trend. I'm definitely on the side that favors heavy market regulation. History shows us that it works better with heavy regulations - that is that it works better for more people rather than better for a small group of people. In the US, something like 52% (the last time I read some numbers) have invested in the stock market. I'd rather they be treated fairly, with a more equal playing field. Hmm... It looks like it's now 53%: https://usafacts.org/articles/what-percentage-of-americans-own-stock/ https://usafacts.org/articles/what-percentage-of-americans-o...
- wsinks 5y ago
  I don't think that's classified as insider information. Insider information is "details about a company's plans or finances that are not yet available to the shareholders". If you overhear employees talking and you have no relation to them except you're in proximity, that's typically not insider info. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insiderinformation.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insiderinformation.asp
- clipradiowallet 5y ago
  > I don't condone lying, but if you have access to inside information why can't you use it? short answer: the SEC says so. > If I find security bugs in some company's git repo is that insider info? The code was public. This is OK! If the code is public, then nothing you learn from it is non-public information. > If I overhear company X employees talking trash on a public hiking trail near their office is that insider info? This is trickier. It all boils down to whether you knew the people talking were insiders. Likely some other factors here I'm ignorant of, but to sum up... "it's complicated".

dheera 5y ago

I don't condone lying, but if you have access to inside information why can't you use it? It's not like my brain can differentiate anyway. If I find security bugs in some company's git repo is that insider info? The code was public. I should be rewarded for my ability to read code. Those who can't read code are less fit to be investors. If I overhear company X employees talking trash on a public hiking trail near their office is that insider info? I actually went hiking, I have a higher probability of overhearing insider conversations, I should be rewarded for putting myself out there, doing the legwork, and not sitting in an armchair at home expecting people to feed information to me.

Armisael16 5y ago
Neither of those would be considered insider trading in the US.
- dheera 5y ago
  Okay so now let's take person A and person B. A is super friendly. B is an asshole. A and B both indepedently go solo hiking to the same park. A ends up making some friends with some company X employees on the trail, hikes with them for part of the trail, and hears inside info, and then they depart ways. B is an asshole and so those people don't want to talk to B. B makes no friends, hikes alone the whole time, and therefore gets no inside info. A should be rewarded by the markets for their people skills, no?
  - jiofih 5y ago
    The employees in that scenario are sharing insider information, and are all committing a crime. Whatever you hear from them and is probably non-public info is also illegal to trade on. I mean, what exactly do you expect to happen if this is allowed? Put everyone who works on finance and the executives under 24/7 surveillance? Pay them ransom for not sharing their employer’s data? It would simply be an institutionalized racket.
    - drdavid 5y ago
      I think they might be one of those 'free-market' types, with a whiff of Ayn Rand. I read a number of their other comments. I am not answering for them, merely observing a trend. I'm definitely on the side that favors heavy market regulation. History shows us that it works better with heavy regulations - that is that it works better for more people rather than better for a small group of people. In the US, something like 52% (the last time I read some numbers) have invested in the stock market. I'd rather they be treated fairly, with a more equal playing field. Hmm... It looks like it's now 53%: https://usafacts.org/articles/what-percentage-of-americans-own-stock/ https://usafacts.org/articles/what-percentage-of-americans-o...
wsinks 5y ago
I don't think that's classified as insider information. Insider information is "details about a company's plans or finances that are not yet available to the shareholders". If you overhear employees talking and you have no relation to them except you're in proximity, that's typically not insider info. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insiderinformation.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insiderinformation.asp
clipradiowallet 5y ago
> I don't condone lying, but if you have access to inside information why can't you use it? short answer: the SEC says so. > If I find security bugs in some company's git repo is that insider info? The code was public. This is OK! If the code is public, then nothing you learn from it is non-public information. > If I overhear company X employees talking trash on a public hiking trail near their office is that insider info? This is trickier. It all boils down to whether you knew the people talking were insiders. Likely some other factors here I'm ignorant of, but to sum up... "it's complicated".