5 ms·
Neither of those would be considered insider trading in the US.
by Armisael16 5y ago
Neither of those would be considered insider trading in the US.
- dheera 5y agoOkay 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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...