4 ms·

Misappropriating fiduciary information is literally the legal basis for insider trading. There's a common fallacy that insider trading is illegal because the go

Misappropriating fiduciary information is literally the legal basis for insider trading. There's a common fallacy that insider trading is illegal because the government wants to enforce a "level playing field". Nothing could be further from the truth. Insider trading is illegal because as an employee of the company, you're profiting off your job in a way that doesn't share any of the profits with your employer. In other words the "victim" of insider trading is actually the company itself, not the poor schmuck who you dumped a losing trade on. Many things that are colloquially thought of as insider trading, are not against the law. For example it's perfectly legal for a hedge fund to hire a helicopter to circle an oil refinery day and night with an infrared camera, so they can get a precise estimate of how much revenue an energy company will announce in its quarterly earnings. This is perfectly legal because at no point was any of this information "misappropriated" in violation of a fiduciary duty. Very clearly the little guy in this case has no chance of competing, and this isn't a level playing field in any sense. But the law simply does not care.

nullc 4y ago
I appreciate the clarification! But maybe you took it too far? Publicly traded companies themselves are subject to regulations that impede varrious kinds of unfair and prejudicial behavior. Isn't the colloquially interpretation less far from reality than someone might extract from your comment? Since if regulations keep the company from doing it, and 'insider trading' keeps the insiders from doing it-- you're left with those that have superhuman insight from satellite photos or whatever (technically public, but maybe only practically available to billion dollar corporations) -- and at least the hedge funds are vulnerable to noise and misinterpretation. You might get thoroughly out traded, but hopefully not through actually privileged information. The reason I bring it up is was really the reason behind my original comment: I think that nothing about this prosecution should make people investing in crypto-commodities, ICOs, etc. particularly obscure and thinly traded ones feel any safer from exchange insiders trading against them to their detriment. All you we can extract from this is that if exchange staff do it for their personal benefit they might get prosecuted. But the staff doing it personally in their own accounts is probably a minor problem compared to the exchange engaging in it for its own profits.

nullc 4y ago

I appreciate the clarification! But maybe you took it too far? Publicly traded companies themselves are subject to regulations that impede varrious kinds of unfair and prejudicial behavior. Isn't the colloquially interpretation less far from reality than someone might extract from your comment? Since if regulations keep the company from doing it, and 'insider trading' keeps the insiders from doing it-- you're left with those that have superhuman insight from satellite photos or whatever (technically public, but maybe only practically available to billion dollar corporations) -- and at least the hedge funds are vulnerable to noise and misinterpretation. You might get thoroughly out traded, but hopefully not through actually privileged information. The reason I bring it up is was really the reason behind my original comment: I think that nothing about this prosecution should make people investing in crypto-commodities, ICOs, etc. particularly obscure and thinly traded ones feel any safer from exchange insiders trading against them to their detriment. All you we can extract from this is that if exchange staff do it for their personal benefit they might get prosecuted. But the staff doing it personally in their own accounts is probably a minor problem compared to the exchange engaging in it for its own profits.