11 ms·
The SEC has real, legal teeth. In this case, Ms. Kardashian took a legal settlement to avoid a criminal verdict. In a prior job, a mutual fund startup, I was re
by notakio 4y ago
The SEC has real, legal teeth. In this case, Ms. Kardashian took a legal settlement to avoid a criminal verdict. In a prior job, a mutual fund startup, I was restricted from purchasing stocks unless I ran it through an internal company process first, then ran it by the SEC, all because, as sysadmin, I had access to "live stock feed", which is considered privileged information. If I had a hunch to buy something, by the time I ran that potential purchase through those two processes and got permission, generally the window of opportunity had closed. Of course, I knew this because it was made explicitly clear to me when I took the job, and when we went through the paperwork to setup the live stock feed.
Still, my lack of awareness would not have been a valid excuse, had I crossed the line with the SEC, and the potential penalties were very real, and very steep. Then again, I didn't have vast resources to keep on-staff legal personnel to manage my interactions with them, nor was I a celebrity or politician, so all the rules apply to me, all the time, where that might not be the case in every situation.
- kennend3 4y ago> I had access to "live stock feed", which is considered privileged information. As someone with 22 years in equity trading technology Real-time market data is NOT privileged information. This is not "material non-public information" because every professional trader has this access. Having access to see client orders prior to them reaching a public exchange IS material non-public and this will put you in the "you need to have all your trades reviewed" category. If you want further proof, most retail client trading systems now offer "real-time" market data, at least for the US markets.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- notakio 4y agoSo today I learned the reason I was in that category is, in fact, my visibility to my employer's trades, not visibility of the stock feed, itself. I'd been under this misconception since 2006!
- listless 4y agoOk - fair point. I'll redact my "not a criminal statement" since the definition is just breaking the law - which she did - and because ignorance is never a defense.
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y agoYeah, but if there wasn't a criminal case, and she doesn't admit to fault, how can you conclude that she broke the law?