3 ms·

You are correct that is the definition of “insider” for requirements as to trading reporting, but read the first paragraph of your link: “Insider trading is th

by voisin 4y ago

You are correct that is the definition of “insider” for requirements as to trading reporting, but read the first paragraph of your link: “Insider trading is the trading of a company’s securities by individuals with access to confidential or material non-public information about the company.” Where in that definition does it limit to insiders? Hint: it doesn’t.

dragontamer 4y ago
https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm > (c) Person acting on behalf of an issuer. "Person acting on behalf of an issuer" means any senior official of the issuer (or, in the case of a closed-end investment company, a senior official of the issuer's investment adviser), or any other officer, employee, or agent of an issuer who regularly communicates with any person described in § 243.100(b)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii), or with holders of the issuer's securities. An officer, director, employee, or agent of an issuer who discloses material nonpublic information in breach of a duty of trust or confidence to the issuer shall not be considered to be acting on behalf of the issuer. Its literally written in the law. Just because you don't like this law doesn't mean it just... changes to your whims. This law is limited to insiders, and people who directly communicate with those insiders.
- voisin 4y ago
  Reposting here as someone messaged me about how to bypass the response-depth limit. I can do this all night if you want. I have a law degree (never practiced as I found other ways to make significantly more money) and my focus in law school was securities law. I am 100% certain of the law on this, regardless of how many times you cherry-pick sections out of context to try to make a point. But here’s my response to your latest: This regulation refines the fair disclosure regulation when issuers (and people acting on their behalf, the definition of which you quoted), are required to make fair disclosure to the broad market of certain material, non-public information. This regulation does not imply that insider trading can only be perpetrated by insiders of an issuer. This is simply incorrect.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    I do appreciate your patience with me and working me through this. I was pretty sure it was about insiders only. But I'll give it more work if this really is your "expert opinion" so to speak (or at least, more expert than mine). I'm just a programmer who has on occasion, received training on this subject due to working for a public company. Most of these regulations I'm aware of, imply that the "insiders" have an out as long as they properly file this information in the various schedules / public disclosure forms. There are no such forms for Congressmen since they're not executives (or other kinds of insiders). Etc. etc. ---------- I'll say that the turning point in my research / opinion is a link I have for investment bankers who come across Material Non-public Information. Investment Bankers aren't insiders, but seem to be subject to these rules anyway. So I see that my previous understanding was too narrow a definition.

by voisin 4y ago

dragontamer 4y ago

https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm > (c) Person acting on behalf of an issuer. "Person acting on behalf of an issuer" means any senior official of the issuer (or, in the case of a closed-end investment company, a senior official of the issuer's investment adviser), or any other officer, employee, or agent of an issuer who regularly communicates with any person described in § 243.100(b)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii), or with holders of the issuer's securities. An officer, director, employee, or agent of an issuer who discloses material nonpublic information in breach of a duty of trust or confidence to the issuer shall not be considered to be acting on behalf of the issuer. Its literally written in the law. Just because you don't like this law doesn't mean it just... changes to your whims. This law is limited to insiders, and people who directly communicate with those insiders.

voisin 4y ago
Reposting here as someone messaged me about how to bypass the response-depth limit. I can do this all night if you want. I have a law degree (never practiced as I found other ways to make significantly more money) and my focus in law school was securities law. I am 100% certain of the law on this, regardless of how many times you cherry-pick sections out of context to try to make a point. But here’s my response to your latest: This regulation refines the fair disclosure regulation when issuers (and people acting on their behalf, the definition of which you quoted), are required to make fair disclosure to the broad market of certain material, non-public information. This regulation does not imply that insider trading can only be perpetrated by insiders of an issuer. This is simply incorrect.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  I do appreciate your patience with me and working me through this. I was pretty sure it was about insiders only. But I'll give it more work if this really is your "expert opinion" so to speak (or at least, more expert than mine). I'm just a programmer who has on occasion, received training on this subject due to working for a public company. Most of these regulations I'm aware of, imply that the "insiders" have an out as long as they properly file this information in the various schedules / public disclosure forms. There are no such forms for Congressmen since they're not executives (or other kinds of insiders). Etc. etc. ---------- I'll say that the turning point in my research / opinion is a link I have for investment bankers who come across Material Non-public Information. Investment Bankers aren't insiders, but seem to be subject to these rules anyway. So I see that my previous understanding was too narrow a definition.