6 ms·

I have it on good authority Apple was very closing to acquiring Groq

by brcmthrowaway 3y ago

baq 3y ago
If this is true, expect a call from the SEC...
- 317070 3y ago
  Even if it isn't true. Disclosing inside information is illegal, _even if it is false and fabricated_, if it leads to personal gains.
  - varelse 3y ago
    [dead]
  - KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
    You have to prove the OP had personal gains. If he's just a troll, it will be difficult.
    - frognumber 3y ago
      You also have to be an insider. If I go to a bar, and overhear a pair of Googlers discussing something secret and overhear it, I can: 1) Trade on it. 2) Talk about it. Because I'm not an insider. On the other hand, if I'm sleeping with the CEO, I become an insider. Not a lawyer. Above is not legal advice. Just a comment that the line is much more complex, and talking about a potential acquisition is usually okay (if you're not under NDA).
      - throwawayurlife 3y ago
        It doesn't matter if you overheard it at a bar or if you're just some HN commenter posting completely incorrect legal advice; the law prohibits trading on material nonpublic information. I would pay a lot to see you try your ridiculous legal hokey-pokey on how to define an "insider."
        windexh8er 3y ago
        Feel free to share some legal precedence where this situation has fared poorly for someone who "overheard it at a bar". It'd also be a good time to watch you lose all that money on your hokey-pokey assumption.
        programmarchy 3y ago
        If you did hear it in a bar, could you tweet it out before your trade, so the information is made public?
        GTP 3y ago
        I really doubt that you can make yourself something public so that you can later act on it.
        jahewson 3y ago
        If you hear it in a bar it’s already public.
        sofixa 3y ago
        Had insider trading training, and yes, that's the gist of it. If you know or presume that the information is material (makes a difference) and not public, it's illegal to act on it.
        tripletao 3y ago
        Roughly, it's illegal only if you have some duty not to trade on it. If you acquired the information without misappropriating it (like overhearing it from strangers in a normal public bar), then you're free to trade. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/01/18/insider-trading-law-after-salman/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/01/18/insider-trading-l... There's no reason for normal corporate training to discuss that element, because an employee who trades their employer's stock based on MNPI has near-certainly misappropriated it. The question of whether a non-employee has misappropriated information is much more complex, though.
        frognumber 3y ago
      - jazzyjackson 3y ago
        just so you know no one's ever been taken to court for discussing the law, it doesn't matter that you're not a lawyer, it's basically a meme
        frognumber 3y ago
        Just so you know, plenty of people have been penalized for practicing law without a license. If someone engages in insider trading based on a mistake you made on the internet, you can be liable. In my jurisdiction, that would involve me taking money (not just talking on the internet), so I'm not at risk, but in plenty of states, you can be. A lot of this hinges on the difference between "legal information" (which is generic) and "legal advice" (which is specific). There are whole law review articles on this, which I read more than a decade ago, nerding on something related. But that's beside the point. A major reason for the disclaimer is that people SHOULD be aware of my level of expertise. I do the same on technical posts too. I'll disclaim whether e.g. I have world-class expertise in a topic, worked in an adjacent domain, or read a blog post somewhere (and wish others did too). It's helpful to know people's backgrounds. I am NOT a lawyer specializing in securities law. I know enough to tell people the line is more complex than trading on non-public information, but I am utterly unqualified to tell people where that line is. If you're planning to do that, you SHOULD NOT rely on it. Either read relevant case law, talk to a genuine lawyer who specializes in this stuff, or find some other way to educate yourself on whether what you're doing is okay. So it does matter I'm not a lawyer, if not for the reasons you mentioned.
        p1esk 3y ago
        Are you a lawyer?
- spicyramen_ 3y ago
  [dead]
- sheepscreek 3y ago
  TIL that SEC has authority over private company dealings wrt sale of shares[1]. [1] https://www.sec.gov/education/capitalraising/building-blocks/sec-have-do-my-private-company https://www.sec.gov/education/capitalraising/building-blocks...
- belter 3y ago
  Not if poster is in a crashing plane...

I have it on good authority Apple was very closing to acquiring Groq

baq 3y ago

If this is true, expect a call from the SEC...

317070 3y ago
Even if it isn't true. Disclosing inside information is illegal, _even if it is false and fabricated_, if it leads to personal gains.
- varelse 3y ago
  [dead]
- KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
  You have to prove the OP had personal gains. If he's just a troll, it will be difficult.
  - frognumber 3y ago
    You also have to be an insider. If I go to a bar, and overhear a pair of Googlers discussing something secret and overhear it, I can: 1) Trade on it. 2) Talk about it. Because I'm not an insider. On the other hand, if I'm sleeping with the CEO, I become an insider. Not a lawyer. Above is not legal advice. Just a comment that the line is much more complex, and talking about a potential acquisition is usually okay (if you're not under NDA).
    - throwawayurlife 3y ago
      It doesn't matter if you overheard it at a bar or if you're just some HN commenter posting completely incorrect legal advice; the law prohibits trading on material nonpublic information. I would pay a lot to see you try your ridiculous legal hokey-pokey on how to define an "insider."
      - windexh8er 3y ago
        Feel free to share some legal precedence where this situation has fared poorly for someone who "overheard it at a bar". It'd also be a good time to watch you lose all that money on your hokey-pokey assumption.
      - programmarchy 3y ago
        If you did hear it in a bar, could you tweet it out before your trade, so the information is made public?
        GTP 3y ago
        I really doubt that you can make yourself something public so that you can later act on it.
        jahewson 3y ago
        If you hear it in a bar it’s already public.
      - sofixa 3y ago
        Had insider trading training, and yes, that's the gist of it. If you know or presume that the information is material (makes a difference) and not public, it's illegal to act on it.
        tripletao 3y ago
        Roughly, it's illegal only if you have some duty not to trade on it. If you acquired the information without misappropriating it (like overhearing it from strangers in a normal public bar), then you're free to trade. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/01/18/insider-trading-law-after-salman/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/01/18/insider-trading-l... There's no reason for normal corporate training to discuss that element, because an employee who trades their employer's stock based on MNPI has near-certainly misappropriated it. The question of whether a non-employee has misappropriated information is much more complex, though.
        frognumber 3y ago
    - jazzyjackson 3y ago
      just so you know no one's ever been taken to court for discussing the law, it doesn't matter that you're not a lawyer, it's basically a meme
      - frognumber 3y ago
        Just so you know, plenty of people have been penalized for practicing law without a license. If someone engages in insider trading based on a mistake you made on the internet, you can be liable. In my jurisdiction, that would involve me taking money (not just talking on the internet), so I'm not at risk, but in plenty of states, you can be. A lot of this hinges on the difference between "legal information" (which is generic) and "legal advice" (which is specific). There are whole law review articles on this, which I read more than a decade ago, nerding on something related. But that's beside the point. A major reason for the disclaimer is that people SHOULD be aware of my level of expertise. I do the same on technical posts too. I'll disclaim whether e.g. I have world-class expertise in a topic, worked in an adjacent domain, or read a blog post somewhere (and wish others did too). It's helpful to know people's backgrounds. I am NOT a lawyer specializing in securities law. I know enough to tell people the line is more complex than trading on non-public information, but I am utterly unqualified to tell people where that line is. If you're planning to do that, you SHOULD NOT rely on it. Either read relevant case law, talk to a genuine lawyer who specializes in this stuff, or find some other way to educate yourself on whether what you're doing is okay. So it does matter I'm not a lawyer, if not for the reasons you mentioned.
      - p1esk 3y ago
        Are you a lawyer?
spicyramen_ 3y ago
[dead]
sheepscreek 3y ago
TIL that SEC has authority over private company dealings wrt sale of shares[1]. [1] https://www.sec.gov/education/capitalraising/building-blocks/sec-have-do-my-private-company https://www.sec.gov/education/capitalraising/building-blocks...
belter 3y ago
Not if poster is in a crashing plane...