3 ms·

With the idea being that those who bought access had an unfair advantage in trading with the general public. However, if "everyone" knows that some companies c

With the idea being that those who bought access had an unfair advantage in trading with the general public. However, if "everyone" knows that some companies can buy these reports minutes ahead of time, then when people lose out on trades in the minutes afterwards, isn't it the fault of the people taking the trade? It's not wise to trade with people who might have more knowledge than you. It seems like there's a reasonable expectation that the people on the other sides of these trades should know about the paid access.

kasey_junk 13y ago
There is nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about collecting information or paying someone to collect information to give you an advantage in a trade. Nearly every trade that happens has some information assymetry associated with it. It is not a secret in any way that there are tiers of access to reuters data. We could enact some sort of law that makes this illegal, but that seems heavy handed and unlikely to have a positive impact on the market. We have decided that it should be illegal for public companies to give information selectively for the purposes of trading. We could easily change this law, but history has shown us that it isn't heavy handed and does have a positive impact on the market.