51–60 of 130 posts
Would it be so bad if insider trading laws just went away? Information is spreading faster than ever. So a few Mak outsized gains on some inside info. Is it that big a deal?
Corporations are supposed to operate on the behalf of their shareholders - insider trading is in direct conflict with that
Would it be so bad if insider trading laws just went away? Information is spreading faster than ever. So a few Mak outsized gains on some inside info. Is it that big a deal?
Insider trading is taking advantage of the rest of the market. If there was nothing done to prevent it, it could cause prevent many investors from entering the market.
It's actually still possible to perform a specific type of legal insider trading. Example: you are an executive at E Corp and the company will announce its acquisition in two months. You had previously set up planned trades to sell x number of shares each month before then. Because the acquisition is at a premium on the current price, you will make much less money if you go forward with your trades before the announc…
Would it be so bad if insider trading laws just went away? Information is spreading faster than ever. So a few Mak outsized gains on some inside info. Is it that big a deal?
Insider trading is taking advantage of the rest of the market. If there was nothing done to prevent it, it could cause prevent many investors from entering the market.
Insider trading is illegal because it takes advantage of one's employer.
You are allowed to use material non-public information to beat the living daylights out of everyone else on Wall Street as long as you don't have a fiduciary duty to the source of the information. This includes doing things like e.g. performing image recognition on photos taken by spy satellites to count the number of cars in WalMart parking lots and thereby arrive at their quarterly sales numbers before they're released publicly. (That was an actual thing that was done.)
[ + ] Edit: Actually, on re-reading this, it is glib but false, in consequential ways. Long story and I've already pulled an all-nighter. Some other day.
Then there is the story of the really sophisticated guys who didn't get caught. Unfortunately that's a story you won't be reading online, but will just have to imagine. It really makes me question the sanity of doing this illegal trading. For as much effort you could do something legal and make money. Maybe not as much but surely without the risk of going to prison.
I'm in that position myself. I've enough attacks and some 0days that I could retire off a rather small bit of work (I discovered one guy making $30k/mo recurring off of an amateur attack). Instead, I'm trying to start a security company. It's loads more work and probably not as much reward, at least easily.
In fact, it would not be hard to find people where you might say the opposite: they're insane for not being a criminal.
The tone of this article was really, like, interrupted by a prolific use of "likes." I wish it were so simple to hand-wave all security risks. Mr. Levine's ability to find a MySQL tutorial was quite impressive, but his dismissal of very real security concerns is childish. It's like saying cars are known to crash, so quit crashing cars. It's so, like, simple!
What is with "So" these days. I get that it's helps conversational flow but I regularly now see it as a way to start an article.
Sorry, rant over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes sense to insulate Congressman from insider trading charges. They are exposed to so much inside information that the executive could bring charges against them on a whim. Which would have significant separation of powers concerns. Of course, the answer to that is to require all Congressmen to put their assets in a blind trust.
> It makes sense to insulate Congressman from insider trading charges. They are exposed to so much inside information that the executive could bring charges against them on a whim. Which would have significant separation of powers concerns. How about disallowing them to trade altogether in the first place for as long as they hold office?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations are supposed to operate on the behalf of their shareholders - insider trading is in direct conflict with that
How is that? Set up a private mailing list for shareholders, then.
It's actually still possible to perform a specific type of legal insider trading. Example: you are an executive at E Corp and the company will announce its acquisition in two months. You had previously set up planned trades to sell x number of shares each month before then. Because the acquisition is at a premium on the current price, you will make much less money if you go forward with your trades before the announc…
Politicians in Congress are explicitly allowed to insider trade based on information they hear about. This is why congressmen's stock portfolios are far more profitable than an average person's.