Live data from Hacker News

Making Insider Trading Legal

newyorker.com

21–30 of 169 posts

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#21
Insider trading does harm people, and does reduce liquidity. Many people who understand classical economics get this wrong [0], because financial markets are a very degenerate kind of market from the point of view of classical economics.

The fundamental error in all cases is to conceptualize insider trading as buying from someone who would have bought/sold anyway. This is precisely failing to think at the margin. It is as erroneous as saying "eating meat is ok because those cows would have been killed anyway". Put more technically, when you buy a share, you do so by shifting up the demand curve a tiny bit, with your demand, which in turn shifts the price slightly up and causes a seller to sell, who would not otherwise have. Market microstructure, together with the fact that supply/demand curves really form a single curve, can obscure this fundamental economic fact.

Given this, insider trading does cause harm to some people. And how could it not? If a person can make money from insider trading, then, to first order, someone else must lose money. There are some externalities from information revelation, but only a tiny fraction of these benefits go to the marginal buyer/seller who lost out because of insider trading.

How does this compare to public releases of information? Well unlike insider trading, public information can shift prices without any transactions occurring (or in practice, very few). This is because while insider trading only moves the price by the mechanism of moving the supply/demand curve, while public information is revealed to all traders at once.

So while insider trading does reveal information (which is a good thing) it does so in a way that reduces liquidity, because people don't want to be on the wrong side of insider trading.

I'll admit that the above narrative isn't watertight. I think it's the best analysis that can be done verbally. The only models that allow a meaningful discussion of welfare in the context of financial markets are so called noise-trader models, which explicitly model the (irrational) reasons why most people trade. The whole field is vastly complicated by the fact that theory predicts almost no trade in stocks if people were completely rational.

[0] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-insider-trading-should-...

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#22

Unfortunately the headline is mistaken. Insider trading law was only ever intended to reserve for senior executives the privilege of trading on inside information. This latest interpretation is a confirmation of that purpose, not a repudiation of it. Bharara has been a true believer, but if he's going to stray from the South Asian beat, he's going to have to learn the real rules.

What does "if he's going to stray from the South Asian beat" refer to?

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#23
post #20

> Many people on Wall Street felt that Bharara’s crusade against insider trading was recklessly broad: An analyst like Horvath might knowingly obtain an illegal tip, but if he feeds his information up the chain to a Steinberg or a Cohen, and they take his word that he is not passing along stolen goods, should they really go to prison for that misplaced faith? Is it fair to convict someone of engaging in insider tradi…

Which country is that? Does "illegal" mean criminal liability or just that the sale is void?

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#24
Not related to the actual article, but I got stuck on the word "coöperating".

Originally, I thought the "Umlaut" is a typo or a mistake, but, according to wiktionary, "coöperate" is an actual word! I still feel like pronouncing the second "ö" like in German though.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#25

Insider trading does harm people, and does reduce liquidity. Many people who understand classical economics get this wrong [0], because financial markets are a very degenerate kind of market from the point of view of classical economics. The fundamental error in all cases is to conceptualize insider trading as buying from someone who would have bought/sold anyway . This is precisely failing to think at the margin. It…

[deleted]

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#26
post #24

Not related to the actual article, but I got stuck on the word "coöperating". Originally, I thought the "Umlaut" is a typo or a mistake, but, according to wiktionary, "coöperate" is an actual word! I still feel like pronouncing the second "ö" like in German though.

The New Yorker has a famously idiosyncratic house style, which includes the use of diaereses on doubled vowels: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker#Style

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#27
post #20

> Many people on Wall Street felt that Bharara’s crusade against insider trading was recklessly broad: An analyst like Horvath might knowingly obtain an illegal tip, but if he feeds his information up the chain to a Steinberg or a Cohen, and they take his word that he is not passing along stolen goods, should they really go to prison for that misplaced faith? Is it fair to convict someone of engaging in insider tradi…

[deleted]

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#28
post #24

Not related to the actual article, but I got stuck on the word "coöperating". Originally, I thought the "Umlaut" is a typo or a mistake, but, according to wiktionary, "coöperate" is an actual word! I still feel like pronouncing the second "ö" like in German though.

It's called a diaeresis.

Used in this way, a diaeresis tells the reader that it's pronounced as "co op" and not "coop".

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-curse-of-t...

Most people would just write "co-op" nowadays -- I've only ever seen this in the New Yorker.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#29
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry you didn't get upvotes out of randomness or timing but it doesn't help to link a previous submission with no comments.

Thanks but I'm not looking for upvotes, I just wanted to signal that the dupe detector isn't working very well since it's the same title and url and have been posted only hours before this.

The dupe detector has been weakened on purpose.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"insider trading isn't about fairness, it's about theft"

I don't think that's true. If you have a friend on the executive board of pharma company X, and he confides in you over the phone that the internal trials for the company's next big drug failed big time and they're going to announce the results to the public tomorrow, and you dump the stock... that's insider trading. It wasn't theft. The information was willingly given to you by an insider. And it's a crime because y…

He breached his fiduciary duty to the company by giving you that info, that's the theft.
Post reply on HN