Live data from Hacker News

Making Insider Trading Legal

newyorker.com

111–120 of 169 posts

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#111
post #86

I naively assume that the only way to succeed big in wall street is to rely on insider information. The rules against insider trading only hurt those trading at home believing the playing field is level. But I don't know how it really works.

In a perfectly efficient market with perfect information there's no profit to be made. So to make money you either have to be more efficient - either by market-making where you do millions of small trades, or the kind of value investing where you just buy what other people are selling and vice versa and hold them for a while - or you have better information. (Which doesn't have to mean inside information. It's certainly possible to make a living out of good old-fashioned detective work based on public information - recent clever tricks have been e.g. tracking the tail numbers of CEOs' private planes to know when they're on holiday and/or negotiating a merger).

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#112
post #86

I naively assume that the only way to succeed big in wall street is to rely on insider information. The rules against insider trading only hurt those trading at home believing the playing field is level. But I don't know how it really works.

The empirical evidence for your gut feeling is actually pretty strong. You are better off putting your money in a nice indexed fund instead of trying to chase money in the market.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#113
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…

In the US, most states have said that in a person to person sale, you are only committing a crime by buying stolen goods if you know the goods are stolen.

But, there are separate laws for commercial entities who deal in second hand goods (like pawn shops). They must do proper due diligence when buying goods or they will be held accountable if those goods turn out to be stolen.

I would assume that financial firms should also be under extra scrutiny in the same way. But alas, our phony government has made it clear whose side they are on.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#114
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Reasonable and non-discriminatory" is a technical term, and I think it covers this case. If the company accepts everyone's calls, or everyone who owns more than x% of their stock, or charges you $y/minute, it's fine for them to reveal information that way. Revealing information to individuals that Big Mouth personally decides to go to dinner with is not ok.

Despite the fact that it's the same information? There's no distinction, in the example, between information that it's OK for Big Mouth to disclose and information that he can't disclose. Such forbidden information might exist and be known to Big Mouth, but Shylock didn't receive it. How can the only problem be that it was disclosed outside business hours?

If it happens in business hours then it's Conglomacorp's job to supervise Big Mouth properly and make sure he's not playing favourites (which as your sibling points out would be a Reg FD violation). If Shylock wants to trade on information then he needs to get it through the official channel where it's subject to compliance monitoring and all the rest of it. I'm fine with it being a crime for him to get information from Big Mouth in a way that bypasses those processes even if it turns out those processes wouldn't actually have blocked the information in this case.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Theft benefits the thief while costing the person stolen from. > If one can backup and use a fuzzy enough lens, one can just ask "how should society calculate the total benefits here" but the problem is this begs the question of whether it's proper for the state to just ask these questions. But in the case of insider trading, there is no such person. Lambdapie identifies that there is a cost (yes!), but that cost o…

What if you considered the lost "profit" the non-insiders would have made from buying at 100 rather than 105, or 103, or whatever price results from normal speculative activity?

[deleted]

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#116
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, lets get the camel's nose inside the tent. Imagine I am a janitor who works at Acme Inc. I notice that the board meets every Tuesday at 2:00 PM and they always laugh and seem to have fun. I can't hear anything behind the glass doors but it seems that they are all merry. Now, fast forward some time and I see that the meetings are not merry any more. It looks like there is a lot of yelling and banging on the confer…

The SEC would say yes. There was an employee who worked at a rail yard who noticed certain visitors and other things and decided to buy the stock. The company was purchased shortly thereafter. How did a couple of railroad yard workers catch wind of a multibillion-dollar leveraged buyout? The complaint says they suspected something was up when they saw “people dressed in business attire” taking tours of the rail yards…

Well at least they lost this case. Good common sense showed by the Jury.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=84aea8bb-af1b-...

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Theft benefits the thief while costing the person stolen from. > If one can backup and use a fuzzy enough lens, one can just ask "how should society calculate the total benefits here" but the problem is this begs the question of whether it's proper for the state to just ask these questions. But in the case of insider trading, there is no such person. Lambdapie identifies that there is a cost (yes!), but that cost o…

What if you considered the lost "profit" the non-insiders would have made from buying at 100 rather than 105, or 103, or whatever price results from normal speculative activity?

Can you sketch a more concrete example of what you're talking about?

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#118
post #13

If everyone with inside information could trade on it without fearing the law, they would reveal the predicted effect of said information via movements in the price of the security. Therefore, free and legal insider trading would actually increase fairness in the market.

Free and legal insider trading would be the end of stock markets. If it becomes publicly known that some people trade stocks based on insider information then for all the others investing in stocks stops making sense. It's like casino publicly announcing that all it's roulette wheels are fraud and noone will ever win on them - this would wipe all the gamblers out.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#119
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See http://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2015/10/25/whats-the-harm...

I didn't understand that article, probably because I'm unfamiliar with the author's other works. Is he proposing that a company be allowed to set rules regarding insider trading during the IPO? If so, I agree that in theory this would be efficient (or in the author's terminology, it would be acceptable from a consequentialist POV). But this is orthogonal to the issue. The people who want to ban insider trading would…

The argument is that instead of having the government decide what's best, the company should decide (and it doesn't need to be during the IPO). Then, the so-called "free market" will decide whether it's good or bad. If they decide it's bad for companies, then companies won't allow it, because it will hurt their stock price. If they decide it's good, then companies will allow it.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#120
post #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?

Netherlands too: if offered a deal which seems too good to be true....

edit: criminal liability indeed

Post reply on HN