Live data from Hacker News

Making Insider Trading Legal

newyorker.com

141–150 of 169 posts

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#141
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.

Nope, what would happen is that everyone without inside information would simply not trade in that security. You would not have a stock market because only people that know the company very well would dare buy stock in it. The cost of capital for companies would skyrocket and the US economy would tank.

It is amusing to me how when all these amateur game theorists create these hypotheticals to prove that insider trading is good, they always assume that there is an endless supply of chumps with an endless supply of money willing to take the opposite end of the trade. Well, let me tell you, people are not that stupid. Especially people with money.

Back in the dark ages, most people with money felt the best place to keep them was locked in a chest in the deepest room in a large castle. There was very little investment, and the dark ages were a time of extreme poverty. It is only through a long series of laws and institutions developed over couple of hundred of years, that we have reached this point of mobility of capital, which allows capital to go where it is most useful, and greatly benefits the economy. But if we remove investor protections things can slide back very easily and very quickly.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#142
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 shou…

Is that "Thought Crime"? Criminality dependent on internal mental state!

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 shou…

Is that "Thought Crime"? Criminality dependent on internal mental state!

Criminality has been dependent on internal mental state since the dawn of time. Like when you kill a person, it ranges from self defense to manslaughter to murder (and maybe terrorism now). That is not what "thought crime" means.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#144
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…

A core principle of US criminal law is innocent until proven guilty, so this sort of legal framework would have trouble in the US.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 shou…

Is that "Thought Crime"? Criminality dependent on internal mental state!

"Thought crime" is a poor description because it is not a thought being punished, but an action. You couldn't be punished just for thinking about stolen goods.

Analyzing intent is important to differentiate between people who have likely already learned from their mistake, and those who are likely to exploit others in the future. Punishment is only necessary in the latter case.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This definitely is true. If the other party had the same information they would have sold or bought at a different price point. (or maybe not at all+) That has to be because that's the attraction of insider trading, I know something that will cause you to misprice the trade in a way that benefits the insider trader. + Consider the person trading in insider information, namely that Cogswell's Cosmic Cogs has agreed to…

> If the other party had the same information they would have sold or bought at a different price point. (or maybe not at all+) That has to be because that's the attraction of insider trading This doesn't follow at all. Trades happen all the time between people with the same information. Under your theory, that's impossible. It's also not particularly relevant to the main point. The idea of banning insider trading is…

I'm getting that your argument is because the victims can't be singled out that insider trading is thus not theft.

Cute.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#147
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 certai…

A perfect market, which is a stupid assumption, can indeed make profit. You are assuming that an economy is a zero sum game but it is not. Transactions are made because both parties come out ahead.

Economy is a zero sum game in a perfect market. It is not a zero sum game because markets are not perfect.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the other party had the same information they would have sold or bought at a different price point. (or maybe not at all+) That has to be because that's the attraction of insider trading This doesn't follow at all. Trades happen all the time between people with the same information. Under your theory, that's impossible. It's also not particularly relevant to the main point. The idea of banning insider trading is…

I'm getting that your argument is because the victims can't be singled out that insider trading is thus not theft. Cute.

Look at what https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10488948 wrote. The laws against insider trading aren't there to protect one market participant from another, they are there to protect a company from its employees.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely ignore the benefit of the more accurate price. Let's say the price of a share with the inside info is 110. It is now 100. The inside trader does cause some volume that wouldn't have happened otherwise, and moves the price to 105 -- to the detriment of someone who would not have traded otherwise. But then every subsequent trade is at a price closer to the true one, a clear benefit. It is true that great…

But there's also bad incentives tied to it - with inside information, you're incentivized to keep others in the dark so that you can maximize the impact of your trades. Things like borrowing money to short stocks in a company likely to go bankrupt, while telling people to buy.

> Things like borrowing money to short stocks in a company likely to go bankrupt, while telling people to buy.

It's a dick move, but seems perfectly legal.

Re: Making Insider Trading Legal

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With inside information, it's not available to people outside the tipping network at any price. Let's take a stylized version of a recent insider-trading case: - A company ("Conglomacorp") employs someone ("Big Mouth") to dispense inside information to investors. Usually he does this by sitting in his office and answering phone calls. (This is common, and definitely legal.) - A particular investor ("Shylock") devel…

Answering calls with individual investors and giving out material information is illegal under Reg FD. Not sure about this particular fact pattern, but being told something officially vs. over dinner/drinks can have a different expectation as far as confidentiality goes. That seems sensible. Also, FWIW, and I'm sure this wasn't your intent, but "Shylock" is considered an Anti-Semitic slur by many people.

Compare http://time.com/3394403/shylock-biden/
Post reply on HN