Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 371 posts

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#261

Post by kevinmchugh »

jandrese wrote: post #184
wongarsu wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a sliding scale of accountability from "I did it", "My wife did it", "My fiance did it", "my significant other did it", "my neighbour did it" to "some person I don't know did it". A fiance is still close enough that they are captured by lots of regulation, because collusion/cooperation between partners is so common.

I feel like the SEC must have already taken into account the possibility of a "Strangers on a Train" situation where an insider tracks down an anonymous third party to commit the crime with the expectation of being paid back a percentage at some later date.

There are convictions for golf buddies swapping tips. In the perfect strangers situation, the tip receiver has no incentive to ever pay back the tipper. There's no legal recourse

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#262

Post by compsciphd »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #260
compsciphd wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the SEC went after capital one analysts who used information capital one has via credit card usages at stores to trade against companies not capital one. While one might say that the info that capital one had was proprietary (as they deffinitely use it for other things), its hard to view it ast hurting people one has a fiduciary duty to, but I believe they still won the conviction.

Were the analysts acting independently or on behalf of capital one? Because on its face it's capital one's information to trade with (other laws not withstanding)

yes they were acting on behalf of capital one, I'm just saying why its just not fidicuary duty to shareholders of traded company.

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#263

Post by bluedays »

boeingUH60 wrote: post #232
throaway920181 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be new to the United States. Only the poors go to jail (except in the most extreme cases like Epstein, and it still took them 20+ years to do anything to him.

Wow, I guess SBF is a pauper then.

He’s new money.

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#265

Post by paganel »

lokar wrote: post #109
riffraff wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that considered insider trading? AFAIU, the use of material non-public information always qualifies as insider trading. It does not matter how you got it, and it does not even matter if you work at the company. See https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/materialinsiderinformat...

Oh, but it does matter. Insider trading is a kind of theft. A theft from the person or company that had the info and (generally) whose trust you violated. If you develop the info yourself (say, monitoring how full parking lots are at a store to predict earnings), that is fine. Insider trading is about theft of information, not fairness.

I wonder what would happen were those stores to say: “hey, those parking lots are ours and such they are private, as a result any information related to them is ours and hence private”?

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#267

Post by tonfa »

ada1981 wrote: post #150
matsemann wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And strategy 2 seems especially suspicious because the risk is so high and the non-illegal reasons for doing it are so few and far between. Very few reasons you’d buy a bunch of call options that only pay off if something causes a stock to move dramatically in 24 hours. But why are they then legal to sell? It almost seems like someone wants to be able to sell them, but when they lose the bet they want to revert it.…

It’s legal to sell / buy as long as you don’t have information that isn’t public that you are trading on.

Criteria isn't actually public vs. non public (there's another thread discussing that already).

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#269

Post by zinglersen »

ada1981 wrote: post #169
qwytw wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because: > Trades executed by lawmakers or their families must be disclosed within 45 days of execution Is probably an issue (it's it's actually insider trading). People do track it, though: https://www.capitoltrades.com/politicians

As in they need to announce them 45 days before they make them? Or 45 days after?

After.

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#270

Post by synaesthesisx »

vkou wrote: post #57
xyzelement wrote: post #17

I don't know if this is genuinely suspicious or not. Is buying 20K of options an unusual thing? Or is this something that happens regularly with options expiring worthless or with a small gain - and it just happened to hit big this time? IE "someone bought a lottery ticket and won" - interesting to know if they play the lottery every other day (and don't usually win?)

Buying 20k of options when there's a 99.99% chance of them being worth $0 is pretty unusual, unless you're actively regularly trading in the millions.

Or you're a subscriber to /r/wallstreetbets
Post reply on HN