221–227 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because trading on the basis of MNPI is itself illegal "yes" in Europe, "no" in the US
What if the plane is in the middle, over the Atlantic?
Of course not, because you learned the information yourself as an outsider. Just like the hedge funds that pay for satellite images of all of the WalMart parking lots in the country and count the cars to estimate year over year sales. It's information they have that no one else does, but they didn't get it from an insider.
this seems really obvious. you're not an insider if you're ... not an insider? how is this question even being considered
No, it is not. If you do not have a fiduciary relationship with Boeing and you have no confidentiality obligations with respect to the information, you are not trading on inside information. If you're in the plane when the door blows up, you're just the first person with material public information. You're not trading on material non-public information. See, e.g. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/misappropriation_theor…
Important clarification: you do not need to have confidentiality obligations with respect to the information or a fiduciary relationship, it need only be information that is material and non-public information that belongs to the company (i.e. only available to those with a fiduciary responsibility or confidentiality obligation to the company). If an insider with confidentiality obligations shares material non-public…
Is this transitive? If the person with no confidentiality tells a 3rd person and that 3rd person trades, is that still insider trading?
If you're employed with the airline, trade your insider informations instead of using it yourself. There are TOR websites to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Maybe we should make insider trading, trading off information that isn’t public. This is stupid. It disincentivizes people who make a living externally auditing/investigating companies
> This is stupid. Why? Trading implies making stock trades based on non-public information. This has little to do with auditing and investigating, since that information is not necessarily public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not quite correct, it depends on the nature of the disclosure. Someone receiving information from an insider needs be independent of personal, financial, and quid pro quo relationships. So a random person that happens to sit next to a CEO on an airplane can trade on whatever they hear. The CEO’s mistress sitting on the other side of them can’t.
This exact scenario happened to me. I was flying United business class SFO to EWR and the guy next to me was writing a Powerpoint slide in 9000-point bold type "BUY XYZ CORP FOR 880 MILLION" and when I got to work a few hours later our counsel advised me that it was not at all improper to trade on that information, which we did.
This warmed my heart greatly.