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

231–240 of 371 posts

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#231

Post by ar_lan »

sakex wrote: post #226
ar_lan wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: not financial advice I don't think so, it happened publicly, you weren't privvy to classified details. I would go for it if I were in that scenario.

If it's legal, it means that somebody could write a model that could predict mergers pretty accurately and make a lot of money. For instance, by tracking flight patterns of C-suites executives, scanning car brands in parkings next to offices using satellite images, and analysing working hours of the staff (this can be done in multiple ways like sending e-mails to check of automated OOO responses or analysing the ligh…

I think some analysts have been doing flight analysis for a long time to help inform trades.

Everything you listed is publicly accessible knowledge (there is an interesting conversation over the fact that a poor person is unlikely to have the available means to attain this information) and I think should be fair game. But I really have not done the legal research to confidently give you a “Yes” and willfully will exit so I don’t get some SEC agent knocking on my door.

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#232

Post by boeingUH60 »

throaway920181 wrote: post #99
yumraj wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As in go to jail? I’m pretty sure yes.

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.

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#233

Post by jiveturkey »

mcguire wrote: post #197
jahewson wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not correct. If the tip came from an insider, it’s insider trading no matter who acts on it. See for example Martha Stewart who traded on an illegal tip from her stockbroker.

An intentional tip, right? Not an "overheard conversation".

Has to be. If you are monitoring the travel activity of cisco and splunk execs and happen to see them go to a fancy dinner after weeks of office meetings, there is no way that is insider trading. That's the same thing as overhearing a phone call in a cab.

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#234

Post by _ea1k »

kypro wrote: post #120

I know this isn't what happened, but what if one day I'm waiting for the bus and I over hear a guy talking on their phone about an imminent acquisition? 1. Would that still fall under insider trading even if the information was accidentally heard, and even if I wasn't 100% sure of its accuracy? 2. If I had no clear connection to the company how would it be proven that I was trading on insider information? Surely it's…

In the most conservative definition, anything that communicates materially non-public information to you can potentially be a cause for insider trading.

It is fun to think about what the most minimal case could be. Ask the CEO what he thinks of revenue next quarter. If he smiles, starts to speak, then looks at the CFO and realizes he should stop, is that insider information? It probably is by some people's definition and he communicated no words.

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#235

Post by namdnay »

jahewson wrote: post #171
kasey_junk wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SEC has recently been pursuing very expansive insider trading definitions, and they are occasionally losing, so it’s very hard to say. But traditionally in the US insider trading is not about market fairness, it’s about not stealing from shareholders. So if you have no obligation to the company or it’s shareholders you aren’t an insider. The phrase is “breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and…

This is not correct. If the tip came from an insider, it’s insider trading no matter who acts on it. See for example Martha Stewart who traded on an illegal tip from her stockbroker.

To continue the “theft from shareholders” analogy, acting on a deliberate tip is fencing stolen goods

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#236

Post by dmoy »

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?

#237

Post by smolder »

lacoolj wrote: post #51

Let's assume this turns out to be insider trading. Can someone shed a little insight on why this is worthy of a prison sentence? To me, even if they used information they had and we didn't, I don't see who the "victim" of this crime would be. It truly sounds like a "but it's unfair" argument and I'd really like to know why I'm wrong here. Thanks in advance

Just because the harm is socialized - spread across a large population - does not mean the harm is diminished or that the crime is victimless.

In some ways a crime like this is worse for not harming any particular person directly. First, because people often convince themselves that not having a clear victim means it's victimless and therefore okay, which is where your line of thought seems to be going. Second, because the lack of a clear victim means such crimes can go relatively unnoticed, unmitigated, and under-punished.

IMO, white collar crimes (and not just the explicitly illegal ones) are an insidious disease on society. The indirectness of the harm serves as a kind of camouflage against peoples moral judgement, but that's a failure of judgement. It's like falling for that trick that kids do where they spread their food all over their plate so it looks like they ate more of it.

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#238

Post by alasdair_ »

IKantRead wrote: post #118
ryanSrich wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally speaking then, it's best to never make trades on any company that you currently or have previously (because you could still have friends that work there) worked for?

Have you never worked for a publicly traded company where part of your compensation is in RSUs? You are only able to trade share's during specific windows of time typically 1 week after earnings are released. Additionally virtually every company I've known has explicit policies stating that you cannot buy/sell any derivatives related to the company stock (which is a shame since buying put options is a legitimate way…

>You are only able to trade share's during specific windows of time typically 1 week after earnings are released.

As a practical matter, you can set up a 10b5-1 to get around this restriction if all you want to do is regularly sell your RSUs when you get them or at certain fixed periods.

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#239

Post by JumpCrisscross »

sakex wrote: post #226
ar_lan wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: not financial advice I don't think so, it happened publicly, you weren't privvy to classified details. I would go for it if I were in that scenario.

If it's legal, it means that somebody could write a model that could predict mergers pretty accurately and make a lot of money. For instance, by tracking flight patterns of C-suites executives, scanning car brands in parkings next to offices using satellite images, and analysing working hours of the staff (this can be done in multiple ways like sending e-mails to check of automated OOO responses or analysing the ligh…

> by tracking flight patterns of C-suites executives, scanning car brands in parkings next to offices using satellite images

This was old enough to be the stuff of office legends fifteen years ago. (Also, flying drones to thermally image petroleum tankers to infer their levels.)

Re: Insider trade on Splunk acquisition?

#240

Post by jiveturkey »

thumbsup-_- wrote: post #228

These are so easy to track and find out. Whoever did this, either doesn't knows about insider trading laws or is stupid enough to think they can outsmart SEC. SEC would make a good example of this person, whoever they are. Wouldn't be surprised if this is done by a sibling or an uncle in another country.

Or, it's not insider trading but rather someone that observed a parking lot, that kind of research activity.
Post reply on HN