It's worth noting that trading spikes in advance of public availability of news doesn't necessarily imply illegal activity. Overheard conversations between strangers, for example, are fair game.
Wrong. It's insider trading if you have material, nonpublic information. It doesn't matter how you got that information.
You are totally mistaken as far as the law in the United States. I can’t speak for other jurisdictions.
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T052-C008-S001-w...
Your article justifies it "Yes" answer because you were told the information was confidential, but then the "case study" used to back this up includes envelopes on cash being exchanged for this information. My reading of the other article seems to indicate that you would be fine because the CEO was not compensated by you for providing the information and there is nothing to indicate that this information was given as a gift.
Other article:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-c...
Edit: Given the bloomberg article cites relevant supreme court cases, I'm more inclined to believe it.
That's messed up. It should be a breach of fiduciary duty to continue to interface as investor relations with an investor who you have established a friendship with. Being friendly on the phone is one thing, but join family vacations? As the relationship becomes closer, the fishier any exclusive information provided should smell.
You become friends with someone? At a certain point both the investor and and investore relations personel should have to hand off the professional relationship to colleages to avoid the risk of insider trading charges.
I don't see the issue.
> Er. Um. Sure. But another component of effective professional analysis of the value of a company's stock is talking to the company. There's a reason that companies have earnings calls. There's a reason that, when analysts get into the weeds on those calls, the companies say things like, "We'll follow up with you individually afterwards." There's a reason that companies selling stocks or bonds do one-on-one meetings with potential buyers. There's a reason that companies not selling stocks and bonds also do one-on-one meetings with current and potential investors. There's a reason that companies have investor relations departments full of people who talk to current and potential investors.
All of this gets to a point Levine has also made many times over, which is there is no explicit statute outlawing insider trading. Which seems crazy! People go to prison over it. But when you sit down and try to define it, it becomes even more of a mess, so here we are.
> It doesn't matter how you got that information.
Yes it does, if I didn't do anything illegal to acquire it, and I have no obligation to the company, I can use it legally, I'm not an insider.