Neither of those would be considered insider trading in the US.
A is super friendly. B is an asshole.
A and B both indepedently go solo hiking to the same park.
A ends up making some friends with some company X employees on the trail, hikes with them for part of the trail, and hears inside info, and then they depart ways.
B is an asshole and so those people don't want to talk to B. B makes no friends, hikes alone the whole time, and therefore gets no inside info.
A should be rewarded by the markets for their people skills, no?
Whatever you hear from them and is probably non-public info is also illegal to trade on.
I mean, what exactly do you expect to happen if this is allowed? Put everyone who works on finance and the executives under 24/7 surveillance? Pay them ransom for not sharing their employer’s data? It would simply be an institutionalized racket.
I am not answering for them, merely observing a trend.
I'm definitely on the side that favors heavy market regulation. History shows us that it works better with heavy regulations - that is that it works better for more people rather than better for a small group of people. In the US, something like 52% (the last time I read some numbers) have invested in the stock market. I'd rather they be treated fairly, with a more equal playing field.
Hmm... It looks like it's now 53%:
https://usafacts.org/articles/what-percentage-of-americans-o...