The lengths that people will go to get some sort of information edge to make money, even doing illegal things, is incredible.
The lengths that people will go to get some sort of information edge to make money, even doing illegal things, is incredible.
An analyst hears something being talked about on a different table in a restaurant by chance is legal.
An analyst offering money to a retired nuclear weapons defense contractor in order to sell might… suddenly disappear.
In between those two extremes? Ask a lawyer, not the internet.
Presidents at Federal Reserve, Kaplan and Rosengren, were reported to have been swinging seven figure stock index trades during corona panic timeframe. https://news.yahoo.com/a-timeline-of-the-federal-reserves-tr...
The really big players are not prosecuted.
Here’s some senators (mostly republicans, but also Feinstein — can we please recall her already? she has late-stage Alzheimer’s, for fuck’s sake) doing it blatantly:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/03/20/senators-a...
The
I didn't mention parties, though you seem to view things through a political lens. I view it as abuse of power.
So many view this politically that people like McCain are re-elected until they time out. Go voters.
The analyst in this case has no fiduciary duty to the harmed parties so they wouldn’t be insiders.
I’d talk to a lawyer but it’s for sure not “totally illegal”. It’s in the grey area.
The current doctrine - as Matt Levine puts in in his recurring motif "Everything is a Securities Fraud" - is not about fiduciary duty, but about an unfair information edge and basically "cheating" other people trading without insider information.
You don't have to be an insider to be guilty of insider trading - it is sufficient to trade on insider information.
I can't recall any recent case where an outsider eon against the SEC by arguing they don't have a contractual duty to shareholders, because the alleged harm is broader than that
If I’m an analyst and I cold call someone with a duty to protect the data, it’s not at all clear how I’ve stolen from the shareholders. Which is the basis of US insider trading. Theft, not information asymmetry.
Compare that to if I steal a binder from my sleeping girlfriend (a recent case). She has a duty, but I’ve stolen from the shareholders in that case.
That said, the SEC has certainly expanded the definition of insider trading recently with their court hypothesis’
Something your casual acquaintance tells you, with no close relationship and no obvious quid pro pro? That one's been litigated back and forth in recent years, with different cases coming out both ways (to the point that Matt Levine has a running joke about the sacred duty of golf-buddy confidentiality). You'd probably have to roll the dice in court.
* Under MAR confidential information is not necessarily inside information, as one of the prerequisites for the information to be inside information it must be likely that it has a significant effect on the price of a financial instrument if made public.