The 2+2 Forum Archives: Reopening Insider Information Debate.

Terms & Conditions

Internet Magazine

Non–US new players
Get five 2+2 books

Order Books
Book Translations
Forum Login

Expand All Collapse All

Two Plus Two

General Poker Discussion

Coaching/Training

German Forums

French Forums

Limit Texas Hold'em

PL/NL Texas Hold'em

Tournament Poker

Other Poker

General Gambling

Internet Gambling

2+2 Communities

Other Topics

Sponsored Support Forums

Other Links
Books
Authors
Abbreviations
Calendar
Order Books
Books by Others
Favorite Links
Feedback
Advertising Information
Home
Posting Hints
Privacy Notice

The 2+2 Forums

Before using this Forum, please refer to the Terms and Conditions (Last modified: 2/26/2006)

Be sure to read the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine

This is an archive. The main forums are here

These forums are read only.

UBB.threads™

Groupee, Inc.

You are not logged in. [Login]

Main Index · Search · Classified Ads
New user · Who's Online · FAQ · Calendar

Other Topics >> Business, Finance, and Investing

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)

David Sklansky
Carpal \'Tunnel

Reged: 08/28/02
Posts: 5092

Reopening Insider Information Debate.
#13181033 - 11/30/07 01:02 AM

I'm wondering why no one seemed too concerned about the fact that people here had wildly different takes on whether or not my scenarios constitute insider trading and that no conclusion was reached.

Simple question. I have come upon information that gives me an irrefutable giant edge because no one else has it. Or because those others who have it are precluded from trading on it. I came upon this information without breaking any laws. (It may or may not be by accident. You tell me if that matters.) I am not an "insider". But the guy who is taking the other side of my trade has cost himself money because of my willingness to trade on my knowledge. Is this illegal or not? This thread doesn't end until everybody agrees.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

mtgordon
old hand

Reged: 04/21/05
Posts: 723

Re: Reopening Insider Information Debate. [Re: David Sklansky]
#13181158 - 11/30/07 01:11 AM

Or until you decide to start a new thread about it?

I mean come on, I understand you kind of run this place but this seems a bit ridiculous.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

johndenver
enthusiast

Reged: 04/03/07
Posts: 263

Re: Reopening Insider Information Debate. [Re: David Sklansky]
#13181193 - 11/30/07 01:14 AM

afaik:

trading on non public info is illegal

if one of your friends or associates who is an insider gave you this info, it is illegal, and you stand a good chance of being prosecuted

if you overheard this info or stumbled upon it in some way, it is illegal, but you stand no chance of being prosecuted

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Shoe
King of the Stock Market

Reged: 07/29/04
Posts: 3379
Loc: Follow me to riches!

Re: Reopening Insider Information Debate. [Re: David Sklansky]
#13181201 - 11/30/07 01:15 AM

Is this insider trading?

I am the only person to study a company's annual report. I make my decision based on that. But I am the only person who read the annual report, therefore, that gives me an irrefutable giant edge because no one else has it. Is that insider trading?

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

SenatorKevin
enthusiast

Reged: 05/09/07
Posts: 283
Loc: Shampoo is better!

Re: Reopening Insider Information Debate. [Re: David Sklansky]
#13181337 - 11/30/07 01:25 AM

Quote:

Simple question. I have come upon information that gives me an irrefutable giant edge because no one else has it.

More information is needed to come to a conclusion here. In some cases you could be considered trading with inside information and sometimes you wouldn't be.

Quote:

Or because those others who have it are precluded from trading on it. I came upon this information without breaking any laws. (It may or may not be by accident. You tell me if that matters.) I am not an "insider". But the guy who is taking the other side of my trade has cost himself money because of my willingness to trade on my knowledge. Is this illegal or not? This thread doesn't end until everybody agrees.

Different story now. (The way you worded this, it sounds like two different scenarios) 90% of the time this would make you an insider. The other 10% is that legal gray area that you really would want to avoid.

Edited by SenatorKevin (11/30/07 01:33 AM)

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

SenatorKevin
enthusiast

Reged: 05/09/07
Posts: 283
Loc: Shampoo is better!

Re: Reopening Insider Information Debate. [Re: Shoe]
#13181404 - 11/30/07 01:30 AM

Quote:

Is this insider trading?

I am the only person to study a company's annual report. I make my decision based on that. But I am the only person who read the annual report, therefore, that gives me an irrefutable giant edge because no one else has it. Is that insider trading?

Impossible scenario. Someone has to audit those statements before they're published. :-)

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

jaydub
Pooh-Bah

Reged: 12/30/04
Posts: 2055

Re: Reopening Insider Information Debate. [Re: Shoe]
#13181606 - 11/30/07 01:45 AM

Quote:

Is this insider trading?

I am the only person to study a company's annual report. I make my decision based on that. But I am the only person who read the annual report, therefore, that gives me an irrefutable giant edge because no one else has it. Is that insider trading?

Presumably you are the CFO so yes. Otherwise you are constructing a nonsensical edge case.

Oh and where's your crown [censored]?

J

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

David Sklansky
Carpal \'Tunnel

Reged: 08/28/02
Posts: 5092

I Think I Have A Partial Answer [Re: SenatorKevin]
#13181774 - 11/30/07 02:04 AM

Most of you, including Jason Stausser are wrong. I'd make a small bet on it. Just using pure thought.

When I saw a long line at the newly installed Monopoly machines I immediately bought Williams. And I screwed the seller. Except that he should have realized that someone might have been doing that to him. It is a legitimate part of the game. And as unpalatable as it might sound, the same is true if I overhear two terrorists on their way to bomb the Bellagio (especially if I report them first). The possibility that something along those lines is going on should be part of your calculations. Unless you are DesertCat. It is ridiculous to have laws that expect people to refrain from stuff like that.

The only time the answer is unclear, I would think, is if the information is specifically related to undisclosed aspects of a business that is only privy to insiders. That is why I would think the executive who sells a competitor's stock short when he can't buy his own, is likely breaking the law. As far as someone overhearing executives and then trading on it, my take would be that he gets off but that the executives reimburse those who lost money due to their carelessness.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

SenatorKevin
enthusiast

Reged: 05/09/07
Posts: 283
Loc: Shampoo is better!

Re: I Think I Have A Partial Answer [Re: David Sklansky]
#13181889 - 11/30/07 02:13 AM

Quote:

Most of you, including Jason Stausser are wrong. I'd make a small bet on it. Just using pure thought.

When I saw a long line at the newly installed Monopoly machines I immediately bought Williams. And I screwed the seller. Except that he should have realized that someone might have been doing that to him. It is a legitimate part of the game. And as unpalatable as it might sound, the same is true if I overhear two terrorists on their way to bomb the Bellagio (especially if I report them first). The possibility that something along those lines is going on should be part of your calculations. Unless you are DesertCat. It is ridiculous to have laws that expect people to refrain from stuff like that.

The only time the answer is unclear, I would think, is if the information is specifically related to undisclosed aspects of a business that is only privy to insiders. That is why I would think the executive who sells a competitor's stock short when he can't buy his own, is likely breaking the law. As far as someone overhearing executives and then trading on it, my take would be that he gets off but that the executives reimburse those who lost money due to their carelessness.

So does this example of the Monopoly machines match the scenario you used in the original post? If it is, then I think your original post is very misleading. Making some observation about slot machine usage would hardly give you a huge edge in trading. There are so many inputs that you don't know about. Such as the configured payout. Perhaps the machines are paying out a significantly higher percentage in order to win over new players and such.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

David Sklansky
Carpal \'Tunnel

Reged: 08/28/02
Posts: 5092

Re: I Think I Have A Partial Answer [Re: SenatorKevin]
#13182297 - 11/30/07 02:51 AM

The fact that my information is not a slam dunk is beside the point. Maybe the terrorists will chicken out. An edge is an edge.

Post Extras:

Print Post

Remind Me!

Notify Moderator

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)

Extra information

0 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator: Mat Sklansky, ahnuld, Evan, Mike Haven

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 791

Jump to

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5

Message Boards and Forums Directory

Pages provided by ConJelCo