|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Reopening Insider Information Debate.
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Reopening Insider Information Debate.
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Reopening Insider Information Debate.
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Reopening Insider Information Debate.
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Reopening Insider Information Debate.
[ 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? [/ QUOTE ] Impossible scenario. Someone has to audit those statements before they're published. :-) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Reopening Insider Information Debate.
[ 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? [/ QUOTE ] Presumably you are the CFO so yes. Otherwise you are constructing a nonsensical edge case. Oh and where's your crown [censored]? J |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Reopening Insider Information Debate.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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? [/ QUOTE ] Presumably you are the CFO so yes. Otherwise you are constructing a nonsensical edge case. Oh and where's your crown [censored]? J [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, just didn't think we needed a 2nd thread on this considering the other one only had like 40 posts and was only a day old. Obviously my example would not be insider trading. David -- I understand you are very smart and like to do a lot of deep thought excercises or explore certain theories. But I just feel like you are trying to turn some of your late night thoughts/theories into fact and won't listen to many of the logical posters in this forum, such as DesertCat. To me, it seems you have made up your mind and are going to ask a lot of questions, and start a lot of threads in this forum, but yet you are only willing to listen to those who agree with you, while completely ignoring/berating anyone who disagrees with you, whether for right or wrong. I definitely consider you to be one of the top authorities when it comes to poker. But just because you are a poker expert does not make you a stock expert (in other threads more so than this one). And although the stock market does have a few similarities to poker and sports betting, the same logic does not apply. You have the right set of skills to become great at stocks as well, but it isn't as easy as 1, 2, 3. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Reopening Insider Information Debate.
[ QUOTE ]
David -- I understand you are very smart and like to do a lot of deep thought excercises or explore certain theories. But I just feel like you are trying to turn some of your late night thoughts/theories into fact and won't listen to many of the logical posters in this forum, such as DesertCat. To me, it seems you have made up your mind and are going to ask a lot of questions, and start a lot of threads in this forum, but yet you are only willing to listen to those who agree with you, while completely ignoring/berating anyone who disagrees with you, whether for right or wrong. I definitely consider you to be one of the top authorities when it comes to poker. But just because you are a poker expert does not make you a stock expert (in other threads more so than this one). And although the stock market does have a few similarities to poker and sports betting, the same logic does not apply. You have the right set of skills to become great at stocks as well, but it isn't as easy as 1, 2, 3. [/ QUOTE ] Although they may be thought stimulating,and somewhat entertaining at times....his constant attempts of theoretical comparisons are in no way,shape or form ...a realistic REAL world view of Wall Street trading/investing SF [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Reopening Insider Information Debate.
[ QUOTE ]
Simple question. I have come upon information that gives me an irrefutable giant edge because no one else has it. [/ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I Think I Have A Partial Answer
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. |
|
|