Talk:Insider trading

message: Hi Leo, not surprised by your article! Haha. My only suggestions are to perhaps improve the introduction by splitting it up? The whole article is pretty lengthy. I caught myself getting lost in the beginning and from our modules, the "best articles" get right to the point in the intro. Otherwise, it's a great topic for business. There are plenty of references so it's going to be tough work. I see below that a contributor said there's an imbalance on the UK's perspective. That's a start! Also, I couldn't find your edits so I can't really review that aspect. Otherwise, I'm excited to see what you come up with! Rayal021 (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Ujjwal Kumar Gaurav  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.217.153 (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Any information you can add to the UK section would be quite welcome! Please be sure to cite your sources when you do. Thank you for your help! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the UK law on insider trading mostly subsumed by the EU Market Abuse Directive, with actual UK implementation in a state of flux?  Anybody an expert on the Market Abuse Directive?  Epstein's Mother 03:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The definition of insider trading does not seem appropriate for jurisdictions outside USA.  In the UK, "insiders" include any who have information not in the public domain, including advisers or individuals not connected to the company.  I shall try to find some UK and/or EU definitions to add in. PatrickHadfield (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Content of Article 

message: :Nevertheless, circumstances can occur when the geologist would be committing fraud if he did not disclose the information, e.g. when he had been hired by Farmer Smith to assess the geology of the farm.
This is a non sequitur.  This is an example of a professional who does not act in the best interest of his client - like a lawyer who doesn't act on behalf of his client or a broker who front runs his customer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, analogous activities such as front running are illegal under U.S. commodity and futures trading laws. For example, a commodity broker can be charged with fraud if he or she  receives a large purchase order from a client (one likely to affect the price of that commodity) and then purchases that commodity before executing the client's order in order to benefit from the anticipated price increase.
Front running is not insider trading and nor is it the analogue to insider trading in the commodities market as this seems to suggest.  Front running is a different concept and is also illegal in stock markets.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Because insider trading is hard to prove and it's not even clear if it's good or bad for the market, it could be argued that its regulation adds unnecessary complexity to trading, and in addition binds valuable resources of federal enforcement agencies which could be used more usefully.
Not sure whose opinion this is. While I agree with it, personally, this is an encyclopedia. Statement like this need attribution. --Uncle Ed 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not all trading on information is illegal inside trading, however. For example, while dining at a restaurant, you hear the CEO of Company A at the next table telling the CFO that the company will be taken over, and then you buy the stock, you might not be guilty of insider trading unless there was some closer connection between you, the company, or the company officers.
This is incorrect. Rule 14e-3 prohibits trading on non-public information related to tender offers even if that information was not misappropraited.  See http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule14e-3.html.  The SEC promulgated 14e-3 in response to the Chiarella decision by the supreme court in 1980.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.179.162 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut from text

message: I reverted this section, simply because it is not referenced in any way and is therefore original research WP:NOR.  With some sort of references it could certainly go in.  To me, the thinking itself does not look so original (Briefly approx. "governemnts may trade on information that only they have and give benefit to the public" - this is in many ways standard thinking in many fields) but the original part is in labeling it "insider trading."  If other people use this label, it should certainly go in - but as it stood it is just confusing.  Smallbones 09:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree (and think you are too kind in your description of the "research").  It reads like someone who imagines they just thought up the idea that a government could borrow billions of dollars, refuse to pay it back, and lower taxes as a result. Epstein's Mother 14:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for Insider Trading by Governments 

message: I deleted the links to SECform4.com, which is repeatedly added back in by someone who seems to go around Wikipedia adding in advertising links.  In its place, I've added in a link to the most recent filings of the SEC's Edgar database, which has the most recent disclosure forms by corporate insiders on their trades of shares in companies in which they are officers, directors, or of which they control either 5 percent or 10 percent of the shares.  Hopefully, this will provide readers with any information they want without subjecting them to the hard sell of a trading company.  Epstein's Mother 18:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have removed them again.  They seem to violate WP:EL's guidance about links normally to be avoided (items 1 and 3, at the very least). Deli nk 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam links 

message: Since we're on the subject of legal interpretation, I think this article should have a heading warning readers that this article does not offer legal advice and may not be legally accurate.  I say this because some of it may not be 100% legally correct and somebody may interpret it as OK to do something because of what is written when, in fact, you could get into serious trouble if you are not careful.  For example, the heading "Tracking Insider Trades" it says, "As of December 2005 companies are required to announce times to their employees as to when they can safely trade without being accused of trading on inside information."  This is a gross simplification and in no way can a company announce a time that an insider is free to trade on material non-public information. All of that said, I don't know how to put up this kind of warning graphic. Epstein's Mother (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed that we're not 100% accurate here and may have stepped over the line to providing legal advice (myself included).  I looked around the WP:Law law project and law portal and couldn't find any template related to that.  Perhaps it's obvious that we're (trying) to provide legal information rather than legal advice.  A couple of templates that might fit in somewhere (feel free to remove) are right below this.  Smallbones (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for a new warning label 

message: Illegal insider trading is believed to raise the cost of capital for securities issuers, thus decreasing overall economic growth
Can't argue that this "is believed" by some people.  But I would like to say the evidence is lame. Though there are a few studies that show a correlation between such a ban and economic growth, they have some methodological holes in them. 
First, they don't distinguish between countries that bring actions regularly on the one hand and those that bring, say, one case every twenty years or so on the other.  Both countries would be considered to have "enforcement of the ban on insider trading" for purposes of the alleged correlation. 
Second, correlation isn't cause.  Having SOME enforcement of insider trading laws is probably correlated with having a functional rule of law in general and THAT may be an important condition of wealth creation, creating a statistical artefact that has no real specific connection to insider trading at all.  
Thirdly, as an empirical observation, in some countries that are thought to have an effective ban, insider trading is actually rampant.  Germany is an example.
:The cost of capital argument has solid research.  Recent work by Howell Jackson and John Coffee both take the enforcement factor into account, and focus on insider trading bans.  It's not much of a leap to then say that those countries with a lower cost of capital receive economic benefits from it.  Epstein's Mother (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anything "is believed" by somebody! 

message: The addition of Raj Rajaratnam to me looks POV because it is just an allegation not proved yet.Taprobanus (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not POV, cause this was the biggest scandal regarding insider training. Tell me what is the first name that comes to your mind when someone talks about insider trading, yes it is Raj Rajaratnam. If this mans name is not featured in relation to insider training then I dont know what else should be. Also the FBI would only have arrested him if they had concrete evidence. Besides inclusion of him does not imply his guilt, merely his noteworthiness with regard to insider trading.Kerr avon (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the US there is a provision called not guilty untill proven, if he is a convicted felon for insider trading then I have no problems but to tag him as such before he is convicted is violation WP:BLP. This is how civilized countries work, not convict based on allegations. It is based on facts that a court has to use to convingly prove it. Taprobanus (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Allen_Stanford is being featured in the White-collar_crime "see also" links although he has only being arrested. As such their is no violation of BLP by putting Rajaratnam in the insider trading "see also" links. Please point the specific Wp:BLP violating clause if any.Kerr avon (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: US Lawmakers are by law allowed to engage in insider trading and in fact have almost no regulation of any of their own trading practices, because although US lawmakers routinely as a part of business pass new laws to further regulate trading activities of everyone but themselves in US stock exchange, they have passed few, if any laws to regulate their own trading activities. A recent example, is STOCK Act, which failed to pass in 2010. Consequently,unlike everyone else engaging in trading on US stockmarket, US lawmakers are legally allowed by rules they set, to engage in unregulated trading of their own stocks on US Stock Market, as a normal part of doing business there.[(http://insidertrading.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001032, http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/congress-refuses-to-outlaw-insider-trading-for-lawmakers-478701.html?tickers=%5Edji,%5Egspc,%5Eixic,brk-a,brk-b,gs,xlf0, http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=2834)].Jme0598 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This first statement, and the statement in the article itself, cannot be presented as fact.  "Arguably" insider trading by members of Congress is not illegal prior to the STOCK Act.  But there are other legal experts who disagree.  This part should be changed when updated to take account of the STOCK Act. Epstein's Mother (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  INSIDER TRADING ACTIVITIES BY US LAWMAKERS 

message: It's not enough to have this small last sentence in the introduction on the supposed reason why insider trading is illegal. --93.223.38.67 (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need a section on why insider trading is partially banned and if those bans actually make sense 

message: See
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e24dc4ab-2a77-43d9-8a78-9ea46eca1aca
According to a writeup by the law firm, the SEC does not believe that insider trading laws apply only to public companies. 178.38.69.55 (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why just public companies? 

message: The addition of this template -- "major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" -- is backed up by nothing here on the talk page; nothing of which I can see evidence in a review of the page history; and was not noted by name in the Edit summary when it was placed, making it laborious for me or harder for others to find out when it was placed. While the addition of the template appears to be in good faith, the lack of backup makes its continued placement on the page problematic. I am considering deleting the template. Any comment here encouraged. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a SNAFU. A navbox (namely ) was added in this edit. Then someone using AWB converted it to . I will alert them to what is probably an unintended mistake. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: .  was, until recently, a redirect to . I've removed the redirect fix with this edit. It shouldn't happen again. Apoligizes to  and thanks to  for the heads up. Avicennasis @ 11:26, 15 Tishrei 5776 / 11:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest template added: No reason given 

message: On 29 February 2008, IP editor 193.26.4.35 removed the "not" from It is not illegal to fail to trade based on inside information with this edit. I have sought verification for the removal of the "not", but haven't found any, except those that derive from Wikipedia (such as , wikipedia acknowlegment on page 7)  In fact, the original statement, without the "not", appears to be supported under US law. See Condus v. Howard Savings Bank, 781 F. Supp. 1052 (D.N.J. 1992) As noted by the original author, the evidentiary problems alone would suggest that such conduct would not be criminalised. This is also noted in  when he writes, In addition, insiders have always had the right to abstain from trading on the basis of inside information. Thus, it is not illegal to not buy shares on the basis of inside information. How would investigators determine whether one declined to trade solely on the basis of inside information? Teall is an American, and possibly because of the sentence in Wikipedia under the UK, adds in a footnote, However, failure to trade can be a violation of U.K. insider trading regulations. I have not found anything explicit for this interpretation of the U.K. regs, . However, like the US, the regs (section Publication of information and corrective statements by issuers) do provide that issuers must make certain information public in a timely manner, thus depriving it of its status as "inside information". But the violation would be "failure to publish" rather than "failure to trade". Similarly where there has been an unlawful
disclosure of inside information, and the tipster has conspired with the tipee to withhold sales, knowingly in the contravention of market integrity, it is possible that penalties could be asssessed under section 123 (Power to impose penalties or issue censure), given proof of the conspiracy. However, given such proof, "conspiracy" is the more likely charge. The UK regs indicate that they include Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse, which define "market abuse" as insider dealing, unlawful disclosure of inside information and market manipulation. The EU regs do not contain any direct prohibition on refraining from trading, but like the UK ones, they cover "collaboration to commit market abuse". Like the US, the UK and EU regulations all focus on actual trades. On this basis, I have removed the sentence in the UK paragraph under "Legal differences among jurisdictions". --Bejnar (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failing to trade 

message: Seems somewhat biased that there is no section for arguments for keeping the practice illegal. Should we add one?
Jasper0333 (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "Arguments for keeping illegal" section? 

message: He was recently arrested for insider trading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KieranCallahan72 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuji Naka