Talk:Insider trading

From Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought
Jump to: navigation, search

"Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security." Should we get rid of the clause "in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence"? It seems like most of the high-profile insider trading cases don't involve that sort of situation. Leucosticte (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2015 (EDT)

Well, that's the official definition. But it certainly wouldn't hurt if it can be demonstrated that the high profile cases really don't conform to the official definition. :) Pestergaines (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2015 (EDT)
I guess those situations could be breaches of trust in the sense that the employee is told by his employer not to break the law, but then he breaks the law by engaging in insider trading. But most forms of lawbreaking are a breach of trust in one sense or another. For example, kids who smoke pot break their parents' trust, if their parents told them not to do it. But their parents might not care about their pot smoking if it weren't illegal. Similarly, the employers of insider traders might not care about their engaging in insider trading if insider trading weren't illegal. It would then not be a breach of trust. Leucosticte (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2015 (EDT)