←back to thread

417 points mkmk | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
YeBanKo ◴[] No.37600196[source]
Is there any legit way in which whoever made this trade could have got a wind of a potential acquisition without relying on inside knowledge?
replies(3): >>37600226 #>>37601086 #>>37601141 #
arcticbull ◴[] No.37600226[source]
Knowing about the acquisition puts you in possession of material nonpublic information. It's unlawful to trade on the basis of such information whether you work at the company or not. Passing it along is 'tipping' and acting on it is still 'insider trading.'
replies(5): >>37600298 #>>37600301 #>>37600463 #>>37600527 #>>37602209 #
function_seven ◴[] No.37600301[source]
My understanding is that having material nonpublic information is not—in itself—enough to make a trade illegal. As long as you're a true outsider, and didn't get that info using illegal means, you can trade on it.

Maybe this whale was tracking tail numbers, drove down to the executive airport, and saw that Cisco's chief M&A guy had a huge grin on his face as he stepped onto the plane.

(Okay, I doubt that highly, but it is a scenario)

replies(3): >>37600341 #>>37600427 #>>37600504 #
arcticbull ◴[] No.37600504[source]
I initially thought this wasn't the case, but did some research - so for posterity: if you overhear the information in a public setting you may be ok. It depends on whether you have a duty of trust, apparently, and personally I'd run it by a lawyer before firing up Robinhood. [1] Although (1) IANAL and (2) you may still be answering difficult questions if you structure your trades the way this individual did.

[1] https://money.com/insider-trading-examples/

replies(1): >>37601022 #
rs999gti ◴[] No.37601022[source]
There is precedent that even if you are in possession of info that will eventually become public, which you then trade on, you can still be convicted of insider trading.

For example, a Printer for Business Week and a Stock Broker traded on pre-publication information and were convicted of insider trading.

https://corporateinsiderstrading.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/bu...

replies(2): >>37601346 #>>37601644 #
1. lokar ◴[] No.37601644{3}[source]
The printer has an obligation of trust. Someone overhearing your loud phone conversation in public does not.