Hacker News Reader

Comment by hueving | Hacker News Reader

Yes, you are guilty by trading using non public information about a material event.

That information would have to come from a Nordstrom insider for it to be "insider trading". Neither Trump or Sean are Nordstrom insiders.

It's also extremely important to note that the SEC and the courts have very different definitions of "insider trading".

i don't mean to sound dogmatic but the source I cited does explicitly say that the "insider" does not have to work inside the company specifically but rather just be privy to non-public information.

Unless you can find another citation that contradicts my point then I'm going to have to assume my point is correct. And I say that welcoming a correction in the name of "science" :)

>In the United States, Canada, Australia and Germany, for mandatory reporting purposes, corporate insiders are defined as a company's officers, directors and any beneficial owners of more than 10% of a class of the company's equity securities. Trades made by these types of insiders in the company's own stock, based on material non-public information, are considered fraudulent since the insiders are violating the fiduciary duty that they owe to the shareholders. The corporate insider, simply by accepting employment, has undertaken a legal obligation to the shareholders to put the shareholders' interests before their own, in matters related to the corporation. When insiders buy or sell based upon company-owned information, they are violating their obligation to the shareholders.

Presumably it's not this chapter you're referring to.

>For example, illegal insider trading would occur if the chief executive officer of Company A learned (prior to a public announcement) that Company A will be taken over and then bought shares in Company A while knowing that the share price would likely rise.

Probably not this one either

>In the United States and many other jurisdictions, however, "insiders" are not just limited to corporate officials and major shareholders where illegal insider trading is concerned but can include any individual who trades shares based on material non-public information in violation of some duty of trust. This duty may be imputed; for example, in many jurisdictions, in cases of where a corporate insider "tips" a friend about non-public information likely to have an effect on the company's share price, the duty the corporate insider owes the company is now imputed to the friend and the friend violates a duty to the company if he trades on the basis of this information.

Despite the fact that this chapter doesn't contain anything relevant either, it's probably this one you're referring to. There's no corporate insiders or relationships involving a duty of trust here.

I think you may be misinterpreting your source.

It's not non-public information, it's non-public insider information, upon which you cannot legally trade.

"illegal insider trading requires that you not only trade on the basis of important nonpublic information but that you also have some sort of duty to keep the information confidential." - Kiplinger

If you overhear insiders talking, you can trade on it. (Unless you're in a position where they have reason to expect that you cannot, such as if you're an employee, etc.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com