But if you're employing someone to predict stock movements, you presumably are paying them to provide you with advice that will result in profit rather than loss which would make the "why" somewhat implicit. As well, a major red-flag should be raised should anyone tell you "do not ask me why."

Insider trading is legal now if you are powerful and wealthy and not an appropriate candidate for some sort of selective enforcement of the laws, it seems.

>a major red-flag should be raised should anyone tell you "do not ask me why."

More realistically, you don't feel the need to ask. They're the expert, not you.

If you own a sketchy hedge fund, major red flags could mean that no one else is either privy to or willing to act on that information, meaning that you will make even more money.

And with the new ruling, all you have to do to keep your actions strictly legal is follow that analyst's advice and not ask any probing follow-up questions.

I can imagine if your job is to predict stock movements and you are hired for those predictions (as a company, not as an employee), then I can imagine not wanting to hand out the analysis, as that could then be shopped to others. Without your reputation and/or analysis, someone reselling your predictions is less likely yo be successful.

That said, if you are employed by the company, the work and the product is all owned by them, so there's no reason not to provide all information when asked.

> Insider trading is legal now if you are powerful and wealthy and not an appropriate candidate for some sort of selective enforcement of the laws, it seems.

I think you can replace insider trading in that statement with just about any other criminal act and it's still mostly true, in most parts of the world.