Re:All controversial trades by Senators in the 2020 Congress...
by kennywinker on Saturday June 05, 2021 @03:39PM
(#27407923)
You're really fixating legal definitions on insider trading. Oddly enough, we're discussing the activities of the people WHO MAKE THOSE DEFINITIONS.
I think most americans are pretty uncomfortable with our leaders profiting off their own decisions and information they have access to but we don't. Those briefings were private. It's also deeply troubling that they were saying one thing, and privately doing another
Re:All controversial trades by Senators in the 2020 Congress...
by kortilla on Saturday June 12, 2021 @02:10AM
(#27482017)
There is no other definition. It’s not “insider trading” anymore if it’s just people with private information because anyone can come up with private information that might be useful to trade on.
An excellent weather forecaster can make a fortune in the natural gas market, could trade fruit company stock, etc. and there is nothing wrong with that.
You have a problem with Congress using their access, that’s fine. But let’s not call it something it’s not because that hurts your cause.
Re:All controversial trades by Senators in the 2020 Congress...
by ProjectArcturis on Saturday June 05, 2021 @03:37PM
(#27407910)
The fact that this behavior may not meet the legal criteria for an insider trading charge does not make it morally right.
Information that will impact a company or many companies that is the result of research is never insider trading, at least not by any legal definition.
Millions of investors do private analysis on things that could impact securities, trade on that info, and share that info with others to trade on. Just being information not publicly available doesn’t make it “non-public” for the legal definition of “material non-public information”.