News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return. Parent comment

Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by bragr on Thursday September 21, 2023 @02:21PM (#37601730)
It's still not public information (e.g. "Material Nonpublic Information"). You can't trade on it.

See 17 CFR § 240.10b5-1 "Trading “on the basis of” material nonpublic information in insider trading cases", particularly section (b) "Awareness of material nonpublic information."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.10b5-1

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by mock-possum on Thursday September 21, 2023 @02:32PM (#37601951)
A guy speaking out loud at a bus stop isn’t public information?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by bragr on Thursday September 21, 2023 @02:36PM (#37602007)
The SEC has very specific rules and even specific form [1] they must file when companies release information like this.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/forms

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by jahewson on Thursday September 21, 2023 @03:00PM (#37602371)
So if the founder goes on TV and announces their merger then it’s nonpublic information until they file the form? Everyone who trades on that is insider trading? That can’t be right.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by snowwrestler on Thursday September 21, 2023 @03:29PM (#37602895)
Those rules regulate the company, not random people at a bus stop.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by mock-possum on Friday September 22, 2023 @11:59AM (#37613715)
Right but - that means the company employee gets in trouble for making the information public (via announcing it in public at the bus stop) - not that I would get in trouble for hearing it and acting on it, right?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by yieldcrv on Thursday September 21, 2023 @02:27PM (#37601835)
disagree, the SEC has lost a lot of cases on this idea

if you’re not affiliated with the company and simply overhear and trade, make enough to retain a lawyer real quick

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by mcguire on Thursday September 21, 2023 @03:00PM (#37602361)
Oh, no doubt. There will be an investigation looking for a relationship.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by bluehorizon2 on Thursday September 21, 2023 @02:53PM (#37602258)
No this is not correct. If someone spreads a rumor and you don’t know that the information is from an authoritative source it’s not MNPI. It’s speculation.

If someone anonymously posts on Twitter that Splunk is going to get acquired by Cisco and you immediately buy options, and you don’t know who this Twitter account is, then it’s speculation. Also it’s no longer non-public information if someone posts it on Twitter.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by ikiris on Thursday September 21, 2023 @03:02PM (#37602409)
"if someone posts it on Twitter."

Yes, if you trade on public information, then it's not material non public information.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Insider trade on Splunk acquisition for 45,650% return by Retric on Thursday September 21, 2023 @03:10PM (#37602548)
It becomes public information when shared with the public, unintentionally or not. The specific kinds of relationships involved are a big deal. It’s fine to tell a waitress you closed a huge deal and she can even trade on it, but tell your wife and she can’t trade stocks on that information.

“insiders must be breaching a fiduciary duty owed to their corporation when they trade on or tip confidential corporate information. This stipulation almost always means that an insider cannot trade on such information and cannot tip others about it if the insider stands to gain by doing so. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/when-is-it-legal-to-trad...

In the case where an unrelated outsider overhears the information that’s public disclosure. And the information no longer needs to be treated by random people as non-public.

[ Parent | on HN ]