Re:$70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x T...
by pineaux on Saturday April 12, 2025 @02:40AM
(#43661915)
You could make insider trading legal by law, but that would destroy a lot of the stock market because all non-insiders would basically set themselves up to be ripped off.
Re:$70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x T...
by eru on Saturday April 12, 2025 @02:45AM
(#43661940)
No, it wouldn't destroy the stock market. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43661926 for an explanation.
Summary: people are already allowed to trade on inside information (in the US), if the person who officially owns the information is ok with that. The prohibition on insider trading in the US is about fiduciary duty to the owner of the information, not about protecting the general public.
Re:$70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x T...
by Epa095 on Saturday April 12, 2025 @06:38AM
(#43663193)
> So there are lots of things that have long been legal in the US that would have been illegal in France, without the economy collapsing.
Who knows, maybe we are in the middle of the resulting collapse now ;-)
Re:$70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x T...
by eru on Sunday April 13, 2025 @12:30AM
(#43670109)
Well, that collapse is because of tariffs, not the intricacies of differences in insider trading law.
Re:$70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x T...
by Epa095 on Sunday April 13, 2025 @02:57AM
(#43670670)
I was thinking more that these kind of lax laws allowed the rich to get richer, and influence politics in ways which enabled or accelerated the fall. But it it a complicated picture of course, and the further back in the chain of causality we go the harder it it to say anything for real.
Re:$70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x T...
by eru on Wednesday April 16, 2025 @01:28AM
(#43701796)
> [...] allowed the rich to get richer, and influence politics [...]
That would have been a better world than the one we live in.
I'd rather have Romney and Bloomberg etc than the populists we got.
Eg, it would be perfectly fine to make insider trading legal by law. (And in fact, the definition of insider trading in the US differs a lot from the one used in France. So there are lots of things that have long been legal in the US that would have been illegal in France, without the economy collapsing.)
I agree that random enforcement of some regulations but not others depending on the whim of the executive is less than ideal.