# Inside Trading



## dutchie (14 November 2012)

When getting wrong information is no defence to insider trading charges

 THE High Court says you can be charged with insider trading even if it turns out you were acting on dodgy information. 


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-trading-charges/story-e6frg6nf-1226516627786


----------



## dutchie (14 November 2012)

Inside Trading

The Holy Grail

Where the big boys make their money.


----------



## McLovin (14 November 2012)

Hard to argue with the decision. Profiting from insider trading is not a crime, acting on inside information that a reasonable person would consider material to the share price is.


----------



## banco (14 November 2012)

dutchie said:


> Inside Trading
> 
> The Holy Grail
> 
> Where the big boys make their money.




If you believe half of what is in Packer's Lunch (which is about corporate Australia in the 80's and 90's) seems like that's the case.


----------



## Conza88 (15 November 2012)

dutchie said:


> When getting wrong information is no defence to insider trading charges
> 
> THE High Court says you can be charged with insider trading even if it turns out you were acting on dodgy information.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-trading-charges/story-e6frg6nf-1226516627786




​



> The last instance of the property-in-value theory we shall discuss are laws prohibiting ‘insider trading.’ The complaint on the part of the advocates of such laws is that the knowledge possessed by someone, when acted upon in a commercial matter, is a violation of the rights of others. Previously we had asserted that ‘no one could act, if everyone owned the value attached to what he regarded as his.’ With insider trading we see a paradigm case of this.* The legally established contention here is that a knowledgeable state of mind can convert what would otherwise be a legitimate purchase of stock into an illegitimate one, provided that the information relied upon is not homogeneously spread throughout the population. *Since it never is, virtually any commercial activity with regard to stocks and bonds can be deemed unlawful. The situation is indeed worse than that. A rigorous pursuit of the ‘logic’ of insider trading prohibitions could potentially be used to preclude any market transaction.
> 
> Did a woman buy an umbrella because she heard a newscast that if would rain tomorrow? Unless everyone turned into the same weather program, and listened as attentively as did she, this would give her an unfair advantage over other people. And what of the person who attended, horrors!, a course on the case and feeding of stocks and bonds? Such studies would surely give the student an ‘inside track’ vis-Ã -vis those who had not attended the lectures. If the crime of excessive information can be applied to umbrellas and stocks and bonds, it can be applied to anything: to real estate, to amenities, to human capital, to factors of production. Moreover, this doctrine calls into question the acquisition of any knowledge (unless, of course, it is evenly spread throughout the entire world community). Those particularly at risk include doctors, lawyers, economists, college professors, Nobel Prize winners.
> 
> ”” Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Walter Block


----------



## baby_swallow (12 May 2014)

This "small fish" is unlucky........he went to jail....

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...amay-got-greedy/story-e6frg6nf-1226912381189#

....while the "big fish" (big boys) are still laughing their way to their banks.......


----------



## sydboy007 (12 May 2014)

baby_swallow said:


> This "small fish" is unlucky........he went to jail....
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...amay-got-greedy/story-e6frg6nf-1226912381189#
> 
> ....while the "big fish" (big boys) are still laughing their way to their banks.......




Look at the Gunns CEO John Gay.  Caught selling his $3M in shares just because all the nasty info was to be released and IIRC he was fined just $50K.

Talk about 1 set of laws for the plebs and vague guidelines for those at the top.


----------



## baby_swallow (13 May 2014)

Lukay Kamay saga.....

from today's SMH, (Trading 'tip of iceberg')..

_"Senior stockbrokers said that the trades, made within the unregulated $5 trillion foreign exchange markets, only came to light because of the unsophisticated nature of the alleged scam and a tip-off by their stockbroker to police."

''For every 26-year-old kid insider trading, there are probably 10 smarter men and women not stupid enough to settle their trades through Australian FX market makers who know their clients' profitability intimately,'' the chief executive of Rivkin, Mr Schuberg, told clients in a broking note on Monday." 
_
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/trading-tip-of-iceberg-20140512-385u2.html#ixzz31XoW4bc1

There you go...if he was one of those "smarter men" and didn't used a local FX market maker, that million dollar trade will be hardly noticed and would not even make a blip on screen.


----------



## banco (13 May 2014)

baby_swallow said:


> Lukay Kamay saga.....
> 
> from today's SMH, (Trading 'tip of iceberg')..
> 
> ...




Yeah I don't understand why if he didn't open as many accounts as he could (particularly overseas).  

I vaguely recall that insider trading doesn't apply to FX or futures in America.  Interesting that our laws are more broadly drafted.


----------



## skc (26 April 2017)

Interesting article on insider trading.



> Former Kepler Cheuvreux SA analyst Geoffroy Stern made 28 trades based on draft recommendations, including his own, the brokerage was set to publish hours later, officials at France's Autorite des Marches Financiers said at a hearing Friday.




http://www.afr.com/markets/kepler-c...e-37000-in-an-hour-faces-fine-20170426-gvsyf8

I don't know how this is insider trading... it may have violated company policy, but research conducted using public information surely can't constitute insider trading!?!

- What if I do the research for myself and profited from that... did I commit insider trading? Surely not! Isn't that just the action of each and every market participant?

- What if I do the research, established my position then published that research (on a blog, or subscribers email, or clients and collegues) afterwards, did I commit insider trading? That sounds like what every single news letter does. Hack, it's common practice to declare your position in the stock you just wrote about.

- Then you have the activist short sellers who conduct detailed research on specific targets (think QIN or Sino Forrest)... they definitely traded before the report is published. Yet I don't remember anyone complaining about insider trading?

Take this to the extreme... anything other than throwing darts is insider trading.


----------



## banco (27 April 2017)

Can't read the article but buying and then selling when your company's buy rating comes out is different to building a position and then publishing research (like I understand the activist short sellers do) and holding.


----------



## dutchie (21 February 2018)

Barnaby Joyce's marital affair is boring.
Giving jobs to his mistress and getting free accommodation (nothing is free) is more serious.
But what could be seen as (or is) inside trading ( a big no no) will add fuel to the Barnaby must go argument.

from Bolt (SMH)

_DEPUTY Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce did not declare during Cabinet discussions on the Inland Rail that he had bought five large parcels of land within a 15-minute drive from the planned route._

_When former Infrastructure Minister Darren Chester took the Inland Rail project to Cabinet, The Daily Telegraph understands it passed quickly, with no mention from Mr Joyce of any potential conflict of interest relating to five lots of land he had bought within about 20km of the project.

_
It's a very strong argument!


----------

