i'd somewhat agree with you as long as the person isn't in management. like the countrywide guy, who for some ridiculous reason isn't in jail, going on cnbc daily saying everything is fine while dumping hundreds of million of $$$ in stock. that's stock manipulation IMO and that should be illegal. though allowing trading on inside information can ruin the notion of fairness of the markets which is important to market confidence. you can actually trade on inside info on some bonds which is kind of interesting. I know some guys who make an absolute killing on buying defaulted municipal bonds doing this.
So if a clerk in 8th Maxim Propane and Argon saw a report off to the side saying the company was about to go into the tank (heh), he should be able to sell his 103 shares? (I believe this is currently illegal) But Mr. Droski, CEO of the company, shouldn't be able to dump his 50,000 shares? I ask because I would like to know what the difference is between the two besides scale, in your eyes (if that is what you were implying). I am extremely allergic to any ideas that can allow people to manipulate the stock or commodities trade. It makes me break out in a rash! EDIT: And remember, I am a finance idiot. I have a person that handles my investments and I mostly use index funds.
let's just say I have less of a problem with what said clerk did. i'm not totally there yet with making it legal. in particular if money changes hands for such info. and it's one thing for the CEO to dump his shares because he thinks the company is going to tank and keeping his mouth shut, it's quite another to publically talk about how great everything is going AND dump the shares. those ceo trades are reportable, so people can draw their own conclusions after the fact, but if you tell me you are selling your shares because of estate reasons or some other bs and everything is fine with the company (while you know your company is in deep shit) then jail it should be for you.
There's an economic argument in favor of it. I've read about it, but i"m not well-versed enough to make it myself.
Reasonable argument. It'd be pretty tough to draw up a set of regs that allow for insider trading "except when you're publicly saying the opposite" or some other such stuff.
well I think you could put everything under the market manipulation umbrella. in this case manipulating the stock to keep the price up so you can sell.
which is why mozzillo is currently not in jail. he had a preexisting selling agreement and that was his defense. though anyone with half a brain knew he had to have known the company was in deep shit and if your stock is tanking and you have a preexisting agreement and you REALLY do think that everything is ok, then you cancel the sell plan. you don't sell it 20% down if you really think everything is ok. you don't need approval to cancel sell plans, just to start them.
I'm just shocked the govt propping up the market didn't work: http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/27/investing/china-stocks-shanghai/index.html shocked I tells ya
Funny how the massive growth over several decades is "capitalism" but the moment something goes wrong it is "central planning." I guess it makes it easier to see in black and white.
Their growth has came from opening up their markets but the government has been over paying for materials and assets and trying to excel the growth artificially.
Just challenging the echo chamber on things as they repeat. I'm probably going to run a poll on government employees like TT suggested. I think you're going to be surprised.