Insider Trading If in fact neither Wilson traded, Brian at the least would be held accountable for leaking the news, but no insider trading charge would be brought up.
All of the individuals were engaged in insider trading. They all obtained their knowledge by way of an insider, in this case a member of the Board of Directors. Any trading based on knowledge acquired by an insider, regardless of the degrees of separation is considered to be insider trading. Thus, the ex-husband clearly knew of his ex-wife's position. He passed the information along to his dentist, who may or may not have known the source of the information. Certainly, the dentist's broker would have had pretty good reason to question what the source of the information was, knowing that this sort of information is not just randomly acquired.
All of the parties are culpable, though the degree might vary. The broker, Green, has a high level of culpability as an industry professional. Green would have known that such knowledge is not easy to come by and there was significant risk that such information came from an insider. Green stands to lose her SEC license as a result of this trade. But the others also stand to face penalties for their trading on this information as well. Martha Steward went to Sing Sing for the same offense -- she did not learn about ImClone from an insider, but from her broker who happened to know an insider. The SEC generally does not believe people when they claim they had no way of knowing what the source of the information was. Wilson knew he had insider information, Looney probably knew and Green definitely should have known.
The only person here who did not engage in insider trading, maybe, was Sara Wilson. She did not trade on the news herself, and it is not clear if her ex-husband did either . Normally, insider trading applies to family relations, not just the insider in question. Anybody close to Sara, including her ex-husband, would be forbidden from trading on the news. Whether Sara Wilson herself is going to be found culpable is trickier, as this would be determined on the basis of whether or not she is considered a de facto beneficiary of the trade, and that might depend on the ...
The parties would all be liable for criminal actions. The SEC can and will put people in prison for insider trading, though it is more likely that they will face fines. However, as the Stewart case showed people have been known to face prosecution and jail time for such trading. There might be other charges for Sara and Brian, but if they did not trade then they would not face insider trading charges. Looney most certainly would, as would Green. Looney could go to prison, and green could not only go to prison but could also lose her license with the SEC to tirade in securities, effectively ending her career in the business. Her clients would also see their trades reversed, as would all of the other actors in this scenario.
Nobody acted particularly ethically here. The ethics of insider trading are fairly clear, that the integrity of the securities markets requires that insider trading be forbidden. Otherwise, certain insiders would have advantages over other market participants. These advantages undermine the trustworthiness of the markets, and would discourage other people from participating in the capital markets, to the significant detriment of the economy as a whole. Thus, actions that threaten the ability of the public to trust in the capital market system are going to be view as illegal by regulators and unethical by society as a whole.
As such, all of these individuals behaved unethically, even the Wilsons, who may not have traded on the news. Even without trading, Sara Wilson likely did not need to tell her ex-husband about the pending deal. Brian in particular knew that he should not tell anybody…
If in fact neither Wilson traded, Brian at the least would be held accountable for leaking the news, but no insider trading charge would be brought up.
Speculating has become such a common practice in the stock market that it is an essential element of a proper stock market. It is doubtful that the stock market values would be anywhere near its current value if not for speculation. Goldman Sachs Investigation The Goldman Sachs investigation inquires into whether traders at a number of hedge funds and trading firms, improperly gained nonpublic information from Goldman Sachs (who gained the
Further complicating the issue is that the definition of insider trading differs from one jurisdiction to the next. Given the increasing globalization of business, it seems unreasonable that we can continue to exist in a world with a poorly-defined and highly variable definition of insider trading. The everyday investor, certainly, cannot invest with any confidence under the present circumstance. Efficient market theory demands that information be perfect, but it is difficult
Insider Trading On June 4, 2003, the Securities Exchange Commission announced that it was pursuing charges against investor Martha Stewart and stock broker Peter Bacanovic for securities fraud. The fraud occurred on December 27, 2001 when Stewart sold stock in ImClone Systems, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, who at the time was working for Merrill Lynch. The SEC also accused the two of attempting to cover up the insider
Even if he hints around in a non-direct way that his friends should sell their stock without coming out and saying it, he may be guilty of insider trading because the information on the merger has not yet been made known to the public. This is unethical and what the corporate officer should steer the conversation in a different direction and if his friends insist on continuing to ask questions
And the ability to know when to sell shares made the executives careless in their management, as they would know when they could "cut their losses." Critics of insider trading laws would contend that the problem with Enron and WorldCom was insufficient oversight of these corporation's accounting procedures, not insider trading. The criminal behavior was not the fact that key executives knew when to buy and sell their shares, but
In other words, trading based on private information might benefit investors, as it stimulates a quicker absorption of new information into the markets, making them more efficient. It is clear that insider trading continues despite vigorous enforcement of the existing regulations. This is because of the difficulties in detecting and prosecuting it. Further regulations will only add unnecessary complexity to market participants and eventually bind the already limited resources of