Insider Trading: Economic Effects, Ethics, and Market Trust
This paper examines insider trading in the United States, exploring both its technical economic consequences and its broader social effects. It begins by establishing what insider trading is and tracing its legal history from the 1909 Supreme Court case Strong v. Repide to modern federal regulation. The paper then analyzes competing economic perspectives — including Milton Friedman's controversial argument that insider trading may improve market efficiency — before applying ethical frameworks such as Carroll's utilitarian, justice, and rights dimensions and Jones's moral intensity model. A stakeholder analysis considers who is harmed, while Preston and Post's corporate citizenship model addresses institutional responsibility. The paper concludes that insider trading is damaging not only because of its measurable harm to market liquidity, but because it fundamentally undermines the trust on which all economic activity depends.
- Introduction: Insider trading's broad societal and economic relevance
- Literature Review: Legal history, economic theory, and competing scholarly views
- Analysis and Discussion: Ethical frameworks, stakeholder analysis, and market harm
- Conclusion: Social consensus on harm and asymmetric wealth distribution
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Integrates multiple analytical lenses — legal history, economic theory, and ethical frameworks — to build a multi-dimensional argument rather than relying on a single perspective.
- Acknowledges and engages seriously with counterarguments, particularly the Friedman school's claim that insider trading can improve market efficiency, which strengthens the paper's credibility.
- Grounds abstract ethical concepts in a concrete real-world case (the Rajaratnam prosecution), anchoring theoretical discussion in recognizable events.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of applied ethical frameworks — Carroll's three dimensions (utilitarian, justice, and rights) and Jones's moral intensity model — to systematically evaluate a business ethics problem. Rather than asserting that insider trading is wrong, the author works through each dimension methodically, showing how different ethical standards converge on the same conclusion while also revealing where ambiguity exists. This technique of layered ethical analysis is a hallmark of rigorous business ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief framing section that previews its two core claims (reduced liquidity and eroded trust) before moving into a formal introduction contextualizing insider trading for a general audience. The literature review covers legal foundations, economic theory, and competing scholarly views. The analysis section applies ethical models and stakeholder analysis to the issue. A concise conclusion returns to the question of social harm. The structure follows a standard argument-support-conclusion pattern appropriate for an undergraduate business ethics paper.
Introduction
Insider trading has two distinct effects on the financial sector. The first is a purely economic effect, while the second is an indirect effect that, though harder to measure, in all likelihood carries a more serious overall impact. The first effect is that insider trading (also known as "informed trading") reduces the liquidity of a marketplace or a market sector (Fishe & Robe, 2002). Liquidity can be understood largely as a function of the degree of informational asymmetry that exists in the marketplace. When the degree of asymmetry shifts because of insider trading, the liquidity of the market will almost necessarily shift as well.
The less measurable but potentially even more important effect of insider trading is that it breeds a level of distrust in the marketplace and in business in general that would not otherwise exist. Businesses — including especially the financial sector — rely on a certain level of trust in each other and from their customers. Without this trust, business cannot be conducted. The more illegal and unethical behavior there is, the less trust there is, which makes it difficult even for honest brokers to do business.
For people who do not actively participate in the financial markets — or who do so only indirectly, such as through their 401(k)s — the topic of insider trading might seem sufficiently distant and arcane to be irrelevant to ordinary financial life. However, even at a relatively low level, insider trading has a widespread effect on the financial sector, which in turn affects the rest of the business world — and therefore affects everyone who interacts with it, which is all of us.
There are, as noted above, both technical effects of insider trading — constituted primarily of reduced liquidity and the consequences that follow from it — and an overall reduction in the trust that people have in business and in businesses. This can have dire consequences, because economic activity depends in largest measure on trust. Certainly governmental regulations are important and helpful, but there can never be sufficient regulations and regulators to ensure that every businessperson is acting honestly.
Business, like other realms of human activity, cannot be conducted unless there is a basic degree of trust among the parties participating. No reasonable person believes that any activity involving a large number of individuals — especially one in which there is a great deal of money to be made — will be entirely free of unethical behavior. But while some unethical behavior is to be expected, its presence beyond a certain threshold is highly disruptive.
This paper examines the phenomenon of insider trading, establishing what it is, how widespread it may be, what attempts have been made to prevent it, and what consequences occur when it cannot be prevented. While illegal activities take place in all nations in terms of how business is conducted — for where there is money there will always be a certain amount of unethical behavior — this paper focuses solely on illegal behavior in the United States and the specific federal laws and regulations that make insider trading illegal.
References
Fishe, R. & Robe, M. (2004). The impact of illegal insider trading in dealer and specialist markets: Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Financial Economics, 71(3), 461–488.
Harris, L. (2003). Trading and exchanges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Henning, P. (2011). Why insider trading is wrong. Retrieved from http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/why-is-insider-trading-wrong/.
Jones, T. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 231–248.
Lakonishok, J. & Lee, I. (2001). Are insider trades informative? Review of Financial Studies, 14, 79–111.
Letters to the editor. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/blogs/theinbox/2007/03/insider_trading.
Loe, T., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3), 185–204.
Ma, Y., & Sun, H. L. (1998, January). Where should the line be drawn on insider trading ethics? Journal of Business Ethics, 17(1), 67–75.
Marsden, C. (2000). The new corporate citizenship of big business: Part of the solution to sustainability? Business and Society Review, 105(1), 9–25.
Sayler, L. (n.d.). Ethical models analyzing insider trading in the stock market. Retrieved from
Smith, A. K. (1997, July 7). Betrayers of trust. U.S. News & World Report, 123(1), 72–76.
U.S. 427. Retrieved from
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.