- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I feel for insider traders who do it to prevent losing a fortune.
Posted on 8/8/18 at 11:25 am
Posted on 8/8/18 at 11:25 am
It’s one thing if you come across positive information and act on it with the goal to make money.
But I feel for those who come across bad news. These people now have the knowledge that they are going to lose a ton of money, knowing they have the ability to do something about it to protect their savings. They are expected to just take it. That’s rough.
But I feel for those who come across bad news. These people now have the knowledge that they are going to lose a ton of money, knowing they have the ability to do something about it to protect their savings. They are expected to just take it. That’s rough.
10
Posted on 8/8/18 at 11:39 am to PrimeTime Money
If they were to make the trade to avoid the loss, there’s an investor on the other side that would be getting the shaft because he didn’t have access to the same information.
Posted on 8/8/18 at 11:44 am to PrimeTime Money
As an insider, presumably they had something to do with the bad news and would thus be trying to escape consequences. Insiders have all kinds of sweet, legal opportunities. That they get left holding the bag once in a while doesnt bother me.
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:02 pm to Jim Rockford
Speaking of which, I thought equifax execs dumped shares right before the data breach was announced, did anything come out of that?
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:04 pm to Jack Bauers HnK
quote:
If they were to make the trade to avoid the loss, there’s an investor on the other side that would be getting the shaft because he didn’t have access to the same information.
Yet the investor “on the other side” would have made that trade regardless.
Insider trading is a victimless crime.
This post was edited on 8/8/18 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:05 pm to PrimeTime Money
So you feel compassion for wealthy folks that contribute to their own bad situation? Do you feel compassion for poor folks that contribute to their own bad situation as well?
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:06 pm to PrimeTime Money
Plausible deniability
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:12 pm to PuntBamaPunt
quote:
Speaking of which, I thought equifax execs dumped shares right before the data breach was announced, did anything come out of that?
I'm shocked nothing has happened to them yet. Pretty much every American adults SSN was compromised, they knew about it for a long time, execs dumped stock, then it gets released.
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:16 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
As an insider, presumably they had something to do with the bad news and would thus be trying to escape consequences.
Meh, I have plenty of insider information for my Fortune 100 company and have zero decision making power in the company.
I'm just a foot soldier who lives in the financials and market share data and reports on it to the c-suite guys.
I've been in positions plenty of times to capitalize on stuff I knew and never did. I don't even use our employee stock purchase program to avoid any chance of impropriety. Would really suck if I had a ton of stock in my company and knew it was about to tank for reasons I had nothing to do with and I can't sell it. That would fricking blow.
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:19 pm to PrimeTime Money
More information in markets is a good thing, which is why its nuts that "insider trading" is illegal.
If fraud was involved,then obviously that's a problem, but if you happen to get info before anyone else,and act on that info,then why the frick should that be a crime?
If fraud was involved,then obviously that's a problem, but if you happen to get info before anyone else,and act on that info,then why the frick should that be a crime?
This post was edited on 8/8/18 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:19 pm to Samso
quote:
Yet the investor “on the other side” would have made that trade regardless.
Insider trading is a victimless crime.
Wow.
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:24 pm to PrimeTime Money
If they are that concentrated to lose a fortune, and privy to insider information they have enough influence on the company to have it in a direction where that loss doesn't materialize.
Insider trading to avoid losses is because they (insiders) either made the wrong business decision, or did not do enough to impact the outcome. I have no pity for them.
Insider trading to avoid losses is because they (insiders) either made the wrong business decision, or did not do enough to impact the outcome. I have no pity for them.
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:27 pm to PrimeTime Money
frick
THEM
that is all i want to add
THEM
that is all i want to add
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:28 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
I don't even use our employee stock purchase program to avoid any chance of impropriety. Would really suck if I had a ton of stock in my company and knew it was about to tank for reasons I had nothing to do with and I can't sell it. That would fricking blow.
Not so fast. Almost ALL employee stock purchase programs are matched/bolstered by the company. It's also thrown around in the form of bonuses, hiring perks, etc.
That said, the vast majority of employee owned stock was not earned dollar to dollar.
So feeling sorry for them when it's lost or compromised should be felt with a grain of salt.
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:30 pm to Samso
quote:
Yet the investor “on the other side” would have made that trade regardless.
Insider trading is a victimless crime
Not sure if serious....
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:37 pm to lostinbr
The investor on the other side a trade would make the decision to buy regardless of whether or not the other person has inside info.
Investor A: has inside information that Facebook is about to get destroyed. SELLS.
Investor B: Has no idea who Investor A is, but likes Facebook as a long term investment. Logs into Fidelity and clicks BUY button.
Investor B's decision is not dependent on whether Investor A has inside information or not. They would have made the losing trade no matter what information Investor A has.
Investor A: has inside information that Facebook is about to get destroyed. SELLS.
Investor B: Has no idea who Investor A is, but likes Facebook as a long term investment. Logs into Fidelity and clicks BUY button.
Investor B's decision is not dependent on whether Investor A has inside information or not. They would have made the losing trade no matter what information Investor A has.
This post was edited on 8/8/18 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:42 pm to Samso
That’s analogous to saying selling heroin is a victimless crime because “they would have just bought it from someone else”.
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:46 pm to mikelbr
We get 15% off stock price.
I just don’t do it.
I just don’t do it.
Posted on 8/8/18 at 12:46 pm to Samso
quote:
Investor B's decision is not dependent on whether Investor A has inside information or not. They would have made the losing trade no matter what information Investor A has.
Totally man. Car dealerships should be able to sell known lemons, too. I mean, hey, the person on the other side of the transaction was going to buy the vehicle anyway. Like you said, victimless crime.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News