Talk:Insider trading

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 18 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lgonz498. Peer reviewers: Rvale045, Rayal021.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi Leo, not surprised by your article! Haha. My only suggestions are to perhaps improve the introduction by splitting it up? The whole article is pretty lengthy. I caught myself getting lost in the beginning and from our modules, the "best articles" get right to the point in the intro. Otherwise, it's a great topic for business. There are plenty of references so it's going to be tough work. I see below that a contributor said there's an imbalance on the UK's perspective. That's a start! Also, I couldn't find your edits so I can't really review that aspect. Otherwise, I'm excited to see what you come up with! Rayal021 (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

General Content of Article

Ujjwal Kumar Gaurav — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.217.153 (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC) After reading this, its clear that obviously Americans have been the majority contributors.. but there's such an imbalance in that UK legislation is getting a couple of sentences whereas US is covered in several paragraphs. Obviously some infomation would overlap but still. As a UK student, I cannot be confident that most of the general description is correct for my country.

-Si—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.194.158 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2007

short-swing profits should be mentioned here.

Any information you can add to the UK section would be quite welcome! Please be sure to cite your sources when you do. Thank you for your help! —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the UK law on insider trading mostly subsumed by the EU Market Abuse Directive, with actual UK implementation in a state of flux? Anybody an expert on the Market Abuse Directive? Epstein's Mother 03:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The definition of insider trading does not seem appropriate for jurisdictions outside USA. In the UK, "insiders" include any who have information not in the public domain, including advisers or individuals not connected to the company. I shall try to find some UK and/or EU definitions to add in. PatrickHadfield (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The intro could describe the concept more clearly. As someone who knows little about business or economics etc. it wasn't the easiest of things to understand. – Lee Carré 01:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking the same thing. I don't know if this represents a world view as much a general description followed by an United States of America case study. -CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a place to perform draft re-writes of articles? I'd like to take the UK section in hand, but I can't do it in one section. Lawdroid (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that this could be much less biased and easier to edit if there was a section on US insider trading, with definitions, laws, etc., a UK section, and whatever other sections are needed. Sort of like the whole page, but in miniature, for specific countries. Dreaming Ninja (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The article should also outline in more detail why insider trading is so heavily punished. Only external links to arguments why it should be legalised are listed; but the reasons for illegality are strong and should be included to reduce the pro-insider trading bias of the article. --15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cut from text

Nevertheless, circumstances can occur when the geologist would be committing fraud if he did not disclose the information, e.g. when he had been hired by Farmer Smith to assess the geology of the farm.

This is a non sequitur. This is an example of a professional who does not act in the best interest of his client - like a lawyer who doesn't act on behalf of his client or a broker who front runs his customer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

However, analogous activities such as front running are illegal under U.S. commodity and futures trading laws. For example, a commodity broker can be charged with fraud if he or she receives a large purchase order from a client (one likely to affect the price of that commodity) and then purchases that commodity before executing the client's order in order to benefit from the anticipated price increase.

Front running is not insider trading and nor is it the analogue to insider trading in the commodities market as this seems to suggest. Front running is a different concept and is also illegal in stock markets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.48.12 (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This was tagged 2 weeks ago:

Because insider trading is hard to prove and it's not even clear if it's good or bad for the market, it could be argued that its regulation adds unnecessary complexity to trading, and in addition binds valuable resources of federal enforcement agencies which could be used more usefully.

Not sure whose opinion this is. While I agree with it, personally, this is an encyclopedia. Statement like this need attribution. --Uncle Ed 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all trading on information is illegal inside trading, however. For example, while dining at a restaurant, you hear the CEO of Company A at the next table telling the CFO that the company will be taken over, and then you buy the stock, you might not be guilty of insider trading unless there was some closer connection between you, the company, or the company officers.

This is incorrect. Rule 14e-3 prohibits trading on non-public information related to tender offers even if that information was not misappropraited. See http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule14e-3.html. The SEC promulgated 14e-3 in response to the Chiarella decision by the supreme court in 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.179.162 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for Insider Trading by Governments

I reverted this section, simply because it is not referenced in any way and is therefore original research WP:NOR. With some sort of references it could certainly go in. To me, the thinking itself does not look so original (Briefly approx. "governemnts may trade on information that only they have and give benefit to the public" - this is in many ways standard thinking in many fields) but the original part is in labeling it "insider trading." If other people use this label, it should certainly go in - but as it stood it is just confusing. Smallbones 09:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree (and think you are too kind in your description of the "research"). It reads like someone who imagines they just thought up the idea that a government could borrow billions of dollars, refuse to pay it back, and lower taxes as a result. Epstein's Mother 14:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam links

I deleted the links to SECform4.com, which is repeatedly added back in by someone who seems to go around Wikipedia adding in advertising links. In its place, I've added in a link to the most recent filings of the SEC's Edgar database, which has the most recent disclosure forms by corporate insiders on their trades of shares in companies in which they are officers, directors, or of which they control either 5 percent or 10 percent of the shares. Hopefully, this will provide readers with any information they want without subjecting them to the hard sell of a trading company. Epstein's Mother 18:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have removed them again. They seem to violate WP:EL's guidance about links normally to be avoided (items 1 and 3, at the very least). Deli nk 19:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

American insider trading laws

There is a new addition on a recently introduced on the so-called "Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act" bill. The paragraph doesn't indicate whether this bill has any Senate sponsors or the odds that it will be enacted. Since bills are introduced all the time and only a comparatively small number are passed, I suggest deleting this paragraph until the bill advances further. After all, this section is about what the law is, not what the law could (maybe) become. (In addition, the description provided of the bill doesn't indicate how it is any different from Rule 10b-5. Presumably, the SEC would still pursue someone for a 10b-5 violation if they traded based on material non-public information, even if that material non-public information came from Congress. This is essentially the same type of case that has been brought in the past against individuals trading on material non-public information acquired from the Food and Drug Administration or the Agriculture Depart.) Let me know if you disagree. Epstein's Mother 16:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC) "So-Called" Indicates social bias and is a negatistic opinion against this law, and in violation of Wikipedia rules to keep it scholarly. Some discussion needs to ne included as to whether or not as a group, by being afforded special rights and privilages by way of an unfair business advantage with regards to their trading activities on US Stock Exchange, because US lawmakers activities are not regulated while everyone else's activities are, as an institition have US lawmakers violated Sherman Anti-Trust Act in any any way? We need a discussion in here and on the page on this topic specifically.173.75.221.137 (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In May of 2007, representatives Brian Baird and Louise Slaughter introduced a bill entitled the "Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act." that would hold congressional and federal employees liable for stock trades they made using information they gained through their jobs. The bill would also seek to regulate so called "Political Intelligence" firms that research government activities and sell the information to financial managers.<ref>{{cite news |first=Daniel |last=Gross |authorlink=Daniel Gross |title=Insider Trading, Congressional-Style |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2166664/fr/rss/%20slate.com |work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |publisher=[[The Washington Post Company]] |date=[[2007-05-21]] |accessdate=2007-05-29}}</ref>

It might be an interesting detail to add - since the "Political intelligence" regulation is quite different from current law. But the bill probably won't pass (the PI stuff is too different). There's lots of other stuff that should be added first, e.g. non-US law. I think that all adds up to a temporary weak keep, IMHO. Smallbones 18:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple question, which I will pose as an example: If I invent something in my garage that allows automobiles to run on water, will my shorting of ExxonMobil constitute insider trading?

I'm guessing no.

66.32.14.236 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because you don't owe any duty to ExxonMobil. However, if you invented it on behalf of ExxonMobil (or, possibly, even on behalf of somebody else), and you shorted before they made it public or were able to take advantage of the opportunity themselves, you might be. Epstein's Mother (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Epstein, your answer is a non sequitor because the prosecution of insider trading laws in the US hasn't been limited to those with duties to the issuer. O'Hagan, for example, had no duty to the issuer in whose stock he was trading. This is important because if the government merely wanted to prohibit breach of fiduciary obligations, it could just use that language, and drop the language of "insider trading" altogether.

A better answer to User 66 is that he could short ExxonMobil safely because there is so much that happens in between an invention and its successful exploitation that short selling would still be very risky. Indeed, on his hypothetical I'm not at all sure the information to which he is privy would even be considered material, which excludes further prosecutorial quesries right there. --Christofurio (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. O'Hagan is predicated on a fraud-on-the-market theory, which is far more complex than I think you are letting on. In addition, Switzer is still good law. In addition in addition, the method of insider trading and the risk of the trades has nothing to do with whether the law is being violated. At most you are just saying the chances of getting busted is lower, not that you won't get busted.Epstein's Mother (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What you call its "complexity" may be what User 66 is worried about. At any rate, the overly simple statement was yours, not mine. One person's complexity is another person's injustice-waiting-to-happen. Or hasn't it already? O'Hagan had no fiduciary responsibility (in the old-fashioned not-so-complicated sense of that phrase!) to the issuer of the stock in which he traded. --Christofurio (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Also, the "materiality" of information has everything to do with whether trading upon it violates the prohibition on insider trading. And it seems a safe rule of thumb that information that doesn't significantly reduce the risk of a trade can't be considered material. --Christofurio (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Furthermore, the language of the circuit court’s opinion in Texas Gulf Sulpher was much more sweeping than was necessary to reach its conclusion: "The only regulatory objective" wrote the circuit judge "is that access to material information be enjoyed equally…." Despite the mollifying connotations of the word “only” in that sentence, this objective seems quite a demanding one. And there's nothing there about fiduciary obligations.

Indeed, critics soon pointed out that a random local individual, standing outside TGS company offices in Timmins Ontario, who had observed hurried comings-and-goings there, might have taken an educated guess as to what might be going on, and bought shares of TGS stock. Since not everyone could have been at that place at the right time, there would be an asymmetry of information. Access to material information would not be “enjoyed equally” by that buyer and a potential seller of the stock. So could the observant local have been held liable for insider trading under the theory of that case? Unfortunately, yes. Fortunately, the courts haven't stuck at that high-water-mark of the insider-trading prohibition. Yet the uncertainties raised by the above langauge remain. --Christofurio (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It would not because (1) you're not a public company and are not required to disclose that information, (2) you have no business dealings with, and provide no services to, Exxon.—DMCer™ 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Laws by nature drive prices of stocks in a very direct way. Therefore any trading activities by US lawmakers on US stock Exchange, as to whether or not it consistutes insider trading by nature, is in fact as if US lawmakers owned every single company on the stock exchange, as US lawmakers ability to impact stock prices of any given company is at the level of a CEO, director, or company owner.173.75.221.137 (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What if I'm having problems with stocks relations. DamontG (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Need for a new warning label

Since we're on the subject of legal interpretation, I think this article should have a heading warning readers that this article does not offer legal advice and may not be legally accurate. I say this because some of it may not be 100% legally correct and somebody may interpret it as OK to do something because of what is written when, in fact, you could get into serious trouble if you are not careful. For example, the heading "Tracking Insider Trades" it says, "As of December 2005 companies are required to announce times to their employees as to when they can safely trade without being accused of trading on inside information." This is a gross simplification and in no way can a company announce a time that an insider is free to trade on material non-public information. All of that said, I don't know how to put up this kind of warning graphic. Epstein's Mother (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

agreed that we're not 100% accurate here and may have stepped over the line to providing legal advice (myself included). I looked around the WP:Law law project and law portal and couldn't find any template related to that. Perhaps it's obvious that we're (trying) to provide legal information rather than legal advice. A couple of templates that might fit in somewhere (feel free to remove) are right below this. Smallbones (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section detailing significant insider trading cases in summary form?--Bassettcat (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed item on legal insider trading

I removed the reference to legal trading on inside information that contained the example of overhearing the CEO of a company talk about the company in a restaurant. The text said that trading on that information would not be illegal. It certainly is illegal, and made illegal by SEC Rule 14e-3, which makes it illegal to trade while in possession on material non-public information that one knows is material and nonpublic, and came from an insider.69.141.112.37 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Larry Lawyer

Larry,

You didn't make a change in the article! I did that following - inserting the word "might," instead of "would."

"you might not be guilty of insider trading unless there was some closer connection between you, the company, or the company officers."

could you be a bit more specific on this - the only "Rule 14e-3" I could find on the SEC site was under the Williams Act, and requires that a tender offer has been made. More info please. Smallbones (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything "is believed" by somebody!

Illegal insider trading is believed to raise the cost of capital for securities issuers, thus decreasing overall economic growth

Can't argue that this "is believed" by some people. But I would like to say the evidence is lame. Though there are a few studies that show a correlation between such a ban and economic growth, they have some methodological holes in them.

First, they don't distinguish between countries that bring actions regularly on the one hand and those that bring, say, one case every twenty years or so on the other. Both countries would be considered to have "enforcement of the ban on insider trading" for purposes of the alleged correlation.

Second, correlation isn't cause. Having SOME enforcement of insider trading laws is probably correlated with having a functional rule of law in general and THAT may be an important condition of wealth creation, creating a statistical artefact that has no real specific connection to insider trading at all.

Thirdly, as an empirical observation, in some countries that are thought to have an effective ban, insider trading is actually rampant. Germany is an example.

The cost of capital argument has solid research. Recent work by Howell Jackson and John Coffee both take the enforcement factor into account, and focus on insider trading bans. It's not much of a leap to then say that those countries with a lower cost of capital receive economic benefits from it. Epstein's Mother (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See also

The addition of Raj Rajaratnam to me looks POV because it is just an allegation not proved yet.Taprobanus (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not POV, cause this was the biggest scandal regarding insider training. Tell me what is the first name that comes to your mind when someone talks about insider trading, yes it is Raj Rajaratnam. If this mans name is not featured in relation to insider training then I dont know what else should be. Also the FBI would only have arrested him if they had concrete evidence. Besides inclusion of him does not imply his guilt, merely his noteworthiness with regard to insider trading.Kerr avon (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In the US there is a provision called not guilty untill proven, if he is a convicted felon for insider trading then I have no problems but to tag him as such before he is convicted is violation WP:BLP. This is how civilized countries work, not convict based on allegations. It is based on facts that a court has to use to convingly prove it. Taprobanus (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Allen_Stanford is being featured in the White-collar_crime "see also" links although he has only being arrested. As such their is no violation of BLP by putting Rajaratnam in the insider trading "see also" links. Please point the specific Wp:BLP violating clause if any.Kerr avon (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag in the see also section. Listing somebody in the see also section is not the same as saying that they are guilty of insider trading; but it should be limited for people who have something to do with an insider trading issue, and I think RR qualifies. This same type of issue has be dealt with several times at the WP:BLPN. Please take it there if you disagree. There's also been similar discussion at Notability:Criminals.

All that said, we can't put all people arrested or even convicted of insider trading in this article's See also. Just a couple of the most recent/most notable would be sufficient. Smallbones (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

INSIDER TRADING ACTIVITIES BY US LAWMAKERS

US Lawmakers are by law allowed to engage in insider trading and in fact have almost no regulation of any of their own trading practices, because although US lawmakers routinely as a part of business pass new laws to further regulate trading activities of everyone but themselves in US stock exchange, they have passed few, if any laws to regulate their own trading activities. A recent example, is STOCK Act, which failed to pass in 2010. Consequently,unlike everyone else engaging in trading on US stockmarket, US lawmakers are legally allowed by rules they set, to engage in unregulated trading of their own stocks on US Stock Market, as a normal part of doing business there.[(http://insidertrading.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001032, http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/congress-refuses-to-outlaw-insider-trading-for-lawmakers-478701.html?tickers=%5Edji,%5Egspc,%5Eixic,brk-a,brk-b,gs,xlf0, http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=2834)].Jme0598 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This first statement, and the statement in the article itself, cannot be presented as fact. "Arguably" insider trading by members of Congress is not illegal prior to the STOCK Act. But there are other legal experts who disagree. This part should be changed when updated to take account of the STOCK Act. Epstein's Mother (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We need a section on why insider trading is partially banned and if those bans actually make sense

It's not enough to have this small last sentence in the introduction on the supposed reason why insider trading is illegal. --93.223.38.67 (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Ryan's Insider Trading

User:Cgersten has added this edit. Two of the references are from blogs (they violate WP:SPS) and the third from the Guardian states that "an independent accountant for the partnership that handled the trades questioned by commentators, said the shares were not controlled by Ryan." An earlier reference has the headline Paul Ryan's Bank Transactions Were Not Insider Trading. Adding this content to an article on insider trading does not appear appropriate. 72Dino (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Guardian article states: After the story was picked up by the media on Monday, the Romney campaign moved to deny it. Talking Points Memo quoted Larry Gaffney, an independent accountant for the partnership that handled the trades questioned by commentators, said the shares were not controlled by Ryan.

"Trades are done automatically based on an algorithm on a regular basis," said Gaffney, in a statement to TPM that was provided by the Romney campaign. "In addition, this index was held at the time within a partnership in which Rep. Ryan had and continues to have no trading authority."

Note on Ryan's Financial Disclosure for 2008 (see: opensecrets.org) it states sales of individual bank stocks NOT an INDEX. A major contradiction to the Romney's statement of denial, as the "algorithm" was for an INDEX. --Tuco_bad 17:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, see this article from The New York Times about how (per the Business Insider link above) "the meeting was held in the evening, which raises significant doubt if any member in attendance would have been able to act on the conversation." The references just do not support including Ryan in an article on insider trading. 72Dino (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Prior to the evening meeting, Ryan would have been given the reason for the meeting (i.e., certain banks in severe financial shape), also he could have made after-hours trades. The references DO make mention of Ryan trading of this info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The references do not support including Ryan in an article on insider trading. Doing so would be a violation of WP:BLP. As you still feel otherwise, you may want to seek a third opinion. 72Dino (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Why just public companies?

See

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e24dc4ab-2a77-43d9-8a78-9ea46eca1aca

According to a writeup by the law firm, the SEC does not believe that insider trading laws apply only to public companies. 178.38.69.55 (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest template added: No reason given

The addition of this template -- "major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" -- is backed up by nothing here on the talk page; nothing of which I can see evidence in a review of the page history; and was not noted by name in the Edit summary when it was placed, making it laborious for me or harder for others to find out when it was placed. While the addition of the template appears to be in good faith, the lack of backup makes its continued placement on the page problematic. I am considering deleting the template. Any comment here encouraged. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a SNAFU. A navbox (namely {{conflict of interest}}) was added in this edit. Then someone using AWB converted it to {{COI}}. I will alert them to what is probably an unintended mistake. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. {{conflict of interest}} was, until recently, a redirect to {{COI}}. I've removed the redirect fix with this edit. It shouldn't happen again. Apoligizes to @Swliv: and thanks to @Johnuniq: for the heads up. ^Avic_ennasis @ 11:26, 15 Tishrei 5776 / 11:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow! No apology necessary. Glad I caught it and got such great response, only the vague sense and a bit of which I feel I understand (and I worry not an iota any more). All now perfect it appears. Swliv (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Another part of the process, for the record. Swliv (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Failing to trade

On 29 February 2008, IP editor 193.26.4.35 removed the "not" from It is not illegal to fail to trade based on inside information with this edit. I have sought verification for the removal of the "not", but haven't found any, except those that derive from Wikipedia (such as Schiller, Jon (2010). Financial Fraud. p. 19., wikipedia acknowlegment on page 7) In fact, the original statement, without the "not", appears to be supported under US law. See Condus v. Howard Savings Bank, 781 F. Supp. 1052 (D.N.J. 1992) As noted by the original author, the evidentiary problems alone would suggest that such conduct would not be criminalised. This is also noted in Teall, John L. (2012). Financial Trading and Investing. p. 313. when he writes, In addition, insiders have always had the right to abstain from trading on the basis of inside information. Thus, it is not illegal to not buy shares on the basis of inside information. How would investigators determine whether one declined to trade solely on the basis of inside information? Teall is an American, and possibly because of the sentence in Wikipedia under the UK, adds in a footnote, However, failure to trade can be a violation of U.K. insider trading regulations. I have not found anything explicit for this interpretation of the U.K. regs, "The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Market Abuse) – Regulations 2016" (PDF).. However, like the US, the regs (section Publication of information and corrective statements by issuers) do provide that issuers must make certain information public in a timely manner, thus depriving it of its status as "inside information". But the violation would be "failure to publish" rather than "failure to trade". Similarly where there has been an unlawful disclosure of inside information, and the tipster has conspired with the tipee to withhold sales, knowingly in the contravention of market integrity, it is possible that penalties could be asssessed under section 123 (Power to impose penalties or issue censure), given proof of the conspiracy. However, given such proof, "conspiracy" is the more likely charge. The UK regs indicate that they include Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse, which define "market abuse" as insider dealing, unlawful disclosure of inside information and market manipulation. The EU regs do not contain any direct prohibition on refraining from trading, but like the UK ones, they cover "collaboration to commit market abuse". Like the US, the UK and EU regulations all focus on actual trades. On this basis, I have removed the sentence in the UK paragraph under "Legal differences among jurisdictions". --Bejnar (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Add "Arguments for keeping illegal" section?

Seems somewhat biased that there is no section for arguments for keeping the practice illegal. Should we add one?

Jasper0333 (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Dutch east india company was the first time for insider trading.

Can someone include that the very first company to sell stock was also the the first company to have insider trading? The "dutch" people who originally owned the stock knew that the VOC was going to go end and those "dutch" people sold their stock to real dumb dutch people before the VOC company ended. It is very significant that the first company to sell stock and make it so people could trade their stock was also the first company to have insider trading.

Yuji Naka

He was recently arrested for insider trading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KieranCallahan72 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)