An Executive Bought a Rival's Stock. The SEC Says That's Insider Trading

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;SGklv" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;SGklv</a>

&gt; Panuwat traded on his work computer just seven minutes after he allegedly learned that Pfizer would buy his company.<p>Really? What an idiot.

&gt; First, his employer, Medivation, had a policy that forbade trading other companies’ shares when employees had material nonpublic information about Medivation<p>Note: many financial crimes rely on the government finding your employer agreement that limits you<p>The SEC would have had no case even in their wildest stretch, if the employer didn’t have this policy<p>Many financial crimes are contingent on this

There&#x27;s always the devil&#x27;s advocate case that insider trading is good because it makes for more accurate price discovery (as in executives have access to non public information, so e.g. if the company has had a great quarter and the executives buy shares before the earnings figures are released then the price goes up and the market price more accurately reflects the value of the shares).<p>Of course this case is total nonsense but it is fun to make at parties (if you&#x27;re weird like me) or something. In reality the market being fair is super important for it to function because people won&#x27;t invest if they&#x27;re continually being fleeced by people using inside information.

Hiring sociopaths only motivated by money to run your corporation is like training an AI. They&#x27;ll constantly find novel ways to achieve their goals without meeting yours.

There&#x27;s nothing evil in inside trading. It&#x27;s a shame that it&#x27;s against the rules in most markets. It only benefits some parties that aren&#x27;t really invested into the company.