What constitutes illegal insider trading?
"It becomes illegal when it is both material and nonpublic information. Material being defined as: Information that you would want and significantly alters the perception of the stock. To your point -- ""materiality"" is really up to the courts Nonpublic This is a little easier to define, but need to be careful if the information is disclosed selectively -- ie to just a small number of investment analysts -- this may still be nonpublic There is also an exception to this -- Mosaic Theory - This is the research you are referring to where the analyst calls up suppliers, etc and obtains information that is nonmaterial (wouldn't move the price of the security) but using experience and combined with public information creates something that is meaningful and could move the price of the security.  This is perfectly legal.  Material examples:" "You have to read some appeals court cases see scholar.google.com , as well as SEC enforcement actions on sec.gov to get an understanding of how the SEC operates. http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/insidertrading/cases.shtml There are court created guidelines for how insider trading would be proven There is no clear line, but it is the ""emergency asset injunctions"" (freezing your assets if you nailed a suspiciously lucrative trade) you really want to avoid, and this is often times enforced/reported by the brokers themselves since the SEC does not have the resources to monitor every account's trading activities. There are some thin lines, such as having your lawyer file a lawsuit, and as soon as it is filed it is technically public so you short the recipient's stock. Or having someone in a court room updating you on case developments as soon as possible so you can make trades (although this may just be actually public, depending on the court). But the rules create the opportunities Also consider that the United States is the most strict country in this regard, there are tons of capital markets and the ideals or views of ""illegal insider trading"" compared to ""having reached a level of society where you are privileged to obtain this information"" vary across the board contains charts of countries where an existing insider trading prohibition is actually enforced: http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=articles https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~charvey/Teaching/BA453_2005/BD_The_world.pdf Finally, consider some markets that don't include equities, as trading on an information advantage is only applicable to things the SEC regulates, and there are plenty of things that agency doesn't regulate. So trying to reverse engineer the SEC may not be the most optimal use of energy"
"The Indian regulator (SEBI) has banned trading in 300 shell companies that it views as being ""Shady"", including VB Industries. According to Money Control (.com): all these shady companies have started to rally and there was a complaint to SEBI that investors are getting SMSs from various brokerage firms to invest in them This suggests evidence of ""pump and dump"" style stock promotion.  On the plus side, the SEBI will permit trading in these securities once a month : Trading in these securities shall be permitted once a month (First Monday of the month). Further, any upward price movement in these securities shall not be permitted beyond the last traded price and additional surveillance deposit of 200 percent of trade value shall be collected form the Buyers which shall be retained with Exchanges for a period of five months. This will give you an opportunity to exit your position, however, finding a buyer may be a problem and because of the severe restrictions placed on trading, any bid prices in the market are going to be a fraction of the last trade price." A practical issue is that insider trading transfers wealth from most investors to the few insiders. If this were permitted, non-insiders would rarely make any money, and they'd stop investing. That would then defeat the purpose of the capital markets which is to attract capital. A moral issue is that managers and operators of a company should act in shareholders' interests. Insider trading directly takes money from other shareholders and transfers it to the insider. It's a nasty conflict of interest (and would allow any CEO of a public company to make ton of money quickly, regardless of their job performance). In short, shareholders and management should succeed or suffer together, so their interests are as aligned as possible and managers have the proper incentives. As others have said, it simply makes you a part owner. Even if you have ethical objections to a company's behavior, I'd argue that investing in it and using the proxy votes to influence the company's decisions might be even more ethical than not investing. sweet, a Nazi analogy.  And here I thought I'd *never* see one of those on the internet!  A better example would be to arrest gun manufacturers because they created guns that were used in murders.  Chances are this program was created for legitimate reasons. There's nothing illegal about using software to buy stock. There is, however, rules against doing things like this to influence the market.   You're equating some software developers whose software was used illegally to a group of people who committed genocide.  Think about that. "There are quite a few regulations on ""Insider Trading"". Blackouts are one of the means companies adopt to comply with ""Insider Trading"" regulations, mandating employees to refrain from selling/buying during the notified period. Once you leave the employment: So unless there is an urgent need for you to sell/buy the options, wait for some time and then indulge in trade." (yes, this should probably be a comment, not an answer ... but it's a bit long). I don't know what the laws are specifically about this, but my grandfather used to be on the board of a company that he helped to found ... and back in the 1980s, there was a period when the stock price suddenly quadrupled One of the officers in the company, knowing that the stock was over-valued, sold around a third of his shares ... and he got investigated for insider trading.  I don't recall if he was ever charged with anything, but there were some false rumors spreading about the company at the time (one was that they had something that you could sprinkle on meat to reduce the cholesterol).  I don't know where the rumors came from, but I've always assumed it was some sort of pump-and-dump stock manipulation, as this was decades before they were on the S&P 500 small cap. After that, the company had a policy where officers had to announce they were selling stock, and that it wouldn't execute for some time (1? 2 weeks? something like that).  I don't know if that was the SEC's doing, or something that the company came up with on their own. pump and dump is a common Illegal practice of boiler room operations. It refers to the talking a stock up, both through word of mouth as well as selling shares to unwitting buyers. I fail to see much difference between that practice and this. "Does your job give you access to ""confidential information"", such that you can only buy or sell shares in the company during certain windows?  Employees with access to company financial data, resource planning databases, or customer databases are often only allowed to trade in company securities (or derivatives thereof) during certain ""windows"" a few days after the company releases its quarterly earnings reports.  Even those windows can be cancelled if a major event is about to be announced.  These windows are designed to prevent the appearance of insider trading, which is a serious crime in the United States. Is there a minimum time that you would need to hold the stock, before you are allowed to sell it?  Do you have confidence that the stock would retain most of its value, long enough that your profits are long-term capital gains instead of short-term capital gains? What happens to your stock if you lose your job, retire, or go to another company? Does your company's stock price seem to be inflated by any of these factors: If any of these nine warning flags are the case, I would think carefully before investing. If I had a basic emergency fund set aside and none of the nine warning flags are present, or if I had a solid emergency fund and the company seemed likely to continue to justify its stock price for several years, I would seriously consider taking full advantage of the stock purchase plan.  I would not invest more money than I could afford to lose. At first, I would cash out my profits quickly (either as quickly as allowed, or as quickly as lets me minimize my capital gains taxes).  I would reinvest in more shares, until I could afford to buy as many shares as the company would allow me to buy at the discount. In the long-run, I would avoid having more than one-third of my net worth in any single investment.  (E.g., company stock, home equity, bonds in general, et cetera.)" Arguably the money made or lost on the particular stock in question wouldn't have happened without the story. The AIs are just taking advantage of market conditions caused by the story. The person who planted the story bought the stock prior to the story being dropped and sold before the stock dropped back down, which is illegal. "The reason that stock buybacks are not considered insider trading is because the offers are open to all on equal terms to everyone outside the company. Even if the company knows ""inside"" information, it's not supposed to tell it (and company executives are not allowed to tender shares, unless they had previously set up a ""blind"" selling program on a""schedule."") If that's actually the case, no one investor is better informed than another, and hence there is no insider trading. The issue of inside trading is that ""insiders"" ARE better informed." "Secret formulas are legal, ""privileged information"" is not. And that may be the whole point. People are allowed to trade stocks profitably if doing so results only from their skill. A ""secret formula"" (for evaluating information) is part of that skill. But having ""privileged information"" is not considered skill. It is considered an unfair, illegal advantage. Because company officials (and others) with privileged information are 1) not permitted to trade stocks while that information is privileged and 2) are not allowed to share that information with others. Inevitably, some do one or the other, which is why they are prosecuted. ""Raj"" took the process to new highs (or lows). He not only ""dealt"" in privileged information, he PAID for it. Anything from a new car or house to $500,000 a year in cash. In essence, he had a bunch of strategically placed ""spies"" inside or close to corporations including one on the board of Goldman Sachs, ""selling out"" their companies, and thereby practicing a form of corporate ""treason.""" I am a flight attendant on a private jet and I hear a bank CEO   discussing a merger or a buyout. I proceed to purchase that stock   before the announcement. The CEO did not tell me to buy it, I just   overheard him. If you are a flight attendant on a private jet that is operated by one of the principals, probably including a bank, attorney, consultant, broker, etc., in the merger or buyout, then you probably have a fiduciary duty to safeguard the information and are prohibited from trading. Please see: http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T052-C008-S001-would-you-be-guilty-of-insider-trading.html You’re a janitor at a major company. You hear members of the company’s   board convening outside the room you’re cleaning and decide to hide in   the closet. The board okays a deal to sell the company for a fat   premium to the current share price. You load up on the shares. Illegal   insider trading? Definitely. This is not a public place, and “you’d be in a position to   understand that confidential information was being disclosed, which   changes the calculus,” says Andrew Stoltmann, a Chicago-based   securities lawyer. Also see: http://meyersandheim.com/how-to-win-an-insider-trading-case/ However, between these two extremes of a bystander with no duty to the   corporation and a corporate officer with a clear duty to the   corporation stood a whole group of people such as printers, lawyers   and others who were involved in non-public transactions that did not   necessarily have a duty to the company whose securities they traded.   To address this group of people the courts developed the   misappropriation theory. The misappropriation theory covers people who   posses inside information and who are prohibited from trading on such   information because they owe a duty to a third party and not the   corporation whose securities are traded. Yours is the perfect example. You owe a duty to your employer to operate in its best interests. As for the broader, more common example, where you overhear information in an elevator, restaurant, in line at the coffee shop, etc., trading on such information was found not to be insider trading in SEC v. Switzer: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/590/756/2247092/  In this case, Mr. Switzer overheard information at a track meet and traded on it with profits. The court found:  The information was inadvertently overheard by Switzer at the track meet. Rule 10b-5 does not bar trading on the basis of information inadvertently revealed by an insider. On the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the   court orders judgment in favor of defendants. The CEO of a public company can, and often does, buy (and sell) the stock of his company. In fact, frequently the stock of the company is part of the compensation for the CEO. What makes this legal and fair is that the CEO files with the SEC an announcement before he buys (or sells) the stock. These announcements allow us 'in the dark' people enough warning ahead of time.  See, for example, the trades of UTX stock by their public officers. As for trading on information about other companies, if I am not mistaken... that is why Martha Stewart wound up in prison. So, yeah, it does happen. I hope it is caught more often than not.  On a related note, have you seen the movie 'Wall Street' with Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas? "There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when ""Reg SHO"" (""regulation sho"") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions." "So is knowledge of unannounced products simply not considered material nonpublic information? Well ""material"" is relative but it certainly is nonpublic information.  And trading based on that information would likely be considered illegal if it is actually material.   Many companies require that employees with material non-public info get stock trades approved by their legal department.  This protects not only the employee but the employer from SEC scrutiny.  If the legal department determines that the employee has non-public info that is the genesis of the stock trade, they might deny the request. In many cases these employees receive stock through ESPP, ISO and/or RSUs and often sell while in possession of information about unannounced products. Just receiving stock as part of as part of a compensation program would not be illegal, provided it was part of a normal compensation package and not deliberately awarded in advance of these types of events. Selling or outright buying stock (including RSUs) with that kind of information would certainly be scrutinized.  An employee is granted RSUs, they vest 7 months before announcement of a new product. The employee knows the exact specifications of the product. If they sell the vested stock before the announcement would this constitute insider trading or not? Why? The law is not meant to prevent people from investing in their own company just because they know future plans.  So knowledge of an announcement 7 months out may not be considered material.  If, however, you sold stock the day (or a week) before some announcement that caused the stock to fall, then that would probably be scrutinized.  Or, if you traded shortly before an announcement of a new, revolutionary product that was set to be released in seven months, and the stock rose, then you might be scrutinized. So there is a lot of gray area, but remember that the spirit of the law is to prevent people from benefiting unfairly with non-public information.  It would be hard to prove that gaining on a stock trade 7 months before a product announcement would be considered ""unfair gain"".  A lot can happen in that time."