When an insider discloses a stock trade are they required to execute?
"No.  And furthermore, canceling based on insider information is not considered insider trading. SEC Interpretation from October of 2000: (a) Does the act of terminating a plan while aware of material nonpublic information result in liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5? No. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 apply ""in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."" Thus, a purchase or sale of a security must be present for liability to attach. See Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975). [link mine] A 10b5-2 is a rule in the SEC's section in federal law that governs trading on ""material nonpublic information."" Fried (2002) even concluded that: The SEC's safe harbour permitting insiders to buy or sell shares pursuant to prearranged trading plans while in possession of material nonpublic information and to cancel the plans while aware of material nonpublic information enables insiders to profit from their access to such information.  The SEC could easily eliminate insider's advantages over public shareholders by not allowing insiders to cancel their plans after becoming aware of material nonpublic information." They are not required to fulfill the trade that they have intended to execute.  They are able to cancel or modify the trade at any point.  Example: This is how insiders are able to manipulate the price of shares through there buying and selling intentions.  A CEO would be able to disclose a buy order for a month from now, or whatever time period is required.  This would most likely increase the price of the stock as investors would see this as a good sign of company performance.  Up until the point when the buy order is scheduled to execute the CEO can then cancel the order and create a new sell order.  Since the stock is high in price, his new order is likely to make him money based on the manipulation from his trading intentions.   I am not an expert on the subject and only know as much as I do through personal research. Here is an interesting article about this kind of insider trading and manipulation:http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/the-fine-line-between-legal-and-illegal-insider-trading/?_r=0
"These people are pretty off. Insider trading cases, outside of a tender offer context, require some sort of a breach of duty. It's not simply ""non-public material information"". You have to trade securities in interstate, based on or while in possession of the material non-public information, and in doing so is a breach of duty owed to the company or to the information source.  Now simply saying ""personal info"" about an executive does not tell me much about its materiality. So assuming it passes the materiality test, and assuming you yourself aren't a corporate insider, then the only thing left to discuss is whether or not it is misappropriation. To be misappropriation you need to be breaching some duty owed to your information source. Now this isn't just principal-agent duty, this can extend to friends and family if there is a pattern of keeping confidences. So unless you're this guys brother or doctor there really isn't a strong claim against you." No, but insider information would have tipped them off on the timings of when to time some of their actions... possibly planning shorting it ahead, all kinds of who-diggery that those financial wizards can do to make shit tons of money off stocks / companies losing money. That would be the ultimate in insider trading. They made a stock transaction knowing in advance what was going to happen to the share price. They could easily expect to face jail time, plus the CEO would still face lawsuits from the board of directors, the stockholders and the employees. In fact, buybacks WERE often considered a vehicle for insider trading, especially prior to 1982.  For instance, Prior to the Reagan era, executives avoided buybacks due to fears that   they would be prosecuted for market manipulation. But under SEC Rule   10b-18, adopted in 1982, companies receive a “safe harbor” from market   manipulation liability on stock buybacks if they adhere to four   limitations: not engaging in buybacks at the beginning or end of the   trading day, using a single broker for the trades, purchasing shares   at the prevailing market price, and limiting the volume of buybacks to   25 percent of the average daily trading volume over the previous four   weeks. "Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes.  In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long.  If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a ""sell to close"" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state.  He was long while he held the contract, then he ""sold to close"". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker.  Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B.  Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price.  In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity." That's true. So instead, they brute force the exchange with buy orders before they know if there's even any demand for the equity. Most of these get cancelled.  If they see someone else placing a large buy order, they let theirs go through and do not cancel. They meet the ask and get the order because they don't care about getting the best deal.   The buy order the HFT sent through is for the entire book. The HFT can then demand the highest price possible. After that, they dump the unsought portion of the book back into the market.  Regulation have cracked down on this practice. However, that just means HFT have decided to build their own exchanges.  The HFT buy order was placed before they even knew there was anyone else looking for the same buy. It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock. Companies already have to protect themselves against employees trading the company's shares with insider information. They typically do that in a number of ways: Taken together, this tends to mostly mitigate the risk of employees trading with insider information, though it's probably not perfect. In practice, the company itself's knowledge of insider information is the same as that of its senior management. So it makes sense for a company to be allowed to trade under the same conditions as its senior management. From https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/03/14/questions-surrounding-share-repurchases/ : If the company is repurchasing outside of a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan,   it should limit its purchases to open window periods when officers and   directors are able to buy and sell securities of the company. In   addition, the company also can choose to disclose any material   non-public information prior to any share repurchase if it is in   possession of material non-public information at a time when it is   seeking to make a share repurchase outside of a Rule 10b5-1 trading   plan. As mentioned in the quote, a company can also set up a trading plan in advance (at a time when it doesn't have inside information) to be executed unconditionally in the future. Then even if the company comes into possession of inside information, it won't be using this knowledge to direct trades. Yes, you would have to report the gain. It is not relevant that you traded the stock previously, you still made a profit on the trade-at-hand. Imagine if for some reason this type of trade were exempt. Investors could follow the short term swings of volatile stocks completely tax-free. "An order is your command to the broker to, say, ""sell 100 shares of AAPL"". An executed order (or partially executed order) is when all (or some) of that command is successfully completed. A transaction is an actual exchange of shares for money, and there may be one or more transactions per executed order.  For example, the broker might perform all of the following 5 transactions in order to do what you asked: On the other hand, if the broker cannot execute your order, then 0 transactions have taken place. The fee schedule you quote is saying that no matter how many transactions the broker has to perform in order to fill your order -- and no matter what the share prices are -- they're only going to charge you $0.005 per share ($0.50 in this example of 100 shares), subject to certain limits. However, as it says at the top of the page you linked, Our Fixed pricing for stocks, ETFs (Exchange Traded Products, or ETPs) and warrants charges a fixed amount per share or a set percent of trade value, and includes all IB commissions, exchange and most regulatory fees with the exception of the transaction fees, which are passed through on all stock sales. certain transaction fees are passed through to the client.  The transaction fee you included above is the SEC fee on sales.  Many (but not all) transaction fees DO depend on the prices of the shares involved; as a result they cannot be called ""fixed"" fees. For example, if you sell 100 shares of AAPL at $150 each, But if you sell 100 shares of AMZN at $940 each, So the broker will charge you the same $0.50 on either of those orders, but the SEC will charge you more for the expensive AMZN shares than for the cheaper AAPL shares. The reason this specific SEC fee mentions aggregate sales rather than trade value is because this particular SEC fee applies only to the seller and not to the buyer.  So they could have written aggregate trade value, but they probably wanted to highlight to the reader that the fee is only charged on sells." In principle I agree with you. However the allegation is that the people managing the IPO withheld crucial information and informed insiders against investing. Maybe the allegations are false, but it should still be looked into. If the IPO shared crucial details with insider traders while keeping it from the public at large that would affect the investor's risk-assessment of a stock, that's insider trading and should be punished accordingly. How come when I sell stocks, the brokerage won't let me cash out for three days, telling me the SEC requires this clearance period for the transaction to clear, but they can swap shit around in under a second?   Be interesting to see what would happen if *every* transaction wasn't cleared until the closing bell. "A market sell order will be filled at the highest current ""bid"" price. For a reasonably liquid stock, there will be several buy orders in line, and the highest bid must be filled first, so there should a very short time between when you place the order and when it is filled.   What could happen is what's called front running. That's when the broker places their own order in front of yours to fulfill the current bid, selling their own stock at the slightly higher price, causing your sale to be filled at a lower price.  This is not only unethical but illegal as well. It is not something you should be concerned about with a large broker.   You should only place a market order when you don't care about minute differences between the current ask and your execution price, but want to guarantee order execution. If you absolutely have to sell at a minimum price, then a limit order is more appropriate, but you run the risk that your limit will not be reached and your order will not be filled. So the risk is a tradeoff between a guaranteed price and a guaranteed execution." Publicly traded companies perform dilution via an FPO (Follow-up Public Offer). It is a process similar to IPO, with announcements, prospectus, etc. You will know ahead of time when that happen. Stocks traded OTC are not required to file a lot of regulatory documents that publicly traded stocks are required to file, and may not disclose dilutions or additional issues. By buying OTC you agree to these terms. You will probably get a notice and a chance to vote on that in your proxy statement, but that happens when you already own the stock. I sold my Microsoft stock when they appointed him CEO (It was like $1000 worth.. nothing wild) because they hired an insider. I thought they needed an outsider.   It's up like 200% since he was hired... turns out he was an outsider all along..