8 ms·

So we'll probably manage (hide) our social networks well, and make some good offline-only friends. I do know SEC can put burden of proof to the person they susp

So we'll probably manage (hide) our social networks well, and make some good offline-only friends. I do know SEC can put burden of proof to the person they suspect, but that can be prepared beforehand.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> we'll probably manage (hide) our social networks well, and make some good offline-only friends Or don't insider trade. In the financial crime universe, insider trading is on the stupid end of the spectrum. It's tough to do right, hard to scale and easy to get caught.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  Or just get elected to Congress. Then it's open season.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    Despite widespread belief to the contrary, members of Congress are not allowed to trade on information for which they are bound by either a confidentiality agreement or a fiduciary duty. Information asymmetry does not constitute insider trading. Trading on information which you have that the broader public does not have is also not insider trading. Trading on exclusive information which you learned through professional exposure, and which does not come with confidentiality or fiduciary requirements, is not insider trading.
    - ModernMech 8y ago
      That's not really what congresspeople do. They have financial interests and then write and pass laws to make those interests more valuable. It's not insider trading, but its some next-level shit. And the best part is its out and in the open. We all see it happening right in front of us.
      - throwawaymath 8y ago
        What you're describing is not the grey area I'm talking about that people frequently confuse with illegal insider trading. I'm referring to the way that people believe Congress is explicitly allowed to get away with things ordinary people are not. Post-2012, they are not, but their work still exposes them to information they can legally use depending on the circumstances. That does not constitute insider trading, even for a relatively overzealous SEC.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > members of Congress are not allowed to trade on information for which they are bound by either a confidentiality agreement or a fiduciary duty Prior to 2012, Congress was actually explicitly permitted to insider trade. That was fixed by the STOCK Act [1]. It doesn't make it easy to pull up records, but it does close the loophole. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/17749...
      - throwawaymath 8y ago
        Yes, but I'm talking about the myth that gets perpetuated post-2012.
dsnuh 8y ago
Yeah, try that and see how it goes. :) Courts aren't stupid, and can generally see through collusion attempts, and would probably have a fairly easy time showing culpable intent if you try to trade through friends and/or family members.
kevinmchugh 8y ago
Sure, but how do they get that money back to you? How do you spend it? Theft is a lot simpler if you don't spend your ill-gotten gains.
ethbro 8y ago
E.g. Sergei Roldugin (although in a country without functioning anti-corruption institutions)

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> we'll probably manage (hide) our social networks well, and make some good offline-only friends Or don't insider trade. In the financial crime universe, insider trading is on the stupid end of the spectrum. It's tough to do right, hard to scale and easy to get caught.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
Or just get elected to Congress. Then it's open season.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  Despite widespread belief to the contrary, members of Congress are not allowed to trade on information for which they are bound by either a confidentiality agreement or a fiduciary duty. Information asymmetry does not constitute insider trading. Trading on information which you have that the broader public does not have is also not insider trading. Trading on exclusive information which you learned through professional exposure, and which does not come with confidentiality or fiduciary requirements, is not insider trading.
  - ModernMech 8y ago
    That's not really what congresspeople do. They have financial interests and then write and pass laws to make those interests more valuable. It's not insider trading, but its some next-level shit. And the best part is its out and in the open. We all see it happening right in front of us.
    - throwawaymath 8y ago
      What you're describing is not the grey area I'm talking about that people frequently confuse with illegal insider trading. I'm referring to the way that people believe Congress is explicitly allowed to get away with things ordinary people are not. Post-2012, they are not, but their work still exposes them to information they can legally use depending on the circumstances. That does not constitute insider trading, even for a relatively overzealous SEC.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > members of Congress are not allowed to trade on information for which they are bound by either a confidentiality agreement or a fiduciary duty Prior to 2012, Congress was actually explicitly permitted to insider trade. That was fixed by the STOCK Act [1]. It doesn't make it easy to pull up records, but it does close the loophole. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/17749...
    - throwawaymath 8y ago
      Yes, but I'm talking about the myth that gets perpetuated post-2012.

dsnuh 8y ago

Yeah, try that and see how it goes. :) Courts aren't stupid, and can generally see through collusion attempts, and would probably have a fairly easy time showing culpable intent if you try to trade through friends and/or family members.

kevinmchugh 8y ago

Sure, but how do they get that money back to you? How do you spend it? Theft is a lot simpler if you don't spend your ill-gotten gains.

ethbro 8y ago

E.g. Sergei Roldugin (although in a country without functioning anti-corruption institutions)