This is what executives with stock based compensations can an usually do.
we only regulate the sell side (or buy side), but not the inaction side (where you hold your existing position). I have not thought of a good way to make the market aware of these choices, in a way that enables market efficiency.
You can then build a statistical arbitrage alpha based on the difference between an ordinary amount of selling (conditioned on a bunch of stuff) and a lack of selling/accelerated selling.
Now if you could see the buying and selling for the next level below them somehow, that would be a great advantage (and also very illegal).
You could probably estimate this if the company has a trading window for employees (which I think almost all of them do).
Sum up the exec sales, then use the previous accounting data to estimate shares held by employees, and then create an index based on what direction employee sales are trending.
Because RSU grants track level (sortof), then you might be able to get a good sense for this, even though there would be lots of noise.
Warning: not investment advice (though if you're taking investment advice from a random HNer then you're probably doomed anyway).
This has nothing to do with inside information or insider trading, it is just "if your company is bad, maybe you should go work for a better company".
Also it reeks of AI.
> and Nokia insiders knew that wasn't the case. But that's not concrete information.
This is concrete, if I'm in a leadership or shareholder meeting and I'm authoritatively saying "look, we're done here, everyone thinks we can respond but we can't because of X and Y" then those people now have insider knowledge with gravity.
Valuable inside information isn't a thing everyone at a company knows.
It was almost like Elop had the assignment to run Nokia into the ground, and I'm still wondering why no one of the shareholders cried wolf.
Insider trading has nothing to do with having an information advantage. The markets and their regulators encourage those with an information advantage to use it to as full advantage as they can.
Insider trading is based on having an economic obligation to someone else. If you use your knowledge to make money and you don’t share that equitably with the people you have that obligation to, that’s insider trading (in the US).
You’d have to torture that definition for it to make sense in the job market and none of the examples in the article match.
so if you simply tell the other shareholders to also participate in the insider trading, you'd be free of charges?
What if there's a secret communications channel for all current shareholders? Do these current shareholders offloading shares (to future shareholders) count as insider trading under this scenario?
But the obvious one is if you are an employee of a company you owe the shareholders of the company due to your employment.
As quoted online:
Lou Pai was a senior executive at Enron who, after having an affair with a stripper, to satisfy his divorce settlement, cashed out $250 million of his Enron stock just before the company's stock price collapsed and it filed for bankruptcy protection.
I don't know if he ever knew about the stuff that was going down at Enron, but that guy managed to leave the ship in a nice boat before it sank.
Maybe if it wasn't so damn shameless. This article did absolutely nothing to try and conceal the fact that it's pure AI slop.
The article is written like it assumes the Nokia HQ was next door to Apple/Google.
There is another type of insider trading: If an engineer had stayed at Nokia but bought a lot of shares in Apple after Apple launched the iPhone, would that still be considered insider trading when the engineer did not have any non-public information about Apple, only in which way the general market was moving?
A lot of people laughed at smart phones in 2007-2010, the market majority did not value them and did not predict Apple's stock would grow.
Why would that be considered insider trading
In any transaction if you know less than the other party, you're at a disadvantage. I was just thinking this morning I could've negotiated a much higher comp for my current job if I knew just some of things about the company I know now.
I was in an aisle seat on a plane and the person up one row on the other aisle was the CEO of a small public company typing or reading their upcoming quarterly report in Word on their laptop.
Efficient and tight markets are almost entirely predicated on being able to determine that any informational asymmetry is irrelevant over differing time horizons.
Amusing the press report the sales as if he's selling due to something that's happening to the company that week.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Mustaine
who left Metallica to found Megadeth.
Also
"Initial drummer Carruthers was replaced after Mustaine and Ellefson decided they could not trust him. Carruthers had chosen to hide his black heritage from them by claiming he was Spanish, and they could not understand why he would deceive them.Brett Frederickson joined the band in November 1983 as their next drummer."
That move probably hasn't aged well. Pretty nasty.
Edit: I can't recall which podcast I heard this, but ismtbhebthe guy that was sad that his band didn't sell as many records as Metallica?
Graph that congress long/short strategy against qqq and you’ll see why. The very rich in congress are tech investors by and large. They hold outsized bets in Nvidia mostly. You didn’t need any insider knowledge to make outsized returns if you are willing to have a risk on Nvidia position cherry picked from 2020 to today.
You may not be able to trade your company’s stock, or a competitor’s if you have knowledge that was under an employer agreement, but you can trade your sector and correlated assets
You can have an edge, it’s not a legal issue.
Access to internal data isn't a crystal ball