> If you're an individual, and you plan on buying a company, you can accumulate stock in it first without doing insider trading. That's what I mean when I say you can do that as an individual, too.
Yes, but that's because it's your information that you're buying said company.
However, there are other rules that apply to corporate take-overs. In the US, you have to disclose when you reach a certain ownership level. (And no, you can't avoid that by colluding with other people.)
> This may be accurate. I was under the impression that insider trading referred to possessing and using information that would have a material effect on the stock price.
That's why I posted the definition and link.
> i.e. nobody's "duty of trust" is breached if a cab driver overhears his rider talking about a big deal, but I'd assume that the cab driver could get in trouble for acting on the information.
Actually, the person who was overheard violated the breach of trust.
> If it's really about trading based on information obtained through a breach of trust, you end up in an odd situation: either any breach makes all trades insider trades (i.e. executive tells information to his secretary, who leaks it to a journalist)
Huh? There's at least one obvious breach of trust in that chain.
Yes, any breach makes the resulting trades insider trades. No, that doesn't imply that all trades involve such breaches.
Yes, but that's because it's your information that you're buying said company.
However, there are other rules that apply to corporate take-overs. In the US, you have to disclose when you reach a certain ownership level. (And no, you can't avoid that by colluding with other people.)
> This may be accurate. I was under the impression that insider trading referred to possessing and using information that would have a material effect on the stock price.
That's why I posted the definition and link.
> i.e. nobody's "duty of trust" is breached if a cab driver overhears his rider talking about a big deal, but I'd assume that the cab driver could get in trouble for acting on the information.
Actually, the person who was overheard violated the breach of trust.
> If it's really about trading based on information obtained through a breach of trust, you end up in an odd situation: either any breach makes all trades insider trades (i.e. executive tells information to his secretary, who leaks it to a journalist)
Huh? There's at least one obvious breach of trust in that chain.
Yes, any breach makes the resulting trades insider trades. No, that doesn't imply that all trades involve such breaches.