Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

IN MOST JURISDICTIONS, insider trading can be legal, or illegal. Legal insider trading occurs when corporate insiders buy and sell stock in their own companies. When corporate insiders trade in their own securities, they must report their trades to the securities regulator. Illegal insider trading, a type of white-collar or corporate crime, refers to situations where a person deals on the basis of price-sensitive information which is not in the public domain. And at the time of the dealing, the information is likely materially to affect the price of the securities being traded. Two main types of illegal insider trading exist: the use of insider information by an insider for self enrichment, and the leaking of information by an insider to a third person (tipping), causing the third person to engage in illegal trade practices.

Illegal insider trading exists worldwide and affects all financial markets. It is one of the major challenges of our time. Millions of dollars have been involved in big insider-trading cases. Although the phenomenon of insider trading is not new and arguments against it existed in the early years of the past century, it did not become a major interest of the media and the public until recently. Since the 1980s, insider trading has increasingly become a hot topic. Some scholars refer to it as “the representative white-collar crime of the 1980s.” The increasing media reports of business morality cases in securities markets makes the topic of insider trading even more popular among the public.

Anti-Regulation

It is certainly not universally agreed that insider trading should be prohibited. Some economically oriented scholars argue that regulating insider trading is wrong. They assert that insider trading is a constructive form of compensation for entrepreneurs or managers and thus makes the market more efficient. They argue that insider trading is a sort of compensation scheme for entrepreneurs who produce information, and believe that long-term investors will not be hurt by the practice.

The entrepreneur is vital to the development of the corporation and must be encouraged to continue to produce information. Otherwise, the entrepreneur will “disappear from the corporate scene.” The supporters of insider trading also argue that insider trading enables quicker dissemination of good or bad news and incorporates information into the share price more quickly, thus allowing all investors to react more quickly. If insider trading was legal, this group argues, insiders would bid the prices of stocks up or down in advance of the information being released. The result is that the price would more fully reflect all information, both public and confidential, about a company at any given time. Even if insider trading sometimes creates more harm than good, rules against it could be contractual rather than mandated by government, because insider trading is a kind of “private ordering” or employment contract between the corporation and its shareholders. Advocates say the government should not intervene in the private contract by regulating insider trading practices.

Pro-Regulation

Regulation proponents have formulated the best reply to these arguments. They argue that remuneration of entrepreneurs is a matter of contract between them and the corporation. Explicit executive compensation schemes are fully capable of compensating valuable hard-working managers. An insider who makes no contribution to the issuer may also profit from insider knowledge of adverse events within the corporation. There is little need to use insider trading as a compensation device to induce the managers to work hard.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading