Comments on: When is a scoop non-public information? http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/25/when-is-a-scoop-non-public-information/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: zovi coupons http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/25/when-is-a-scoop-non-public-information/comment-page-1/#comment-55999 Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:25:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13489#comment-55999 This really is especially applicable place as heightened contained in the article. Treasure talking about approximately.

]]>
By: best essay writer http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/25/when-is-a-scoop-non-public-information/comment-page-1/#comment-54833 Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:36:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13489#comment-54833 stylish, easy and restrained

]]>
By: donna cerca uomo Milano http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/25/when-is-a-scoop-non-public-information/comment-page-1/#comment-54735 Sun, 12 Oct 2014 21:13:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13489#comment-54735 Do check my web site as well. It is the best advice available on the unannounced Marq by Assetz group in Bangalore. You can visit with my site to also learn about any of the newest endeavors in Bangalore.

]]>
By: https://eyeweardock.com/shop/brand/andrew-actman/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/25/when-is-a-scoop-non-public-information/comment-page-1/#comment-53134 Sun, 28 Sep 2014 15:28:19 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13489#comment-53134 Great paintings! That is the type of info that are meant to be shared around the net. Disgrace on Google for not positioning this publish upper! Come on over and consult with my web site . Thank you =)

]]>
By: e-cigarette http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/25/when-is-a-scoop-non-public-information/comment-page-1/#comment-52892 Sat, 27 Sep 2014 16:19:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13489#comment-52892 Kimree is a world-leading e-cigarette company. According to Frost & Sullivan, Kimree was the second largest e-cigarette designer and manufacturer in the world in terms of both revenues and production volume in 2013. The Company designs and produces a broad range of e-cigarette products, including disposable e-cigarettes, rechargeable e-cigarettes and e-cigarette accessories. Visit http://www.kimree.com/ for more.

]]>
By: fifa 15 coins http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/25/when-is-a-scoop-non-public-information/comment-page-1/#comment-52470 Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:20:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13489#comment-52470 Simply want to say your article is as astonishing. The clarity in your post is simply cool and i can assume you’re an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission let me to grab your feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the gratifying work.

]]>
By: dsquared http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/25/when-is-a-scoop-non-public-information/comment-page-1/#comment-38474 Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:50:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13489#comment-38474 “The reason that brokers cannot front run their clients is it breaches their fiduciary duties to their clients. It was illegal by common law long before it became prohibited by regulation.”

Not true. Front running of client orders has always been illegal as a breach of fiduciary duty. Front running of research notes (or non-simultaneous distribution) wasn’t even illegal until the 2000 Global Research Settlement.

“And, no one bans trading simply on the basis of its being based on NMPI.”

Yes they do. David Einhorn, for example, recently fell badly foul of the assumption that everywhere is like the USA. An analyst’s opinions (as long as they are only based on public information) can never be MNPI, because they are analysis, not information. But a newspaper’s intention to publish a story certainly looks to me like it is information, not analysis.

” Is it illegal for the NYT to put a paywall on its website because web subscribers would then receive potentially market-moving news before print subscribers?”

No; this is obvious from the existence of subscription news services like Reuters and Bloomberg. The test is simply one of whether the practice is likely to damage confidence in the market.

]]>
By: JLRII http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/25/when-is-a-scoop-non-public-information/comment-page-1/#comment-38457 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:30:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13489#comment-38457 I understand dsquared’s position. The practice does seem unseemly. It is like a broker front running his client’s trades. Unfortunately, the illegality of that practice also derives from fiduciary duty concepts.
A prohibition on buying or selling capital stock is a profound matter. If it is too broad, it restricts capital flows. If it is too narrow, it invites deceipt. The balance is struck by drawing the line at preventing deceipt. That line is breach of duties. It may not be perfectly fair, but it is reasonable.
The point about front running is interesting. But, it reinforces the point. The reason that brokers cannot front run their clients is it breaches their fiduciary duties to their clients. It was illegal by common law long before it became prohibited by regulation.
Finally, I disagree with the proposition that this is a quirk in US law. For most of my life, insider trading was legal in Europe. And, no one bans trading simply on the basis of its being based on NMPI. If an investor pays an expert analyst to study a company his findings belong to the investor. The analyst’s insights are not public information. And, if he did the job right–they are material. This is the basis of every merger or acquisition I have worked on (several across boarders). If the target company is public, the investor only has to disclose his intentions after acquiring a certain percentage of the stock. He does not have to disclose his analysts reasons for wanting to acquire control, just his intent. And, if he does acquire control in the US, he has a fiduciary duty to the minority shareholders.
And once again we rely upon duties to police the transactions.

]]>
By: niveditas http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/25/when-is-a-scoop-non-public-information/comment-page-1/#comment-38454 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:39:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13489#comment-38454 And surely you aren’t suggesting the NYT has violated the law, or its readers would violate the law if they traded on the basis of this story when they saw it in their morning paper, anywhere in the world? If that’s not a violation of the law, why is publishing that on a subscription-only web service a couple of hours earlier than the print edition a violation of the law?

]]>
By: niveditas http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/04/25/when-is-a-scoop-non-public-information/comment-page-1/#comment-38453 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:35:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=13489#comment-38453 MrRFox/dsquared, the legal or ethical issue surely cannot be as simple as what you make it out to be. If it were, where does it stop? Is it illegal for the NYT to put a paywall on its website because web subscribers would then receive potentially market-moving news before print subscribers? Heck, even for the print version, does the NYT have a duty to ensure that globally, its print edition goes on public sale at exactly the same instant?

]]>