Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Why is Insider Trading Illegal?
The meme of the day, as admirably summed up by Paul Murphy, is the question of why exactly insider trading is illegal, and whether it should be. I seem to recall a trenchant column by Holman Jenkins in the WSJ around the time of the Martha Stewart case arguing that it shouldn't be, but I can't find it right now, partly because the WSJ keeps on telling me that "search is momentarily unavailable".
One thing which gets missed in much of the debate is the difference between a civil and a criminal offense. Some companies, and their shareholders, might conceivably want their employees to be able to trade on insider information, goes the argument - and if that's the case, then who are the authorities to come swooping in and telling them that they can't? Similarly, if a company doesn't want its employees behaving in such a manner, it can contractually oblige them not to, and sue them if they do.
But if we were to move in that direction, no one would ever go to jail for insider trading, and the downside would be limited even when such activity were explicitly and contractually banned. Plus, private companies generally don't have the resources to uncover insider trading, while regulators do.
I do think it's important for insider traders to go to jail, if the practice is to be discouraged. Should the practice be discouraged? I think so, yes. One of the engines of stock-market liquidity is the pretense that everybody is on a level playing field. Generally speaking, nations of shareholders have reasonably vibrant economies compared to nations of bondholders. If you want a nation of shareholders, you need to give individuals some faith that they won't get picked off like so many fish at a poker table. And one way to do that is by making insider dealing illegal.
I do appreciate this is a relatively weak argument, and if insider trading wasn't illegal I'm not sure I'd be agitating for it to be added to the statute books. What's more, the Brazilian stock market seems to be doing just fine without any level-playing-field fiction. But it would be nice if there were some compelling economic reason to make insider trading illegal; without it, one feels that the law is overreaching just a little.






