My Helium | Join | Log in Where Knowledge Rules

Politics, News & Issues:

US Law & Justice

Debate_icon

RSS RSS Feed

Get a Widget for this title

Are insider trading laws really needed?

Results so far:

Yes
71% 5 votes Total: 7 votes
No
29% 2 votes
Yes

In professional sports, teams are required to announce in advance of games the status of injured players. When Tom Brady went down with an early season injury in 2008, the New England Patriots became a decidedly weaker team. Betting on the team's performance changed direction. Insiders who knew the nature and severity of the injury before it became public could have made a fortune betting on outcomes and point spreads.

The same potential applies to business and markets. Mergers, government investigations, management changes, projections of earningsall of these changes can impact stock performance. Inside knowledge gives an investor tremendous advantages in stock trading. With the ability to liquidate holdings, deal in futures, and buy on margin, any advantage in timing over other investors can mean less risk and higher potential gains.

If stock trading were simply a game played in smoky back rooms, one might argue that the government should have no role. The player would assume his (or her) own risk. However, most working Americans have some exposure to the markets, through mutual funds, 401-k plans, college savings plans or other pooled arrangements.

While economists may speak of the importance of the government minimizing its interference in free markets, there are two functions the government must play. First, the government must guarantee the integrity of money. The government seeks to stabilize the value of currency against forces like inflation and counterfeiting. It is essential that values assumed under a contract signed today also apply when the contract is executed.

The second role of government is to assure the integrity of the transaction. Adherence to contract law by both parties in a transaction is critical. It is also critical that both parties have access to the same knowledge affecting the transaction whether they choose to do the research or to consider all the facts. If I know that the car I am selling was immersed for three days during a storm, it would be unethical for me to sell it to a buyer who did not have this information.

The most critical reason to enforce insider trading laws is to decrease deliberate manipulation of markets. In John Grisham's recent novel, The Appeal, the evil businessman's company was successfully sued, and it's market price was plummeting. Having inside knowledge (because of his own illegal activities) that the suit would be overturned, he bought large numbers of shares in the company. His goal was to make a fortune when the stock market value rebounded. All his gains would be at the expense of people who thought they were taking reasonable market risk.

Insider trading laws are at the very heart of the confidence that allows investing to make sense for every worker.

Learn more about this author, Loyd Rawls.
Contact this writer Click here to send this author comments or questions.

No

I believe insider trading laws are both hypocritical and unnecessary. In my opinion, these laws run counter to the notion we accept in every other aspect of society that life is unfair. In every facet of life, there are people who have access to advantages that others do not have. However, we don't attempt to make these advantages illegal except when it comes to insider trading.

I've often heard the argument that it is not so much about fairness as it is about trust of the system, i.e., that people will not invest their money knowing that others have advantages they don't have themselves. Baloney! The advantages people have in other things do not cause those without these advantages to not participate. I will cite several examples to show how the lack of similar laws in other aspects of life does not cause any real problems. They will also show how hypocritical it is to create special laws just for the world of investment and not apply the same logic anywhere else.

Let's look at fraternities, sororities, and other private clubs and organizations. It's completely legal to join them even though many of them are exclusive in nature and do not allow just anyone to join. Of course, this right is covered by the freedom of association guarantees in the U.S. Constitution. However, being a member often gains a person access to benefits that he or she wouldn't have by not being a member.

One of these benefits is access to desirable high-level positions within major corporations. Many of these positions are not available to non-members. That's not fair but I have yet to see a law against it. Despite that, people still apply for good jobs within corporations every day. They don't sit on the sidelines and not apply just because they believe the insiders are getting all the best positions.

What about inherited wealth? It's not fair for someone to take advantage of their inherited wealth when most people don't have this kind of access. However, it's perfectly legal. Many people with inherited wealth have a brand new car given to them as soon as they are old enough to drive. They have their college tuition paid for. They usually have a nice cushy job awaiting them when their college days are over, regardless of how well (or poorly) they performed academically. They don't even have to work at all if they don't want to.

How can this be fair when many other people have to work for everything they get? Until there are laws against it, everyone else will refuse to go to college, work, or pay for anything they get, right? Wrong! Most people realize that there are people with inherited wealth who don't have to work for anything. People accept that as a fact of life and go on with their lives. They go to college (for which they have to most of the tuition themselves), go to work, and pay their bills every day. Life goes on and no fairness laws are needed here.

What about people who are attractive and/or have charming personalities? Having these assets is just fine, but it's unfair for people to use them for personal gain when others like me, who are ugly and blunt, don't have this privilege. However, I've never heard of any attempt (in this country anyway) to make a law against using good looks and positive personality traits to one's advantage. People use these assets to help them land desirable jobs and work their way up the corporate ladder. They use these assets to help them win friends and get favors the rest of us can't get. They use these assets to attract higher quality mates than those of us who are lacking can attract.

How does this make the rest of us feel? It makes us feel so discouraged that we never apply for a job, attempt to make friends, or perform any normal daily activity, right? Of course not, that would be silly. We go on with our lives just like the folks with the good looks and charming personalities. We are not going to sit out on life, waiting for laws to be passed to restrain all the pretty and charming people from getting a better deal in life.

I could go on and on, of course, but it seems to me that if insider trading is illegal because of the unfairness aspect, we ought to outlaw all other forms of unfairness as well. Sure, insider trading is unfair and very unethical. However, I doubt that the lack of laws against it would cause the markets to collapse. Other areas of our daily lives have not collapsed under the weight of unfairness that legally occurs every day. Also, when we outlaw some forms of unfairness while ignoring or even encouraging other forms of it (some of which are just as unethical), isn't that in itself unfair?

Learn more about this author, Terry Mitchell.
Contact this writer Click here to send this author comments or questions.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

What is Helium? | Buy Web Content | Contact Us | Privacy | User agreement | DMCA | User Tools | Help | Community | Helium’s Official Blog | Link to Helium

Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA