> This is a good opportunity to point out that insider trading is a victimless crime.
It is a "victimless crime" in the same sense as selling someone a house is, fully knowing that a pipe in the basement is going to burst 6-12 months later and not disclosing it to the buyer (which would've made the house value go down, if the buyer knew it).
That "someone who would have happily bought it at the same price or possibly a higher price" is someone who wouldn't have done it, knowing what the insider knows, they would've waited. And the same is true for "insider knowledge that is related to something good about the company that's going to happen soon and pump the share price", you wouldn't sell your shares for as cheap as they are if you knew what the insider knows.
> That "someone who would have happily bought it at the same price or possibly a higher price" is someone who wouldn't have done it, knowing what the insider knows, they would've waited.
If you are the prevented from selling a particular house without disclosing some fault in the house, the buyer is prevented from buying that particular house. On the other hand, if I am aware of some fault in Apple Inc. and am prohibited or prevented from selling my AAPL shares, the buyers whom I would have sold to will not only still buy AAPL shares from someone else, they will likely pay a higher price for them!
Again, if the law required corporations to publicly reveal, as soon as possible, any and all insider information that may potentially influence the company’s market valuation, that would be one thing. Instead, not only are they not required to do that, but the information is not even allowed to leak out onto the markets in the form of insider sales which would depress the stock price and tip off investors that, even if they don’t know exactly what it is, that something is wrong with the company.
The ridiculous thing is that selling an house without disclosing known effects is perfectly legal in England (caveat emptor) as long as you didn't lie if specifically asked. I.e. you do not have to volunteer the information.
It is a "victimless crime" in the same sense as selling someone a house is, fully knowing that a pipe in the basement is going to burst 6-12 months later and not disclosing it to the buyer (which would've made the house value go down, if the buyer knew it).
That "someone who would have happily bought it at the same price or possibly a higher price" is someone who wouldn't have done it, knowing what the insider knows, they would've waited. And the same is true for "insider knowledge that is related to something good about the company that's going to happen soon and pump the share price", you wouldn't sell your shares for as cheap as they are if you knew what the insider knows.