Compliance Week Podcasts …

This week’s podcast features Russ Berland of the law firm Stinson Morrison & Hecker talking about how to use new guidance from the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development as a blueprint for better FCPA compliance programs. Hear the podcast now.

… and Compliance Week on Twitter!

You can also follow Compliance Week Editor Matt Kelly on Twitter, for the latest regulatory observations and updates. More than 2,100 followers and ranked the most influential Twitter feed on compliance!

Compliance Week LinkedIn Group

Visit the Compliance Week has a companion group on LinkedIn, where members can network and discuss the compliance and governance news of the day among themselves. Open to all, free to join.

Webcast of the Week

Risk Oversight and the New SEC Rule
Sponsored by OpenPages

Help Wanted: Ad of the Week

Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer
Submitted by Morgan Samuels

Event of the Week

Taking the 2, 3-4 or 5-Year NOL
Sponsored by BNA

Thought Leadership of the Week

Global survey into the integration of GRC
Courtesy of KPMG

The Resource Exchange

Sample Risk Acceptance Request
Submitted by Circuit City

Risk Inventory
Submitted by Cognizant Technology

Featured Databases

CEO, CFO Disclosure Certifications
CEO, CFO Certifications From 3,000 Cos.

Management Discussion & Analysis
Compare How Peers Disclose Risk

GRC Illustrated Series

The IFRS Ripple Effect
The 23rd Installment in This Exclusive Series

Compensation Survey

Compliance, Audit & Risk Compensation Survey
Empsight’s 2010 Compensation Survey is now open for participation. It is the leading source of its kind and reports on Fortune 500 and other large multinationals.

Global Integrity Survey

2009 Global Integrity Survey
Download the findings of the 2009 Global Integrity Survey, compiled by Compliance Week and sponsored by Integrity Interactive.

Enforcement Action

RSS
“Enforcement Action” is written by Bruce Carton, a former senior counsel in the SEC's Division of Enforcement. A “blawg pioneer” (according to The Wall Street Journal), Carton was the creator of Securities Litigation Watch, a blog that he wrote for more than three years while he was vice president of ISS' Securities Class Action Services. He is now editor of Securities Docket, an online publication that tracks securities litigation and enforcement developments on a global basis. Carton welcomes questions, comments and statements from readers on enforcement and litigation issues; he can be reached via email at BCarton@complianceweek.com.

 

November 20, 2008

Legal Insider Trading?

The insider trading laws are made up of a patchwork of judicial opinions that attempt to stretch a very vague statute (Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act) to reach most every type of trading on inside information. As a result, almost without exception, there are really no “repeatable” ways to legally trade and profit off of inside information.

However, every once in a while a scenario or idea arises that would seem to allow for what one might call “legal insider trading” on an ongoing basis.  I’ve seen this twice in the past few years. The first instance of this was brought to us (coincidentally, given his recent re-emergence in the world of SEC enforcement) by Mark Cuban, who in 2006 created a publication called Sharesleuth.com. Cuban hired a business reporter to run the publication, conduct investigations to “identify suspect companies,” and then publish reports showing all of the damning evidence. Most notably, Sharesleuth told the world right up front that Cuban was going to make personal investments based upon the information discovered, and do so prior to the publication of this information on the website.

As I wrote back in 2006,

In short, the business model for Sharesleuth.com is that Cuban takes short positions in advance of the publication of the stories published on Sharesleuth.com with the hope and expectation that the negative stories will be read by other investors. These investors will then presumably sell the stock, drive down the stock price and enrich Cuban. And repeat.

For reasons only a securities professor could love, most people agreed that Sharesleuth’s plan did not violate the law, making it, to my knowledge, the first “replicable-on-demand” business model that avoided the insider trading laws while permitting an investor to trade on nonpublic information. Sharesleuth still exists, but seems to have lost steam with just a few posts in that past year or so.

So Sharesleuth had the distinction of being the only “legal insider trading” business model I was aware of until this week, when I read a story on Dominic Jones’ IR Web Report (click here) about the uneven distribution of PR wire service information. As discussed here previously, Jones states that leading PR wire services used for corporate disclosure do not deliver information simultaneously to all investors, and that “some investors, mostly professionals with access to expensive subscription services, are trading in extended hours on information they receive from companies up to several minutes ahead of most other investors who rely on public sources of information, such as company websites or popular investment websites like Yahoo! Finance.”

The effect of this, according to Jones, is that a small group of investors who have direct access to newsfeeds (via Business Wire’s proprietary NX system or a wholesaler) receive earnings and other information ahead of most others and can profit almost at will by trading minutes before the masses.

Jones offers the example of Google Inc.’s Q3 earnings announcement which was issued by the company at at 4:01pm ET on October 16. Jones writes that some traders received Google’s news release almost two minutes before the release was posted to Yahoo! Finance at 4:03pm, by which time Google’s stock was already trading up almost 9% in the after-market.

Even more so than with Sharesleuth, it is difficult to argue that people trading based on PR wire service information they legally receive (albeit before the rest of the public) have violated the insider insider trading laws. Jones says that until the quirks in the PR wire services are eliminated, the SEC should simply instruct NIRI, the National Investor Relations Institute, to have its member corporations post corporate disclosures on their websites simultaneously with the release on the PR wire services. Until this situation is rectified one way or the other, however, those with the access described above would seem to have an opportunity to do some serious “legal insider trading” of their own.

I am trying to get the SEC’s view on this practice, so stay tuned.

Posted by: bcarton @ 7:34 am

Filed under: Global, Industry Tags:

2 »

  1. Although IR Web Report rightly raises questions as to the fairness of the practice and its compliance with Reg. FD, it presents an opportunity for insider trading only if there are few enough market participants with early access that there is not an efficient market, which likely is not the case.

    Comment by John Baker — November 20, 2008 @ 12:29 pm

  2. “only if there are few enough market participants with early access that there is not an efficient market” - so the [Business] wires’ direct partners (just a handful of people) can get the news the fastest, the next tier down can get the news pretty fast (top 10%?), and the average joe can read it on yahoo a few-to-many minutes later (the majority). The issuer blindly depends on the wire service to take care of their compliance concerns but the premium wire service doesn’t deliver to the majority of end consumers so fails in that promise.

    Comment by Chris Vickerson — November 21, 2008 @ 3:25 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment