Commentary: Closing loopholes on insider trading
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.When is insider trading an offence? At the moment, only in cases where somebody trades in a corporate security using inside knowledge of the company concerned. That makes much of the talk last week about insider trading in the gilts, sterling futures and foreign exchange markets irrelevant. There would probably have been regulatory breaches if investors traded on the basis of prior information about the Government's foreign borrowing plans, but it would not have been an insider dealing offence.
However, as a result of a European directive there will soon be new legislation to widen the definition of the offence of insider trading. It will come from the Treasury, which has taken over political responsibility.
The treatment of government economic information will be covered in the new legislation. But, according to City experts, it will be extremely unlikely that the government will be able to devise a formula to make trading on the basis of leaks of economic news unlawful.
The problem is the difficulty of establishing a link between the information and the price movement. But the Treasury should have a go, and at least try to widen the offence to other securities: somebody who buys gilts on the basis of a leak really should be culpable.
One change that is on the cards is to widen the definition of corporate security. It is not now illegal to buy shares in a company on the basis of a leak of the plans of - for example - one of its fierce rivals. The information nevertheless affects both companies' shares. That loophole will go.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments