Everything Bad Is Insider Trading

I was away last week and came back to find Libor scandals, soaring Spanish yields, Italo-Spanish bans on short selling, and also Yahoo!? is still terrible, and it’s like I never left. One thing that happened last week that’s a little new is an SEC insider trading lawsuit against Manouch Moshayedi, the CEO of a company called STEC that makes electronic doodads of some sort. Here is how the SEC explains the problem:

Washington, D.C., July 19, 2012 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged the chairman and CEO of a Santa Ana, Calif.-based computer storage device company with insider trading in a secondary offering of his stock shares with knowledge of confidential information that a major customer’s demand for one of its most profitable products was turning out to be less than expected.

“Insider trading in a secondary offering of his stock shares” sounded to me like he was doing nefarious secret trading around the secondary offering – maybe telling a friend to short before the offering was announced? – so I clicked through to the complaint. But, nope, the insider trading was just that he announced he was selling shares, and then sold them. You knew he was selling shares because he did a public offering, diligenced and underwritten by JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank, with a prospectus saying he was selling 9mm shares. (Actually he and his brother and COO were selling that much, combined.) And because when you know you are buying from the CEO of a company, you tend to want some sort of discount to last sale – because he probably knows some stuff you don’t about the company’s prospects – those shares went at a 9.2% discount to the previous close.

The problem is that he did in fact know something you didn’t, and didn’t tell you, and it seems to have been worth more than 9.2%. Apparently shortly before the deal he gave EMC, a big customer of STEC, undisclosed discounts to make it move up its orders of STEC products so he could affirm next-quarter guidance. Also it seems EMC told him there would be no orders after that, and he neglected to mention that in his guidance (because the guidance didn’t extend past that). So the guidance that he gave in the earnings statement kicking off the offering was … as far as I can tell accurate, but still Bad, because of the thing where you’re not supposed to “omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.” I’m a little unimpressed by the fraudiness here, but the stock did go down a lot later after EMC’s nonrenewal came out, so, yeah, call it fraudy.

But why call it “insider trading”? Insider trading, classically, is what Raj Rajaratnam did: trading in anonymous markets on inside information obtained in some secretive way, with counterparties who could not have known that you had the inside information. That’s why it’s profitable: you buy from people who think that you’re evaluating the same information that they have, but you actually have better information. (That’s also why prosecutors don’t like it: there’s the illusion of a level playing field, without the reality.) “Insider trading” is not, typically, used to refer to cases like this where you have disclosed that you are an insider, have sold only to people who knew you were an insider, have put out a prospectus claiming to contain everything material that you know, and then there’s a dispute over whether that disclosure actually contained everything material.* Nobody could be surprised to learn that the CEO knew more about the company than they did – that’s why they charged a 9.2% discount – they’re just surprised that he knew so much more than they did, and that what he knew turned out to be so unpleasant. If this is insider trading, then every time a company sells securities with incomplete disclosure, that’s insider trading – as opposed to what I thought it was, which is like “regular old securities fraud.”

This is just boring nomenclature, yes, but I read it in conjunction with the insistence by the SEC and prosecutors that insider trading prosecutions restore confidence in the market. This insistence seems rather quaint. Raj Rajaratnam made a few bucks here and there trading on Goldman earnings information he wasn’t supposed to have but, y’know, Liborgate! Quinquajillions of dollars of derivatives etc. etc. and not an insider trade in sight – and regulators knew about it since 2007 and were cool with it until recently. Which thing should make you more worried about the integrity etc. of markets: that sometimes hedge fund managers learn of deals a few hours before they are publicly announced and make profits of up to tens of millions of dollars on that knowledge, or that eight hundred trillion dollars of loans and derivatives have an interest rate that a handful of banks (1) make up every day and (2) make up every day with evil in their hearts and their derivatives profitability in their minds? The priorities of a regulatory system in which prosecutors worked for months to set up wiretaps on a few equity insider traders, while nobody blinked at the emails that a Libor panel bank sent to regulators and all of its clients every day saying that Libor was manipulated, seem … odd?

They look better, though, if you classify any failure of disclosure – any sort of deception or information asymmetry in financial transactions – into “insider trading.” (Which, I mean, it’s not not that: you have material nonpublic information and you trade without disclosing it, boom, insider trading, it’s not wrong, it’s just not the customary use of the term.) Thus for instance Liborgate: banks entered into swaps contracts where they knew, and their counterparties (uniquely!) did not, that they were manipulating Libor: insider trading! (Also these things? Sure!) Mortgage-related synthetic CDOs in which banks sold deals without fully disclosing who was picking the reference portfolios: insider trading! Lehman Brothers: insider trading! (They were selling bonds etc. etc. you know the deal.) Mortgage fraud: insider trading! Anything bad: insider trading!

And why not? If you lack confidence in the financial system, which seems sensible enough, it’s probably because someone isn’t telling you something about whatever bit of that system they’re peddling to you. If every time someone fails to tell you something about what they’re peddling, you call it “insider trading,” then insider trading is in fact the main problem with financial markets, and the regulators are doing a good job by focusing on it. Sure, maybe they don’t always go after the most important specific types of insider trading, but close enough, right?

SEC Charges CEO With Insider Trading in Secondary Offering of Company Stock [SEC]
SEC charges STEC chief with insider trading [Reuters]

* There are partial exceptions – Jeff Skilling was convicted of insider trading for directly selling stock while Enron’s public accounts were maybe not so true – but those were 144 transactions in anonymous public markets, not marketed offerings with a prospectus where buyers knew that they were buying from the CEO.

(hidden for your protection)
Show all comments

39 Responses to “Everything Bad Is Insider Trading”

  1. O. Testament Quant says:

    The phrase "The prodigal son returns" has never been more appropriate.

  2. UBS MD says:

    In those terms, insider trading could never happen here. We are constatly being surprised by totally unforseen losses.

  3. Raj says:

    Need a new trial. This time with Matt on the jury.

  4. Guest says:

    A week off and only one footnote??

    – reader with high expectations

  5. gusty says:

    the SEC analyst couldn't find "fraudy" in the drop down list of charges to file.

  6. Guest says:

    Was really hoping for some stock price graphs.

  7. FKApmco says:

    Dear Matt: do I pronounce quinquajillions with a kwah or kah for the qua in the middle?

  8. serious says:

    Way to ease back in with a 1200 word post. Expecting you back at 2500+ by Wednesday.

  9. Jay says:

    Matt, not having read past the first five words, I only have one question: where did you go for vacay?

  10. Colin Drowica says:

    More graphs or I'll kick your ass.

  11. guest says:

    A classic case of mis-information is lying/omitting material facts.

    "Strategic" seeding of assymetry is unethical (and illegal) for obvious reasons.

    –Former CEO, Yahoo

  12. no_especifica says:


    Whatever you do, don't hire Louis Freeh.

    – Penn State Trustee

  13. Manouch says:

    I get no respect. The way my luck is running, if I was a politician I would be honest.

  14. Guest says:

    Chris Kattan really let himself go…

  15. REIT Analyst says:

    " If you lack confidence in the financial system, which seems sensible enough, it’s probably because someone isn’t telling you something about whatever bit of that system they’re peddling to you"

    What if you lack confidence in the financial system because you work in fiance?

  16. You know who says:

    Because we are too damn lazy, and have too many assholes to go after. Thanks, you know who

  17. qpgnxwuss says:

    sA3ZMA pepooohcaaja, [url=]drgzerpuvkgc[/url], [link=]ojuoynpvffux[/link],

  18. I get pleasure from, lead to I discovered just what I was taking a look for. You’ve ended my 4 day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye

  19. Xrumer says:

    Normally I don’t read post on blogs, however I wish to say that this write-up very pressured me to check out and do it! Your writing taste has been amazed me. Thank you, very great post.

  20. I have been absent for some time, but now I remember why I used to love this blog. Thank you, Iˇll try and check back more often. How frequently you update your web site?

  21. imhmhcgvim says:

    CDJcZk jliyygavprkk, [url=]aalerpaoihgu[/url], [link=]xhbnaehwvrsj[/link],

  22. Mimi says:

    I think the first rule in making a puaricaltr transaction being strategy.I think our emotions and our logic is impossible without a strategy to stand in the face of At the very least the case for me.Everyone must create its own strategy, or the rules .buyserver. net/the-best-forex-trading-software.htmlWhat are your puaricaltr offer while intra-day trading strategies?

  23. diepwntqgu says:

    jt7L3W , [url=]slvyzvjgfzuw[/url], [link=]yerisdhrmxxn[/link],

  24. fyzkfl says:

    Ea17Cy , [url=]pdvgmeximalm[/url], [link=]vquwnihigvxw[/link],

  25. wow gold says:

    I cling on to listening to the rumor speak about getting boundless online grant applications so I have been looking around for the top site to get one. Could you advise me please, where could i acquire some?

  26. Great delivery. Great arguments. Keep up the good spirit.

  27. When I first saw this title 302 Found on google I just whent and bookmark it.Can I just say what a aid to seek out somebody who truly knows what theyre talking about on the internet. You undoubtedly know find out how to carry a difficulty to gentle and make it important. More individuals must read this and perceive this facet of the story. I cant imagine youre not more well-liked since you definitely have the gift.

  28. A person essentially lend a hand to make significantly articles I’d state. That is the very first time I frequented your website page and up to now? I amazed with the research you made to create this particular post extraordinary. Wonderful task!

  29. whitehat says:

    For a copy of the latest shareholder Complaint filed October 25, 2012, Sokolowski v. Moshayedi, et al, CV 12-1862, contact Richard D. Greenfield, Esq.

    This Complaint alleges claims not only against Manouchehr Moshayedi but against two of his brothers and their family Trusts who collectively sold over $350 million in STEC shares at "opportune" times.