[tw04]

>Buying stocks based on non-public or not-yet-publicly-dissiminated knowledge is mostly perfectly legal. Only when such knowledge has been acquired by being an insider to the company, or through personal relations with insiders from that company, does one run into insider trading laws.

You're still literally describing fraud "in the general sense of the word" which is what this is all about. Again, the mental gyrations of trying to change the fundamental meaning of what you're doing "because finance" is silly and annoying.

The only justification anyone can rationally give for why insider trading exists as it does today, is because it's a loophole for lawmakers. It is nearly impossible for you as a private individual to have access to information that will significantly affect a company's stock price without either being an insider to that company, or a lawmaker that knows a law is going to go into effect that the public doesn't know about.

Either way, you making a deal on information that significantly affects the value of an asset without disclosing it to the buyer or seller is fraud, by definition. We aren't talking legally what is or isn't OK, we're talking about what fraud is.

[lsaferite]

Exactly what definition of fraud are you using?

"In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right."

Not sharing information is not deception.

FWIW, I'm in no way in the financial markets and have no personal stake in this conversation other that a dislike for incorrect assertions.

Your premise that it's fraud if I don't tell you every iota of information I have as it relates to some trade is, as a non-lawyer, very wrong. I'm unsure of what moral right you expect you have that would even make that assertion correct.