[londons_explore]

> It is the worst failure in the 15-year history of the OBR

I'm not sure publishing some information 3 hours early was really their biggest failure in 15 years...

Especially when much of the info was already public because hundreds of civil servants involved in making these decisions told their family members who told the press...

[afavour]

It's still a failure in principle. The effects of this particular instance of the failure were minimal but it was still an accidental leak of (at the time) private information. They just got lucky.

[blibble]

> The effects of this particular instance of the failure were minimal

the effects are not minimal

if you're crooked: getting this sort of information early is potentially extremely lucrative

(why crooked? because trading on UPSI is illegal)

[mytailorisrich]

Surely it was no longer UPSI (Unpublished Price Sensitive Information) after the OBR published it?

[blibble]

I wouldn't be betting my freedom on the regulator agreeing with that logic

the regulations specifically go into great detail about official publications and formal circulation

would a reasonable person consider this a leak? then it's UPSI

[mytailorisrich]

The OBR admits that they published it too early.

I am not an expert but I think that even trading on a leak is not unlawful as long as that leaked information was indeed made public (e.g. someone leaks to the media and the media then publish it), although it may have been unlawful to leak the information. The point is that insider trading is not allowed. It is no insider trading if the information is available to everyone.

[blibble]

> I am not an expert

I have had regulatory training on this exact matter, and it covers unintended leaks explicitly

and there is no way I would trade

> The point is that insider trading is not allowed. It is no insider trading if the information is available to everyone.

no, it isn't the point

the regulator cares that participants are seen to be clean, practicing "fit and proper" behaviour

if a reasonable person would think it was dodgy, they'll have your head (and your certification to practice)

regardless of whether or not it was illegal

[kstrauser]

I agree. They didn’t intend to publish it, but they did publish it. They might not have advertised its presence yet, but it was freely available to anyone who asked.

[almostkindatech]

If by 'much of the info' you mean policy changes, those are deliberately leaked by the politicians, not civil servants or their family members. They do this to test reactions and frame the debate.