top | item 2408817

Warren Buffett No. 2′s “Inside Trade” Wasn’t Illegal

7 points| JacobIrwin | 15 years ago |finance.yahoo.com | reply

6 comments

order
[+] zzleeper|15 years ago|reply
I'm not so convinced:

1) "didn't hurt anyone": Sokol learned about Lubrizol while on his duties at Berkshire. After all, that's what Berkshire pays him for, to research interesting investment opportunities. By buying before Berkshire, he front-runned the firm using Berkshire's private information (aka, what he knew as #2 in the firm).

2) "trading laws should be abolished... insider trading helps.. individual investors" There are some academics that think so, but the academic consensus is in the other way. For instance, several studies have shown that on the days were insider trading is less likely to ocurr, bid-ask spreads are lower.

[+] Yzupnick|15 years ago|reply
Do you mind linking to these studies? I am genuinely interested in reading them.
[+] monochromatic|15 years ago|reply
Here's the key to this article:

> Tamny believes that insider trading laws should be abolished, on the grounds that they are vague and inconsistent. Tamny also believes that insider trading helps, rather than hurts, individual investors, because it results in information more quickly being factored into stock prices.

There's no argument here for why Sokol's actions don't constitute insider trading, and there's only a conclusory statement that they didn't harm anyone. I don't really see why it wouldn't be considered insider trading, and I think there's a good argument that he's breached his duty of loyalty to Berkshire.

[+] RuadhanMc|15 years ago|reply
Headline is somewhat misleading. This guy doesn't think that insider trading laws should exist ergo it wasn't illegal.