Counterfeit Information

TIVOLI, New York – It’s hot here in the Hudson River valley. People are taking it easy, sitting on benches in the shade. We had to put in a window air-conditioner to take some of the heat out. Still, we sweat… and we wait for the cool of the evening.

The markets are lackluster too. A little up. A little down. Languid. Summertime slow. We have been focusing on technology – sometimes directly, often obliquely. It is the subject of our next monthly issue of The Bill Bonner Letter, requiring us to do some homework with the help of our resident tech expert, Jeff Brown.


542153-man-1367259821-837-640x480ABC News Photo Illustration


But today, let’s look at how the stock market reacts to new technology. Investors are supposed to look ahead. They are expected to dope out the future earnings of technology stocks and figure out their present value. Not that they know immediately and to the penny what Twitter or Tesla should be worth. But markets are always discovering prices, based on public information flowing to investors.


TSLA-and-FCFBubble fun: TSLA’s stock price and the company’s free cash flow. Over the past week the share price has been ramped by $25, increasing the company’s market cap by $3.25 billion, not long after it reported a “smaller than expected” loss of $61 million (“adjusted”) for the 2nd quarter and announced a secondary offering over 2.7 m. share. The reason? A Wall Street pump…err, analyst, working for one of the book runners of the secondary (just a coincidence of course) issued a new fantasy price target of $465/share based on his hunch that “Tesla will be the future of the self-driving car”. We kid you not – click to enlarge.


The problem is the feds have distorted… twisted… and outright counterfeited this information. They falsified it for the benefit of the people it’s supposed to be protecting us against – the insiders. The entire edifice of federal regulation and policing is a scam – at least when it comes to the stock market. First the feds claimed to be creating a “level playing field” by prohibiting “insider trading.”

If you had privileged information – say, as the accountant for a Fortune 500 company… or the lawyer for an upcoming merger – you were supposed to play dead. “Front-running” – buying or selling in advance of the public release of information – is against the law. And in 1934, Congress set up a special bureaucracy – the Securities Exchange Commission – to enforce it.



The headquarters of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission are seen in WashingtonThe gleaming headquarters of one of the government’s countless red tape factories. This one has an especially fast rotating revolving door that appears to be directly connected to Wall Street. This is of course sheer coincidence as well – honi soit qui mal y pense!.

Photo credit: Jim Bourg / Reuters


Tilting the Playing Field

But the SEC never leveled the playing field. Instead, it tilted it even more in the insiders’ favor. Those who knew something were not supposed to take advantage of it. So this information became even more valuable.

That is why so many investors turned to “private equity.” Insiders at private companies – held close to the vest by the investment firms that owned them – could trade on all the inside information they wanted. The law prohibits insiders from manipulating a publicly traded stock for their benefit. But there’s an odd exemption for the people who control a public company

GM announces a share buyback plan, for example. It will spend $5 billion to buy back its shares in the open market and then cancel them. This raises the earnings per share of the outstanding shares, making them more valuable as a result.

Why would an automaker – recently back from the dead, thanks to a handout from the feds – take its precious capital and give it to management (in the form of more valuable stock options) and shareholders (in the form of higher stock prices)?


GM-risingThe stock of GM, weekly (widely known as “Government Motors” after its controversial bailout), since rising from the grave and being re-listed in late 2010. The government managed to confine its loss to a “mere” $11 billion in the wake of the Fed’s manic monetary pumping exercise – click to enlarge.


There you have your answer: GE execs and their insider shareholders (mostly hedge funds) joined forces to manipulate the stock upward and give themselves a big payday. Reports the Harvard Business Review:


The pump-and-dump hedge funds will come back to GM’s buyback well year after year until the cash flow once again runs dry. […]  Taxpayers and workers should demand that open-market repurchases by all companies be banned. Stock buybacks manipulate the stock market and leave most Americans worse off.


“A Little Coup de Whiskey”

Here at the Diary, we disagree…

The feds should not ban share buybacks. Instead, insider trading should be legal for everyone. And the feds shouldn’t bail out the insiders, either. The government bailed out GM to the tune of $50 billion in return for a 61% equity stake in the company.

But at the end of 2013, Washington was able to sell off the last of its GM shares… for “just” an $11 billion loss. How? The Fed fiddled with stock market prices… by pushing down the so-called “risk-free” rate on bonds (a lower rate means less opportunity cost for stock market investors).


1024px-General_Motors_building_089833pvGM’s headquarters in Detroit, from 1923 until 1996

Photo credit: Historic American Buildings Survey


Just look at the valuations of today’s tech companies. They’re over the top, much like they were at the peak of the dot-com bubble in 2000. They are driven to extraordinary levels not by a prudent calculation of anticipated earnings but by the Fed’s EZ money regime.

This conclusion, by the way, was buttressed by our look at the automakers of 100 years ago. Now, there was a game-changing industry! It was so promising and so crowded with new entrants that you could barely walk down Shelby Street in Detroit without getting run over by an automobile you’d never heard of.

Most of those companies went broke within a few years. A few, however, prospered. GM’s share price barely budged between 1915 and 1925 – when the company was one of the greatest success stories of the greatest new tech industry the world had ever seen.


Portrait_of_Benjamin_Strong_JrNY Fed president Benjamin Strong: provider of a little “coup de whiskey” to the stock market bubble of the roaring 20s.

Photo credit: Paul Thompson


But then, in 1927, the influential New York Fed president Benjamin Strong gave the market “a little coup de whiskey.” The Fed not only bought $445 million of government bonds, resulting in the biggest increase in bank reserves the U.S. had ever seen, but it also cut its key lending rate from 4% to 3.5%.

After that, it was off to the races! GM shares rose 2,200%. In other words, the prices of “tech” stocks were manipulated then – as now – by the feds. Cheap credit – not an honest calculation of anticipated earnings – is what sent GM soaring in the late 1920s. And it is why our Billion-Dollar Tech Babies are flying so high today.


USDJIND1920The bubble that broke the world … – click to enlarge.


Charts by: StockCharts, Zerohedge, Sharelynx


The above article appeared at the Diary of a Rogue Economist, written for Bonner & Partners. Bill Bonner founded Agora, Inc in 1978. It has since grown into one of the largest independent newsletter publishing companies in the world. He has also written three New York Times bestselling books, Financial Reckoning Day, Empire of Debt and Mobs, Messiahs and Markets.




Dear Readers!

You may have noticed that our header carries ab black flag. This is due to the recent passing of the main author of the Acting Man blog, Heinz Blasnik, under his nom de plume 'Pater Tenebrarum'. We want to thank you for following his blog for meanwhile 11 years and refer you to the 'Acting Man Classics' on the sidebar to get an introduction to his way of seeing economics. In the future, we will keep the blog running with regular uptates from our well known Co-Authors. For that, some financial help would be greatly appreciated. A special thank you to all readers who have already chipped in, your generosity is greatly appreciated. Regardless of that, we are honored by everybody's readership and hope we have managed to add a little value to your life.


Bitcoin address: 12vB2LeWQNjWh59tyfWw23ySqJ9kTfJifA


One Response to “Why All Insider Trading Should Be Made Legal”

  • Tibor Machan:

    What is Morally Right With Insider Trading
    Public Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 10 (April 1996), pp.135-142.
    Tibor R. Machan
    Insider trading per se is obtaining information from non-public sources—private acquaintances, friends, colleagues—and using it for purposes of enhancing one’s financial advantage. As Vincent Barry explains, “Insider dealings refers to the ability of key employees to profit from knowledge or information that has not yet become public.” Sometimes such a practice can be conducted fraudulently, as when one who has obtained the infor¬mation has a fiduciary duty to share it with clients but fails to exercise it, or in some other criminal fashion, as when the information is itself stolen. These are not, however, features of insider trading as such, as understood in the context of the discussion of business ethics. Never mind that in the enforcement of government regulations it is in fact fraud that is cited that makes the conduct illegal that is referred to as insider trading. (Which suggest that the bulk of the relevant law does not concern itself so much with what many in the business ethics community worry about, namely, “justice as fairness,” but with “justice as honoring of contracts.”)
    What makes the insider trading business ethics discussions focus upon dis¬tinctive is that the information on which trade is based is not known to others within the interested trading community asdie from the insider. Insider trading is to deal with the aid of what is not so called “public knowledge” and, thus, it gives the trader an advantage over the rest of the market participants who are on the outside.
    It is against the common view of insider trading presented in business ethics discussion that I want to argue that it may be one’s achievement or good fortune to learn of opportunities ahead of others and there is nothing morally wrong with this. In fact, acting on such information can be prudent, exhibiting good business acumen, whenever it does not involve the violation of other’s rights. The conventional view rests on the belief that others have a right to one’s revealing to them information one has honestly obtained ahead of them. But there is no sound general moral principle that requires this.
    We clearly make morally unobjectionable use of special information for our own benefit, despite the fact that others might also benefit were it available to them: as when we are first to learn of the presence of a potential dating partner, a good buy on a used car, or a house coming up for sale in a highly preferred neighborhood. To take advantage of such special opportunities is a sign of good judgment, not of unfairness or deception.
    Those who claim otherwise as regard insider trading confuse the market place with a game in which rules are devised or set down with the special purpose of giving everyone an even chance—e.g., when in golf or steeple chasing handicaps are assigned, or when in pro football the lowest ranked team gains first choice in the player drafts. The market is more akin to life itself, in which different per¬sons enter with different assets—talents, looks, genetic make up, economic and climactic circumstances—and they must do their best with what they have. In life, apart from occasionally benefiting from the generosity or charity of others, all one has is a fighting chance. Children of musically proficient parents will probably benefit “unfairly” as far as obtaining musical opportunities is concerned. Those born in Bombay, to poor parents, will face harder times than those born in Beverly Hills to movie star parents. No general moral requirement exists for strangers to even this out, only to abstain from imposing obstacles on others, from violating their rights to liberty. The marketplace, too, is a setting wherein different persons face dif¬ferent circumstances. People do not have a natural obligation to perform involuntary service to strangers. In competing with others for opportunities that the market provides by way of demands one can fulfill in return for voluntary compensation, one is treating all other agents with the respect they deserve as the potential traders they mostly are in such a context. Exceptions exist, of course, as when one trades with friends or family, which raises some moral complications. But the norm is where people treat each other as seeking to find opportunities for trade, nothing more. Other human relationships can obtain side by side, of course, but we can keep the commercial ones distinct enough to understand the ethics that ought to govern us as we embark upon trade. Let me now develop some of these points.
    What is Insider Trading?
    In fact, however, the concept “insider trading” employed in business ethics discussions has a broader meaning: it includes anyone’s ability to make deals based on not yet publicized knowledge of business opportunities. Insider trading as such, apart from what it may be related to in some cases (such as fraud or the violation of fudiciary duty), involves making financial investments on the basis of knowledge others do not have and may not be able to obtain in ordinary ways. A knows the president of a firm who tells me that they are thinking of expanding one of their divisions or have struck oil in a new field, so A buys a block of stock in anticipation of the increase of value once the deal is done or the knowledge becomes public. A is not deceiving anyone, nor is A defrauding anyone. A is not taking anything from others that A wasn’t freely given. A is acting on special, “insider,” information, that is all.
    It is conventional wisdom to treat this version of insider trading as morally wrong because it supposed to adversely affect others by being unfair. As one critic has put it, “What causes injury or loss to outsiders is not what the insider knew or did, rather it is what they themselves [the outsiders] did not know. It is their own lack of knowledge which exposes them to risk of loss or denies them an opportunity to make a profit.” By the fact that these others do not know what the insider does know, they are harmed since they are not able to make use of opportunities that are in fact available, knowable to us.
    But what kind of causation is it that fails to make a difference when it does not exist? If someone’s knowing a good deal has no impact on what another does, it cannot be said that any harm upon another had been caused by that someone. Certainly, had the other known what the insider knew, he or she could have acted differently. By not acting differently, he or she could easily have failed to reap advantages the insider did reap. But nothing here shows that the insider caused any harm, only that he or she had a better set of opportunities. Unless we assume that valuable information known by one person ought, morally—and perhaps legally—be distributed to all interested parties—something that would beg the most important question—there is no moral fault involved in insider trading nor any causation of harm.
    Because of the widespread but mistaken view that insider trading is morally wrong, it is conventional wisdom to support its legal prohibition. Of course, even if morally wrong, it may not follow that it should be morally prohibited. Yet there is reason to think that the moral objections are wrongheaded. Because of this we may suspect that the opposititon to insider trading is more likely the result of widespread, strong a prejudice against gaining economic prosperity without sharing it. Clearly there is a lot of thinking afoot in our era to the effect that a level playing field is morally mandatory when people embark upon commercial or business endeavors.
    Why Insider Trading Is Right
    Certainly I am at an advantage when I posses information others lack. Nearly everyone in the marketplace is in that position to a certain extent. One might even wish to call this “unfair” in the sense in which any kind of good fortune may be to some people’s but not to others’ advantage. More precisely, though, the concept of fairness does not apply in this context, even though many believe otherwise. For someone to act fairly requires some prior obligation to distribute burdens or benefits among a given number of people in some suitable proportion or in line with certain specified procedures. But to act fairly does not amount to a primary moral duty—for example, thieves can fairly enough distribute their loot and yet are morally delinquent. Only when one ought to treat others alike, which may occur in special circumstances such as paying attention to all the students in one’s class or feeding all of one’s children equally well, does fairness count for something morally important.
    As this applies to insider trading, if I have a prior obligation to share my information with others, that is, a fiduciary duty to clients or associates, then it is not that the information is “from the inside” but that it is owed to others that makes my dealings morally and possibly legally objectionable. It is only in such cases that fairness is obligatory, as a matter of one’s professional relationship to others, one established by the promise made or contract one has entered into prior to the ensuing duty to be fair. It is only then that one cause injury by refusing to do what one has agreed to do, namely, divulge information prior to using it for oneself. Accordingly, Hetherington’s objection to insider trading is without moral force. What he should have objected to is the breaching of fiduciary duty, which may occur on occasion by means of failing to divulge information (possibly gained “from the inside”) that has been—perhaps even contractually—promised to a client.
    Furthermore, if I have stolen the information—spied or bribed for or extorted it—again the moral deficiency comes not from its being inside information but from its having been ill gotten.
    What if the information was come by accidentally? I overhear some people talking in the lavatory or at a bar after they’ve had too much to drink and have loose tongues. Am I wrong to make use of it?
    Here again the issue is just what I owe others. Do I have a natural obligation to share my good fortune with other people?
    In emergency situations, when others are in dire need or have met with some natural disaster, virtues such as generosity and charity are usually binding on those who are able to assist. Yet these are not obligations in the sense of something the law must enforce. Indeed, enforcing generosity or charity is impossible⎯the moral significance of a virtue is destroyed if it is practiced at the point of a gun! Furthermore, in the context of the normal hustle and bustle of life, no such virtues are called for toward strangers, only toward those one is related to by prior commitments, intimacy, and love. Instead, in the ordinary course of life one ought to strive to live successfully, to prosper, to make headway with one’s legitimate projects, not embark upon the tasks of emergency crews during an earthquake. Unless one is professionally suited for those professions that address those in special need, one has no business to meddle in the lives of others and ought to carry forth without compunction in those tasks that advance the lives of those one has freely embarked upon to promote.
    From he viewpoint of common sense ethics, the idea that there is something morally amiss with insider trading has little to support it. One clearly has no moral , let alone legal, obligation to share information with strangers that may benefit one in other familiar circumstances.
    Imagine, for example, that an appealing eligible single woman moves into a neighborhood in which several eligible men would like to meet her. I, one of these men, obtain (insider) information about her impending arrival before others and approach her before other men in my position learn of the fact that she will be part of the community. Have I done wrong? Isn’t the prospect of successful romance even more important to people than the prospect of successful investment? Suppose, again, that I learn of a very good violin teacher who is moving to our town and I am first in line to take lessons from him. Am I doing something morally wrong? Nothing supports such a view.
    Of course, were I someone who is in no great hurry with finding a mate and had a friend who is, I might generously tell him about the impending arrival of the lady. This would be generous but not obligatory. The same would hold if I had a friend of whose musical ambitions with the violin I am well aware and I learned of the opportunity for taking lessons from a new master in our neighborhood. Were I to forget about my friends in these cases, this might well be justly held against me. But the same does not apply when it comes to strangers.
    In fact, there are areas of commerce where all this is not only accepted but praised. Consider news reporting. When a news reporter scoops the competition, no one considers this legally actionable, nor, indeed, morally insidious. On the contrary, it is a mark of professional excellence. Why does this not apply in the case of insider trading? I’ll turn to this next.

    The Bad Reputation of Commerce
    The reason these situations, as distinct from insider trading, do not invite widespread moral rebuke is that we tend to consider objectives such as finding the right mate or learning a musical instrument something benign, morally untainted. When it comes to making economic or financial gains, in many quarters there is an initial moral discomfort about it. The shadow of greed looms very large and tends even to overwhelm prudence, which is, after all, the first of the cardinal virtues.
    Why Insider Trading Seems Wrong
    Indeed, the intellectual source of moral disdain for insider trading is the more general disdain for economic or commercial self-enhancement, at least among moral philosophers and others in the humanities. There seems to be no end to how fiercely commercial success is demeaned among many of those who preach and reflect upon morality. Yet this seems to me to be utterly misguided.
    Becoming prosperous can be a means toward the attainment of numerous worthy goals and should, thus, itself be deemed to be a worthy goal. Not that riches cannot be pursued obsessively, but it need not be done so at all. Any other goal can also be pursued to a fault. An artist can be over ambitious vis-a-vis being an artist and, thereby, neglect family, friends, polity. Even truth can be pursued too fanatically. The chances for corruption through the pursuit of economic advantage are no greater than through other pursuits. The disdainful attitude toward commercial professionals is entirely unjustified, a prejudice that deserves as much study as prejudices toward racial, religious or ethnic groups.
    What about the fact that we encourage fairness in athletic competition, such as imposing handicaps in golf and horse racing? What about the way baseball and football leagues utilize the player draft to even out the advantages of teams? Does this not indicate that we stress fairness more than I have allowed? Don’t we find fairness heavily stressed in the allocation of chores in families and fraternities, not to mention teams?

    Bad Analogies
    These examples are misleading. It isn’t fairness per se that’s stressed in golf and horse racing; what appears as such is actually an effort to foster games and races that capture and keep the interest of spectators. The same holds for the policy on player drafts. If a team wins repeatedly, interest will begin to wane and the sport will lose its fans.
    As to families, there exists a prior obligation to share burdens and benefits among the members, if not equally than at least proportionately. Parents have invited their children into the family, as it were, and when benefits (or burdens) are reaped, all those invited should share them.
    Among people who are not in such relationships no fairness principle operates. No doubt, sometimes we make a mistake and transfer the attitudes we have acquired for how to handle matters in the family to other areas of our lives, but that is an illogical extrapolation. And this is evident enough by considering that if I am born to a family with musical talents or good genes, it is not my duty to make sure that those born to families without them somehow share my advantages. Nor am I doing the right thing in imposing my burdens on members of families who do not suffer as mine does. That sort of policy would be more appropriate associated with envy and resentment, not with moral decency.
    The Moral Merit of Insider Trading
    Accordingly, seeking to benefit through ingenuity and shrewdness is good business, and good business is as important a professional trait as good medicine, good law, good education, etc. Professional ethics, in turn, cannot condemn that which is in accord with ethics in general, such as fortitude and prudence. Competence and skill, even excellence, at managing the material progress one might be able to make in life ought not to be treated as less important than competence and skill at managing artistic, scientific, educational or other types of progress.
    There are those who defend insider trading because it contributes to the overall efficiency of market transactions. They argue that those trading from the inside send signals to others whose reactions then help propel the market to its new level of efficiency.
    There may be something to this line of defense, although it comes perilously close to arguing that the end justifies the means. Unless the actions of the individuals who engage in insider trading can themselves be shown to be justified, such arguments do not do much good. One can show benefits to society at large based on theft, even murder, yet these are by no means justified based on such reasoning.
    Insider trading, moreover, is held to be morally suspect not because its overall value to the society is denied but because many regard fairness, equality, a level playing field, the most important criteria for a morally decent marketplace. The fact is that those are actually not what counts most for the morality of trade. That place is occupied by the respect for individual rights. Within the framework of such respect, insider trading is entirely unobjectionable. In addition, it can be perfectly ethically, commendable, to act based on such information: it is a matter of prudence and commercial savvy, both of which should be encouraged from those who work for a living.


Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • Perversity: Thy Name is Dollar
    Perversity: Thy Name is Dollar If you ask most people, “what is money?” they will answer that money is the generally accepted medium of exchange. If you ask Google Images, it will show you many pictures of green pieces of paper. Virtually everyone agrees that money means the dollar.   Image credit: Cildo Meireles   Breaking Down the Dollar Monetary System What does it mean to have a dollar? If you hold a piece of paper with green ink on it, which says “ONE...
  • What’s In Your Loan?
      Opposing Monetary Directions “Real estate is the future of the monetary system,” declares a real estate bug. Does this make any sense? We would ask him this. “OK how will houses be borrowed and lent?” “Look at this housing bond,” he says, pointing to a bond denominated in dollars, with principal and interest paid in dollars. “What do you mean ‘housing’ bond’,” we ask, “it’s a bond denominated in dollars!” “Yes, but housing is the...

Support Acting Man

Austrian Theory and Investment


THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

Realtime Charts


Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from]


Mish Talk

    Buy Silver Now!
    Buy Gold Now!