Insider trading was at the heart of the legislation that brought the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) into existence. Albert H. Wiggin, the head of the Chase National Bank had actually shorted 40,000 shares of his own company. Simply put, he had a significant interest in running his company into the ground. This led to a 1934 revision of the Securities Act of 1933 that was much tougher on insider trading. Ever since Wiggin, insider trading has been one of the most contentious issues on Wall Street. In this article we will look at some bizarre and significant cases that have changed the way we view insider trading. (To learn more, see Policing The Securities Market: An Overview Of The SEC.)

Defining Insiders
One of the first challenges faced by the SEC in the '30s and '40s was how to define an insider. They settled on company officers, directors, and shareholders with 5% or more interest (called beneficial owners). These people had access to information, either formally or informally, before it was made public. Shorting your own company was outlawed and new disclosure requirements were set for insiders. If they did trade using their insider's edge, their profits would be forcibly returned, a fine levied, and they'd face possible jail time. The problem with the new rules was that no firm definition was made as to what constituted material facts, a.k.a. material insider information. (To learn more, see Defining Illegal Insider Trading.)

A Great Deal of Trouble
Two cases over the next two decades left Wall Street deeply confused over what counted as insider trading. In a 1942 case pitting Transamerica Corp against Axton-Fisher minority shareholders, Transamerica - a majority holder of Axton-Fisher - bought out the minority shareholders and then announced that it was liquidating an undervalued inventory of tobacco. The SEC ruled that giving the minority shareholders a lower price than they would have demanded had they realized the inventory was undervalued counted as fraud/insider trading. Before, this was simply smart business. This case effectively put the duty of disclosure on insiders, even if it hurt their potential profits.

The Waiting Period
The water was muddied further in 1959 when a geologist for Texas Gulf Sulphur Company discovered that a site up in Canada was rich in minerals. Not classified as an insider, the geologist told his friends to buy in to his company and bought in himself. Managers and other employees also increased their stock holdings in the company leading up to the official announcement. The SEC took everyone to court and lost - the court ruled that an educated guess can go both ways and employees investing in their company was a positive thing. It was a legitimate way for employees and management to derive additional compensation from their employers while also benefiting industry.

The SEC appealed and got all the decisions reversed, including the directors and managers who bought after the announcement because they did not allow enough time for the news to reach regular investors, Unfortunately, the court refused to define an amount of time that would have been sufficient to act as a future measure. The principle behind the decision was that all market participants must have equal information, and any with an informational edge must disclose or abstain before trading – a decision reinforcing the earlier Transamerica decision.

Raymond Dirks - Falling upon Deaf Ears
Clarity came in 1973 through one of the most flawed cases ever pursued by the SEC. Ronald Secrist, a former Equity Funding Corporation executive, wanted to act as a whistleblower and expose the insurance company's massive fraud. Other employees had attempted this, approaching both state regulators and the SEC at great personal and professional risk, only to be rebuffed. Instead, Secrist turned to analyst Raymond Dirks who believed his story and began to dig into the details. Dirks found ample evidence and took it to the Wall Street Journal. The Journal wouldn't publish anything about the case, delaying until a meeting could be held with Dirks, the whistleblowers and the SEC.

While his message was being ignored, Dirks advised his institutional clients get out of the stock. The Wall Street Journal helped break the news as the selling by Dirk's clients brought broad scrutiny to Equity Funding. When the SEC charges were finally laid, however, Dirks' name was on the list. Because Dirk received material insider information from a former exec and had his clients act upon it, he was guilty of facilitating insider trading. More significantly, these charges exposed him to Equity Funding shareholder lawsuits because he used insider info to damage their holdings.

Whereas management settled for fines or a little jail time, the charges were the start of a 10-year legal battle for Dirks that would go all the way to the Supreme Court. The SEC charged that Dirks was duty bound not to act on the info even though he was unable to turn the matter over to authorities. The Supreme Court found in Dirks' favor. It didn't want to discourage analysts from helping to uncover fraud. Dirks never made any money from exposing Equity Funding, and his case set the criteria to protect whistleblowers and others who expose information that is ultimately beneficial to society. (For more, read Uncovering Insider Trading.)

SEC Bulks Up Enforcement
Another case in the '70s imposed some more limits on the SEC's power to prosecute insider trading. Vincent Chiarella worked for a company specializing in financial printing, including tender offer sheets. Chiarella broke the code used to keep the takeover targets confidential and bought stock in the companies prior to takeover announcements. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chiarella because he had no fiduciary responsibility to the companies involved and thus could trade as he pleased. The court also commented on the impossibility of legislating equal information to all investors as well as the concept of information earned through intensive research as a type of property. In this view, property rights support those with informational edges making a profit from their knowledge.

As the Supreme Court tried to rein in the SEC's vague definitions and far-reaching enforcement powers, the SEC was beefing itself up. The 1984 and 1988 insider trading acts upped the penalties while still avoiding a true definition. Penalties were upped from five-10 years and fines jumped from $100,000-1 million for individuals and from $500,000-2.5 million for corporations who were found guilty. New rules made every company culpable for their employees' trades, not just executives, and special rules targeted tender sheet/takeover knowledge. In the SEC's eyes, everyone was an insider until proven guilty.

Conclusion: Should it be Illegal?
The argument against regulation is that insider trading adds a source of information to the market. By reacting to information earlier via insider buying or selling, a stock's price will not get terribly over- or undervalued. Buyers with insider knowledge are also likely to pay more for a stock, passing more to the seller who was ready to sell anyway. Whether or not we'll see insider trading legalized one day, it's clear there are strong arguments on both sides of the debate. And, although investors like Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch consider insider buying positive, the practice has become more risky for insiders.(For more, see Top 4 Most Scandalous Insider Trading Debacles.)

Related Articles
  1. Financial Advisors

    Top Compliance Headaches for Financial Advisors

    Advisors who do not devote sufficient attention to compliance issues can find themselves in hot water with both regulators and their clients.
  2. Professionals

    4 Must Watch Films and Documentaries for Accountants

    Learn how these must-watch movies for accountants teach about the importance of ethics in a world driven by greed and financial power.
  3. Mutual Funds & ETFs

    Top Schwab Funds for Retirement

    These Schwab funds are strategically designed and have performed well on a historical basis, meaning they're solid options for retirement.
  4. Mutual Funds & ETFs

    American Funds' Top Funds for Retirement

    Planning for retirement in this economic and investment environment is far from easy. American Funds might offer an answer.
  5. Mutual Funds & ETFs

    ETF Fees: Why BlackRock is the Latest to Cut Them

    Low expense ratios are a big selling point for ETFs, but are they being focused on too much?
  6. Financial Advisors

    SEC Audit? How Financial Advisors Can Be Ready

    Your firm may never be audited by the SEC, but you need to be prepared nonetheless. Follow these tips to make sure you're in compliance and organized.
  7. Financial Advisors

    Vanguard's Target Date Funds: What You Should Know

    Target date funds have grown in popularity as an investment of choice among 401(k) investors. Here's a closer look at Vanguard's offerings.
  8. Investing Basics

    What are the fiduciary responsibilities of board members?

    Find out what fiduciary duties a board of directors owes to the company and its shareholders, including the duties of care, good faith and loyalty.
  9. Investing Basics

    4 Iconic Financial Companies That No Longer Exist

    Learn how poor management, frauds, scandals or mergers wiped out some of the most recognizable brands in the finance industry in the United States.
  10. Mutual Funds & ETFs

    Zeroing in on Fidelity’s Top Funds for Retirement

    Fidelity's retirement funds might offer long-term potential, but perhaps a better opportunity is available.
  1. Are UTMA accounts escheatable?

    Like most financial assets held by institutions such as banks and investment firms, UTMA accounts can be escheated by state ... Read Full Answer >>
  2. What is the SEC's escheatment process?

    The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) does not have its own escheatment process. Rather, the SEC notes that the ... Read Full Answer >>
  3. Can the IRS audit you after a refund?

    The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can audit tax returns even after it has issued a tax refund to a taxpayer. According ... Read Full Answer >>
  4. How does escheatment impact a company?

    In recent years, state governments have become increasingly aggressive in enforcing escheatment laws. As a result, many businesses ... Read Full Answer >>
  5. What happens if property is wrongfully escheated?

    If your financial accounts, such as bank, investment or savings accounts, are declared dormant and the managing financial ... Read Full Answer >>
  6. How do financial advisors help you avoid escheatment?

    Financial advisors can help you avoid the escheatment of your financial assets by regularly reviewing all of your accounts, ... Read Full Answer >>

You May Also Like

Hot Definitions
  1. Bar Chart

    A style of chart used by some technical analysts, on which, as illustrated below, the top of the vertical line indicates ...
  2. Bullish Engulfing Pattern

    A chart pattern that forms when a small black candlestick is followed by a large white candlestick that completely eclipses ...
  3. Cyber Monday

    An expression used in online retailing to describe the Monday following U.S. Thanksgiving weekend. Cyber Monday is generally ...
  4. Take A Bath

    A slang term referring to the situation of an investor who has experienced a large loss from an investment or speculative ...
  5. Black Friday

    1. A day of stock market catastrophe. Originally, September 24, 1869, was deemed Black Friday. The crash was sparked by gold ...
Trading Center