IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/oplwec/qt65g3f4sz.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using Inside Information to Abstain from Trading

Author

Listed:
  • Fried, Jesse M.

Abstract

Rule 10b 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the primary instrument for regulating insider trading, prohibits insiders from trading on material inside information. However, Rule 10b 5 does not prohibit insiders from using inside information to abstain from trading. For example, a CEO who learns that good news will emerge shortly is permitted to postpone an intended sale until after the good news has emerged and boosted the stock price. Because of this "abstention problem," legal commentators both those opposed to Rule 10b 5 and those favoring it have concluded that even when insiders are prevented from trading on inside information, they still retain an unerodable advantage over public shareholders. This paper shows that, contrary to the received wisdom, insiders who are prevented from trading while in possession of inside information cannot out perform public shareholders in their trading even if they are free to use such information to abstain from trading. In fact, insiders who could neither trade nor abstain while in possession of inside information would be systematically worse off than public shareholders. After Examining the distributional effects of insider abstention, the paper considers the efficiency effects of insider abstention namely, its effect on managerial incentives and the cost of capital. The paper explains that while insider trading has the potential to distort managerial incentives and increase the cost of capital, insider abstention does not. The paper concludes by examining the implications of the analysis for various issues in insider trading regulation including the long standing "use vs. possession" debate under Rule 10b 5 and Rule 10b5 1(c), the SEC regulation that provides a safe harbor from Rule 10b 5 liability.

Suggested Citation

  • Fried, Jesse M., 2002. "Using Inside Information to Abstain from Trading," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt65g3f4sz, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:oplwec:qt65g3f4sz
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/65g3f4sz.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Neil Rickman & Paul Fenn & Alastair Gray, 1999. "The reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 20(3), pages 261-286, September.
    2. Kathryn E. Spier, 1992. "The Dynamics of Pretrial Negotiation," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 59(1), pages 93-108.
    3. Waldfogel, Joel, 1998. "Reconciling Asymmetric Information and Divergent Expectations Theories of Litigation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 451-476, October.
    4. Lucian Arye Bebchuk, 1984. "Litigation and Settlement under Imperfect Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(3), pages 404-415, Autumn.
    5. Kirstein, Roland & Schmidtchen, Dieter, 1997. "Judicial detection skill and contractual compliance," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 509-520, December.
    6. Rickman, Neil, 1994. "The Economics of Contingency Fees in Personal Injury Litigation," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 34-50, Spring.
    7. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 2003. "Found Money? Split-Award Statutes and Settlement of Punitive Damages Cases," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 134-164.
    8. Theodore Eisenberg & Henry Farber, 2003. "The Government as Litigant: Further Tests of the Case Selection Model," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 94-133.
    9. A. Mitchell Polinsky & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 2003. "Aligning the Interests of Lawyers and Clients," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 165-188.
    10. Gravelle, Hugh & Waterson, Michael, 1993. "No Win, No Fee: Some Economics of Contingent Legal Fees," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(420), pages 1205-1220, September.
    11. William M. Landes, 1974. "An Economic Analysis of the Courts," NBER Chapters,in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 164-214 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Roland Kirstein, 2000. "Risk Neutrality and Strategic Insurance," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 25(2), pages 251-261, April.
    13. Rickman, Neil, 1999. "Contingent fees and litigation settlement1," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 295-317, September.
    14. Miceli, Thomas J, 1998. "Settlement Strategies," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(2), pages 473-481, June.
    15. van Velthoven, Ben & van Wijck, Peter, 2001. "Legal cost insurance and social welfare," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 387-396, September.
    16. Emons, Winand, 2000. "Expertise, contingent fees, and insufficient attorney effort," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 21-33, March.
    17. Cooter, Robert D. & Porat, Ariel, 2002. "Anti-Insurance," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt1vw0d9sf, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    18. Bebchuk, Lucian Arye, 1996. "A New Theory Concerning the Credibility and Success of Threats to Sue," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 1-25, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:oplwec:qt65g3f4sz. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lisa Schiff). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/lebrkus.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.