JP Morgan's Insider Trading How-To On Wikileaks

An anonymous reader writes "In an internal JP Morgan document published recently, Wikileaks exposes JPM's efforts to circumvent insider trading regulations, enabling their wealthy clients to profit even when others are losing. The document reads like a how-to and explains how to take advantage of SEC Rule 10b5-1, which has long been considered ripe for abuse. Now this abuse is publicly documented and will be hard to ignore."

Comments

Not a "leak" ?

[aleph42]

It should be stressed that this leak is not, in fact, revealling illegal activity. I even doubt that Wikileaks made it public; I mean, they must have some kind of advertisment or at least a publicly available description of this service, no?

If it was already public, then it's interesting for the process of defining the role of Wikileaks: here, it's role would be to raise awareness rather than reveal, which means acting like a news site.

Personaly, I think that Wikileak should not stride from it's original goal: when you're run anonymously, you must keep close to your original description; it's the only kind of accountability you offer.

Re:Not a "leak" ?

[esocid]

It may not be confidential information but it is however informative about the prevalence of the sort of abuse that goes on with investing. You can't tell me that you were aware of such a blatant tool designed to aid with insider trading. It may be technically legal, but 100% unethical. And even more so for an investment firm to prepare a "how-to for dummies." I'm not sure how aware the SEC is of this problem, but that may get wind of it now if you weren't aware of it before.

Re:Not a "leak" ?

[aleph42]

I absolutly agree about the fact that this information was interesting, and deserved awareness.

I am just saying that, if what they did boils down to finding the obscure *public* document or webpage which described that service, then they acted just as boinboing when it finds some cool looking roadsing in Japan: intersting, but not a leak.

And by acting as a news website, *even* as a stellarly good one, they would not be fullfying the role they claimed they would.
Which is a problem because what they claimed they would do is the only thing that serves to provide accountability to a service which GREATLY needs it.

Don't take me wrong; I think WIkileak is a wonderful thing; but because it is the embodiment of openess of information. Not because they are good at finding cool stuff

Re:Not a "leak" ?

[sed quid in infernos]

The SEC was very aware of this situation. They explicitly OKed this activity in May 2001:

After the written trading plan described in Q&A 11(a) has been in effect for several months, the person terminates the selling plan by calling the broker and canceling the limit order.

(a) Does the act of terminating a plan while aware of material nonpublic information result in liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5?

No. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 apply "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security." Thus, a purchase or sale of a security must be present for liability to attach. See Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975).

Re:Not a "leak" ?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I even doubt that Wikileaks made it public;

Please point us to other places this document can be found online.

I mean, they must have some kind of advertisement or at least a publicly available description of this service, no?

All documents on Wikileaks were distributed somewhere, I don't see what your point is.

Re:Not a "leak" ?

[nycguy]

The SEC is aware of the problem. It doesn't take much link-following from the original post to find this speech by Linda Chatman Thomsen of the SEC.

Putting that aside, the fact is that regulations rarely have their full, intended effect, especially on the first go. If you read the aforementioned speech, it's pretty obvious that the SEC is trying to do the right thing: Allow executives (particularly founders and other holders of large percentages of stock) the ability to sell those shares on a pre-determined schedule, unencumbered by any insider information they have at a given time during the execution of that plan and unconcerned about the way the market would view the sale, since it had been planned and announced far in advance. For someone with a large percentage of stock, the ability to trade out of that position smoothly over time is critical, since any large sale would be disruptive to the market, and frequent small sales would likely be difficult due to the fact that they might coincide with the common circumstance of having insider information.

The problem, of course, is while the executive is not supposed to initiate the sales plan based on insider information, that same executive may cancel a sale or withdraw from the plan entirely based on non-public, material information. In doing so, they create a bias in that their sales that were initiated would be expected to perform "better than average", since any sales that would have performed "worse than average" are more likely to have been canceled. Such a bias is precisely what academics found and is referenced in Thomsen's speech. The SEC can then amend/interpret the rule so as to close any loophole. Such a process may go through multiple iterations before all the holes are patched.

In terms of the Wikileaks article itself, there are a few problems: First, it is not just "small investors" who are hurt by this. Any investor, small or large, who is not an "insider" would be disadvantaged by such activity. There's no need to be a populist to see the potential for abuse here. The second problem is that it is JP Morgan's fiduciary duty to offer the best product available to its clients, including taking advantage of the specifics of SEC regulations, if necessary. Of course, this particular opportunity is available only certain, very wealthy insiders, but that's the circumstance that the SEC created, not JP Morgan. This situation is no more unethical than Mercedes or Volvo building a "safer" automobile that is only available to those wealthy enough to afford it--and it carries the same hazard for others, actually, since a "protected" driver may be more reckless and endanger other drivers.

In short, there's no need to get bent out of shape when a necessarily imperfect law or regulation is exploited to someone's advantage. This is just what people will do in any system. The only solution is to keep in mind unintended consequences and improve the framework that one has for the future.

Re:So what's the problem with insider trading anyw

[FusionDragon2099]

The benefit of insider trading is information enters the markets quicker. That is good for me. Except for the part where information won't enter the market, as inside investors benefit more from withholding inside information as it profits them.

Finally! The missing Step !

[gc8005]

For so long it's been clouded by question marks. This is the missing step #3.

Before:
1. Beg, borrow, or steal 1 million dollars
2. Take ill-gotten gains to JP Morgan
3. ??????
4. Profit!!!

Now:
1. Beg, borrow, or steal 1 million dollars
2. Take ill-gotten gains to JP Morgan
3. Follow rule 10b5-1
4. Profit!!!

Re:Finally! The missing Step !

[SpaceLifeForm]

You blew it. Could have had a +5 Funny, but you forgot:

Follow rule 10b5-1

Q.E.D.

Re:So what's the problem with insider trading anyw

[evanbd]

You're missing the point. The act of trading inherently gives away information -- the information enters the market through the trade records.

The fact that this is so is easy to determine from careful analysis of stock markets. Whether that makes insider trading any more or less ethical is left as an exercise for the reader...

Martha Stewart is PISSED

[EdIII]

I bet Martha Stewart wishes she was a JP Morgan client right now :)

Re:The Fundamental reason this is legal

[pitchpipe]

they didn't make "not trading" on insider information illegal, and that should never be made illegal.

Maybe you didn't read how the whole thing works.

They set up a trade to sell at such and such a date in the future. If they get hold of some inside information that is very bad for the company, they let the trade proceed. The SEC says it's OK because the sale was set up before the knowlege of the insider information. If all is A-OK with the company, they cancel the trade, and because there was no stock bought or sold, the SEC says it's OK.

The scam is in the fact that the sale (or not) of the stock was influenced by insider information, but the SEC says it's OK whether they sell or no.

Here is my bitch, because I don't have $BIGNUM to invest in individual securities and I also will probably not come into contact with insider info, it is inherently unfair. But more importantly, it lowers my confidence in the system, making me less likely to value this market over any other, maybe even value those markets more. I know that I'm just one guy, but if lots of people start to feel this way, then it devalues the securities that are traded on that market.

I disagree

[Hemogoblin]

I'm not a financial advisor, but I have taken quite a number of finance and derivative courses. I've read the pdf file at least three times now, as well as some other materials, and it seems to me that the Wikileaks analysis is flawed.

In itself, the services being offered by JP Morgan are perfectly legal and ethical; they are essentially a "collar", but with different instruments. They're a way of creating a position in which you're mostly immune to changes in the stock price. Wikileaks mentions this briefly by saying

The techniques outlined in the 31-page document ... are really only useful for insiders who anticipate their company shares will decline...(Emphasis added) ... which is misleading. Entering into a collar doesn't necessarily mean that you have insider information, it just means that you don't want any risk at all. I would guess that 99.99% of CEO's with stock options / stock will enter into a collar of this sort to protect the value of their portfolios.

So what I'm saying is that there isn't anything wrong with JP Morgan offering these services, period. There is a very practical and ethical reason to enter this sort of contract, and there are a number of safeguards to prevent insiders from large short-selling before things go bad. Nowhere does it even imply in the pdf that JP Morgan "wants to help you inside-trade and beat the market by 6%!"

Unfortunately, the 10b5 rules are not strict enough to prevent inside-traders from also using the services. It's still better than allowing insiders to trading around "blackout" dates.

Anyway, read the businessweek article; it will explain things better than I can. As for this story, it seems to me more of a case of someone offering legitimate services which are being abused by some bad apples.