Talk:Insider trading

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and Economics Portal This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Top	rated as top-importance on the assessment scale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Insider trading article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives 1

[edit] General Content of Article

After reading this, its clear that obviously Americans have been the majority contributors.. but there's such an imbalance in that UK legislation is getting a couple of sentences whereas US is covered in several paragraphs. Obviously some infomation would overlap but still. As a UK student, I cannot be confident that most of the general description is correct for my country.

-Si—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.194.158 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Any information you can add to the UK section would be quite welcome! Please be sure to cite your sources when you do. Thank you for your help! —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the UK law on insider trading mostly subsumed by the EU Market Abuse Directive, with actual UK implementation in a state of flux? Anybody an expert on the Market Abuse Directive? Epstein's Mother 03:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cut from text

This was tagged 2 weeks ago:

Because insider trading is hard to prove and it's not even clear if it's good or bad for the market, it could be argued^{[weasel words]} that its regulation adds unnecessary complexity to trading, and in addition binds valuable resources of federal enforcement agencies which could be used more usefully.

Not sure whose opinion this is. While I agree with it, personally, this is an encyclopedia. Statement like this need attribution. --Uncle Ed 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)