This news hasn't even hit the internet yet

• j_crazy

  

  Microsoft just merged with Yellowbook.
  
  Don't ask me how I know. I just have some good sources. The employees are being briefed on everything right now.
• coyotes22

  

  Cool story, brah
• j_crazy

  

  i'm telling you sell your msft stock because it's about to drop.
• Iliketurtles

  

  This just makes no fucking sense...
  
  And j_crazy we all know hillbillys like coyotes don't even know what stocks are!
• BigAppleBuckeye

  

  I think the better term here in lieu of "merge" is "gobble," as in Microsoft is about to gobble up the remnants of a dinosaur from a dying market in Yellowbook. They are probably just buying this to utilize their data or leverage their local search capabilities, I don't this will do much if anything to the Microsoft stock.
• vball10set

  Iliketurtles;827869 wrote: And j_crazy we all know hillbillys like coyotes don't even know what stocks are!

  
  
• Con_Alma

  j_crazy;827865 wrote:i'm telling you sell your msft stock because it's about to drop.

  
  
  Wouldn't that be illegal to act on information not yet published?
• O-Trap

  

  BigAppleBuckeye;827874 wrote:They are probably just buying this to utilize their data or leverage their local search capabilities, I don't this will do much if anything to the Microsoft stock.

  
  This is precisely why Verizon bought Alltel, and it was my first thought when I read this.
  
  By the way, would this be considered insider trading, j_crazy? I know little about market investments.
• Commander of Awesome

  

  j_crazy;827865 wrote:i'm telling you sell your msft stock because it's about to drop.

  
  Will Do! (note the sarcasm)
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;827878 wrote:Wouldn't that be illegal to act on information not yet published?

  
  Yes, if they can prove it. Insider trading is fairly difficult to prove, especially for people who aren't major stakeholders(and I'm assuming j_crazy and anyone on here isn't).
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;827900 wrote:Yes, if they can prove it. Insider trading is fairly difficult to prove, especially for people who aren't major stakeholders(and I'm assuming j_crazy and anyone on here isn't).

  
  I would think this thread could serve as evidence of some sort, could it not? Court order for Justin to turn over all IP history and info on user j_crazy seems like it could be particularly damning if it was posted from a work computer.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;827900 wrote:Yes, if they can prove it. Insider trading is fairly difficult to prove, especially for people who aren't major stakeholders(and I'm assuming j_crazy and anyone on here isn't).

  ...so it's only illegal if it can be proven?
  
  I thought you can only be convicted if it was proven.
• coyotes22

  

  Iliketurtles;827869 wrote:This just makes no fucking sense...
  
  And j_crazy we all know hillbillys like coyotes don't even know what stocks are!

  
  Ummm, I wear them everyday. i think I know what they are.
• j_crazy

  

  i was being sarcastic. i own no msft stock. and i have no idea what the stock will do when this is announced. jsut thought it was cool that i knew something before anyone else did.
• queencitybuckeye

  Con_Alma;827878 wrote:Wouldn't that be illegal to act on information not yet published?

  
  Wouldn't it depend on how one got the information?
• I Wear Pants

  j_crazy;827856 wrote:Microsoft just merged with Yellowbook.
  
  Don't ask me how I know. I just have some good sources. The employees are being briefed on everything right now.

  I really doubt they merged. Bought perhaps.
• I Wear Pants

  queencitybuckeye;827926 wrote:Wouldn't it depend on how one got the information?

  
  Nope.
• Rotinaj

  

  Reported. Unless you give me 10,000 vCash that is.
• Con_Alma

  ccrunner609;827915 wrote:the average person might own .0000000000000000001% and at the point, nobody gives a **** what you do with it

  
  
  My question had nothing to do with somebody caring or not but rather was based on the legality of acting on information that has a potential to impact stock price but not yet made available to all others in a fair manner.
• Con_Alma

  queencitybuckeye;827926 wrote:Wouldn't it depend on how one got the information?

  
  
  I don't think how the information is obtained is the issue but rather having an unfair advantage is.
• LJ

  

  No one here would be considered an insider, therefore it would not be insider training.
  
  
  Unless we don't know about someone who owns 10% or more stock or is an employee or officer of Microsoft
• Con_Alma

  LJ;828007 wrote:No one here would be considered an insider, therefore it would not be insider training.
  
  
  Unless we don't know about someone who owns 10% or more stock or is an employee or officer of Microsoft

  Officers or 10% ownership is covered under Rule 144.
  
  Are you suggesting that only employees, officers and 10% ownerships are subjected to insider trading restrictions?
  
  That's interesting. What about brokers who are exposed to such information?
• Con_Alma

  http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
  
  "...Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include "tipping" such information, securities trading by the person "tipped," and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information.
  
  Examples of insider trading cases that have been brought by the SEC are cases against:
  
  Corporate officers, directors, and employees who traded the corporation's securities after learning of significant, confidential corporate developments;
  
  Friends, business associates, family members, and other "tippees" of such officers, directors, and employees, who traded the securities after receiving such information;
  
  Employees of law, banking, brokerage and printing firms who were given such information to provide services to the corporation whose securities they traded;
  
  Government employees who learned of such information because of their employment by the government; and
  
  Other persons who misappropriated, and took advantage of, confidential information from their employers.
  
  Because insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets, the SEC has treated the detection and prosecution of insider trading violations as one of its enforcement priorities.
  
  The SEC adopted new Rules 10b5-1 and 10b5-2 to resolve two insider trading issues where the courts have disagreed. Rule 10b5-1 provides that a person trades on the basis of material nonpublic information if a trader is "aware" of the material nonpublic information when making the purchase or sale. The rule also sets forth several affirmative defenses or exceptions to liability. The rule permits persons to trade in certain specified circumstances where it is clear that the information they are aware of is not a factor in the decision to trade, such as pursuant to a pre-existing plan, contract, or instruction that was made in good faith.
  
  Rule 10b5-2 clarifies how the misappropriation theory applies to certain non-business relationships. This rule provides that a person receiving confidential information under circumstances specified in the rule would owe a duty of trust or confidence and thus could be liable under the misappropriation theory.
  
  For more information about insider trading, please read Insider Trading—A U.S. Perspective, a speech by staff of the SEC.
  http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
• hoops23

  

  Does anybody really give a shit?
• LJ

  

  Con_Alma;828022 wrote:http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm
  
  "...Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include "tipping" such information, securities trading by the person "tipped," and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information.
  
  Examples of insider trading cases that have been brought by the SEC are cases against:
  
  Corporate officers, directors, and employees who traded the corporation's securities after learning of significant, confidential corporate developments;
  
  Friends, business associates, family members, and other "tippees" of such officers, directors, and employees, who traded the securities after receiving such information;
  
  Employees of law, banking, brokerage and printing firms who were given such information to provide services to the corporation whose securities they traded;
  
  Government employees who learned of such information because of their employment by the government; and
  
  Other persons who misappropriated, and took advantage of, confidential information from their employers.
  
  Because insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets, the SEC has treated the detection and prosecution of insider trading violations as one of its enforcement priorities.
  
  The SEC adopted new Rules 10b5-1 and 10b5-2 to resolve two insider trading issues where the courts have disagreed. Rule 10b5-1 provides that a person trades on the basis of material nonpublic information if a trader is "aware" of the material nonpublic information when making the purchase or sale. The rule also sets forth several affirmative defenses or exceptions to liability. The rule permits persons to trade in certain specified circumstances where it is clear that the information they are aware of is not a factor in the decision to trade, such as pursuant to a pre-existing plan, contract, or instruction that was made in good faith.
  
  Rule 10b5-2 clarifies how the misappropriation theory applies to certain non-business relationships. This rule provides that a person receiving confidential information under circumstances specified in the rule would owe a duty of trust or confidence and thus could be liable under the misappropriation theory.
  
  For more information about insider trading, please read Insider Trading—A U.S. Perspective, a speech by staff of the SEC.
  http://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm

  
  J_crazy is one of those. We are not.
  
  We received information from the "tippee". In other words, the duty of trust does not exist at this level.