Comment by afavour

Comment by afavour 2 days ago

9 replies

It's still a failure in principle. The effects of this particular instance of the failure were minimal but it was still an accidental leak of (at the time) private information. They just got lucky.

blibble 2 days ago

> The effects of this particular instance of the failure were minimal

the effects are not minimal

if you're crooked: getting this sort of information early is potentially extremely lucrative

(why crooked? because trading on UPSI is illegal)

  • mytailorisrich 2 days ago

    Surely it was no longer UPSI (Unpublished Price Sensitive Information) after the OBR published it?

    • blibble 2 days ago

      I wouldn't be betting my freedom on the regulator agreeing with that logic

      the regulations specifically go into great detail about official publications and formal circulation

      would a reasonable person consider this a leak? then it's UPSI

      • mytailorisrich 2 days ago

        The OBR admits that they published it too early.

        I am not an expert but I think that even trading on a leak is not unlawful as long as that leaked information was indeed made public (e.g. someone leaks to the media and the media then publish it), although it may have been unlawful to leak the information. The point is that insider trading is not allowed. It is no insider trading if the information is available to everyone.

    • kstrauser 2 days ago

      I agree. They didn’t intend to publish it, but they did publish it. They might not have advertised its presence yet, but it was freely available to anyone who asked.