> 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)
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.
> I am not an expert
I have had regulatory training on this exact matter, and it covers unintended leaks explicitly
and there is no way I would trade
> The point is that insider trading is not allowed. It is no insider trading if the information is available to everyone.
no, it isn't the point
the regulator cares that participants are seen to be clean, practicing "fit and proper" behaviour
if a reasonable person would think it was dodgy, they'll have your head (and your certification to practice)
regardless of whether or not it was illegal
Surely it was no longer UPSI (Unpublished Price Sensitive Information) after the OBR published it?