How are stock buybacks not considered insider trading?
In fact, buybacks WERE often considered a vehicle for insider trading, especially prior to 1982.  For instance, Prior to the Reagan era, executives avoided buybacks due to fears that   they would be prosecuted for market manipulation. But under SEC Rule   10b-18, adopted in 1982, companies receive a “safe harbor” from market   manipulation liability on stock buybacks if they adhere to four   limitations: not engaging in buybacks at the beginning or end of the   trading day, using a single broker for the trades, purchasing shares   at the prevailing market price, and limiting the volume of buybacks to   25 percent of the average daily trading volume over the previous four   weeks. In most countries there are specific guidelines on buy backs. It is never a case where by one fine morning company would buy its shares and sell it whenever it wants. In general company has to pass a board resolution, sometimes it also requires it to be approved by share holders. It has to notify the exchange weeks in advance. Quite a few countries require a price offer to all. I.E. it cannot execute a market order. All in all the company may have inside information, but it cannot time the market. Companies already have to protect themselves against employees trading the company's shares with insider information. They typically do that in a number of ways: Taken together, this tends to mostly mitigate the risk of employees trading with insider information, though it's probably not perfect. In practice, the company itself's knowledge of insider information is the same as that of its senior management. So it makes sense for a company to be allowed to trade under the same conditions as its senior management. From https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/03/14/questions-surrounding-share-repurchases/ : If the company is repurchasing outside of a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan,   it should limit its purchases to open window periods when officers and   directors are able to buy and sell securities of the company. In   addition, the company also can choose to disclose any material   non-public information prior to any share repurchase if it is in   possession of material non-public information at a time when it is   seeking to make a share repurchase outside of a Rule 10b5-1 trading   plan. As mentioned in the quote, a company can also set up a trading plan in advance (at a time when it doesn't have inside information) to be executed unconditionally in the future. Then even if the company comes into possession of inside information, it won't be using this knowledge to direct trades. "Another way to look at this is that pure insider trading is an activity with the aim to use secret information to make personal profit or let others make personal profit at the expense of the company shareholders or investors. In buybacks, it is not company managers to get personal gain in this would-be ""insider trading"". The end-winners in this case are the shareholders. So there is nothing inherently bad in buying back stock. Moreover, it is a general practice to buy shares back (as opposed to paying dividends) when the company sees its shares being undervalued (of course, provided that it has the cash/borrowing ability to implement this), since it creates shareholders value, thereby maximising shareholder wealth, which is one of the primary tasks of the company managers." "The reason that stock buybacks are not considered insider trading is because the offers are open to all on equal terms to everyone outside the company. Even if the company knows ""inside"" information, it's not supposed to tell it (and company executives are not allowed to tender shares, unless they had previously set up a ""blind"" selling program on a""schedule."") If that's actually the case, no one investor is better informed than another, and hence there is no insider trading. The issue of inside trading is that ""insiders"" ARE better informed." Buybacks do not increase the company's value. Cash is traded for outstanding shares. This is similar to a dividend, but instead of cash, investors receive a rising share-price. Whether an investor prefers a cash dividend or capital gains is less important than the outcome that their investment is gaining value for them.
"Wouldn't this be part of your investing strategy to know what price is considered a ""good"" price for the stock?  If you are going to invest in company ABC, shouldn't you have some idea of whether the stock price of $30, $60, or $100 is the bargain price you want?  I'd consider this part of the due diligence if you are picking individual stocks.  Mutual funds can be a bit different in automatically doing fractional shares and not quite as easy to analyze as a company's financials in a sense. I'm more concerned with the fact that you don't seem to have a good idea of what the price is that you are willing to buy the stock so that you take advantage of the volatility of the market. ETFs would be similar to mutual funds in some ways though I'd probably consider the question that may be worth considering here is how much do you want to optimize the price you pay versus adding $x to your position each time.  I'd probably consider estimating a ballpark and then setting the limit price somewhere within that.  I wouldn't necessarily set it to the maximum price you'd be willing to pay unless you are trying to ride a ""hot"" ETF using some kind of momentum strategy.  The downside of a momentum strategy is that it can take a while to work out the kinks and I don't use one though I do remember a columnist from MSN Money that did that kind of trading regularly." A practical issue is that insider trading transfers wealth from most investors to the few insiders. If this were permitted, non-insiders would rarely make any money, and they'd stop investing. That would then defeat the purpose of the capital markets which is to attract capital. A moral issue is that managers and operators of a company should act in shareholders' interests. Insider trading directly takes money from other shareholders and transfers it to the insider. It's a nasty conflict of interest (and would allow any CEO of a public company to make ton of money quickly, regardless of their job performance). In short, shareholders and management should succeed or suffer together, so their interests are as aligned as possible and managers have the proper incentives. "Actually there is no law that makes insider trading illegal, except for actual company insiders (people working at the company). Insider trading as you describe is just a court precedent set in the 80s (I think it was the 80s) and it's based on the concept of ""fraud"", whereby you are misappropriating information that you should not have.  So no, insider trading isn't ""illegal"" in that sense, and the jury is out as to whether it's even bad or not for the markets. That doesn't mean I would recommend doing it or really anything even closely resembling it, since they're pretty aggressive about pursuing those cases." "Some history: In the US, this is very tightly controlled and regulated. Although stock market securities insider trading is a relatively new crime around the world (20-30 year old), the United States  is exceptional for offering the longest sentences for it, although it is still far more lucrative than and carries lower sentences than something like petty larceny. The perception of illegal insider trading has changed in the US over the years, although it is based on much older fraud statutes the regulators and the courts have only really developed modern case law against insider trading in the past 20-30 years. The US relies on its vast network of registered broker-dealers to detect and report abnormal trading activity and the regulator (SEC) can quickly obtain emergency court orders from rent-a-judges (Administrative Law Judges) to freeze trader's assets to prevent them from withdrawing, or quickly enacting sanctions. So this reality helps deter trading on material inside information. So for someone that needs to get an information advantage on the market, it is [simply] necessary for them to rationalize how this information could be inferred from public sources.  Similarly there is a thin line between non-public information and public information, the ""lab experiment"" example would be material insider information, but the fact that there will be litigation over a company's key patents may be ""public"" as soon as the lawyer submits the complaint to the court system. It is also worth noting that there are A LOT of financial products trading in the capital markets, and illegal insider trading laws only applies to trading of shares of a company. So if a major holder in gold is about to liquidate all their holdings, being short gold futures is not subject to civil and criminal sanctions. Hope this helps. The above examples should help you understand what kind of information is material inside information and what kind is not, and how it is relevant to trading decisions." I understand where you're coming from but you're mostly just quoting the plaintiff's attorney. That's not going to be the source of unbiased information. Furthermore, I don't trust general news sources when it comes to complex financial reporting. I don't really even trust business journals as they are mostly filled with j degrees without real experience. Bankruptcy cases can get very complex and unpredictable because judge's have significant leeway; you really need to read the case opinion to see what really went down. I work in finance and deal with bankruptcies on a semi-regular case. I am on the buy side (the side that would be screwed in cases like this) so my inherent bias goes your way against poor management.   If this guy actually moved assets from company 1 to company 2 at a non-arms length transaction then that is misconduct and assets can be recovered from company 2 usually. If Learning Annex was pari passu with Robert and he pulled dividends out to himself, that is misconduct that will be punished by a bankruptcy court. If he did these things they are not smart business practices, and will be punished.  Your condescension does not help your case. I most likely know far more about this topic than you, as I have seen the nuances corporate bankruptcies take on in the real world. I just don't trust grossly oversimplified reporting in a case that is ongoing. "It would take an unusual situation.   They exercise certain types of option, which come in as regular income rather than capital gains, and are holding the stock ""long"" (perhaps they are not allowed to sell because of an insider-trading freeze window; like right before earnings announcements).  And then the stock tanks.  Their company is acquired.   They get stock options in their unicorn at $1/share, which blows up to $1000/share right as HugeFirm buys it. Options are swapped dollar-for-dollar for HugeFirm stock (at $250/share) so 4 shares for 1.   I heard this happened a lot in the 1999-2000 boom/bust.   And the problem was, this type of stock-option had historically only been offered to $20-million salary CEOs and CFO's, who retained professional legal and financial counsel and knew how to deal with the pitfalls and traps of this type of option.  During the dot-com boom, it was also offered to rank-and-file $50k salary tech employees who didn't even know the difference between a 401K and a Roth.   And it exploded in their faces, making a big mess for everyone including the IRS -- now struggling to justify to Congressmen why they were collecting $400,000 in taxes on entirely phantom, never-realized income from a 24 year old tech guy earning $29k at a startup and eating ramen.  When that poor guy never had a chance of understanding the financial rocks and shoals, and even if he did, couldn't have done anything about it (since he wasn't a high executive involved in the decisions).  And even the company who gave him the package didn't intend to inflict this on him.  It was a mistake.  Even the IRS dislikes no-win situations.   Some laws got changed, some practices got changed, etc. etc., and the problem isn't what it used to be." Here's how this works in the United States. There's no law regarding your behavior in this matter and you haven't broken any laws. But your broker-dealer has a law that they must follow. It's documented here: The issue is if you buy stock before your sell has settled (before you've received cash) then you're creating money where before none existed (even though it is just for a day or two). The government fears that this excess will cause undue speculation in the security markets. The SEC calls this practice freeriding, because you're spending money you have not yet received. In summary: your broker is not allowed to loan money to an account than is not set-up for loans; it must be a margin account. People with margin account are able to day-trade because they have the ability to use margin (borrow money). Margin Accounts are subject to Pattern Daytrading Rules. The Rules are set forth by FINRA (The Financial Industry Reporting Authority) and are here: This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit.