[HS]

What if you found out that you had misjudged their scenario, jumped to conclusions, and now you've ruined an innocent person's life? My guess is, you would feel bad. Then you'd rationalize that they probably had it coming anyway, for different reasons.

OK yeah, I see the ambiguity. “I wouldn’t lose sleep over *rightfully* exposing the CEO.” Fair?

If I wrongfully accused them, I would feel terrible, endeavor to correct my mistake, and put the issue behind me. People get wrongfully accused/convicted all the time, but that should not prevent the effort to accuse/convict the correct people, it just means your methodology is in dire need of refinement.

Should the new owner of the car go back to the dealer and tell him that he sold the car for too little

Yes. I think we all know deep down. 

[frankinstien]

This is one of those situations where the dealer being courteous would improve his chances of reaping big rewards in the future and honesty would pay dividends.

If the dealer considered the odds of being caught out for maintaining his passive deception, he should have also have considered the fact that if the car really was worth $5000 then he should have been able to sell it for $5000, even if he warned his customers that he had understood their not so private conversation. I think those considerations cancel each other out which means his future business and relationships should continue to be more important to him than making a quick buck.

There are some backward countries that postulate that greed is good and altruism is a dirty word (you know who you are), but in the civilized world, altruism is quite rightly the baseline for everyday behaviour.

Well altruism is subjective and so is the word civilized. I mean to an Aztec altruism is sacrificing your own life for the sake of preventing the darkness from overtaking the Sun.  The point, however, is this, while we like to think that altruism is the idea the fact is no one can draw that line without getting into grey areas. So while someone could sell a car for cheaper, and there are dealers or retailers that match prices, we enter into problems when market demands define prices. Can you say that Tommy Hilfiger can charge more for its products over others when all one is paying for is branding? I mean the sweatshops that high-end designer clothes are made are the same as those that make Walmart clothing. I can find a designer like pair of jeans, shoes, shirts, socks, etc at Walmart at far lower prices than say designer clothes at Nordstrom's.  And the differences are nothing more than branding, so one is paying far more because it has someone's logo or name than off-brands. According to you Nordstrom's is unethical or at least their suppliers are for selling clothes that they could sell for far less...

[frankinstien]

If the dealer considered the odds of being caught out for maintaining his passive deception

I would disagree that there was any deception on the part of the dealer or the salesman. The salesman did not mislead the customer nor fool him as to the value of the car. If anything Honda Civics are known for their longevity which is why the customer was more than willing to part with $5000 for it...

[frankinstien]

But the stock analyst definitely wronged the buyers because he had significant control over the stock value. You can’t have a hand in this stuff, that’s like an insurance company manufacturing health risks for their customers.

Actually, how is that different from any other kind of news that could drive the stock price down? The analyst can have a vested interest in their recommendations. I mean how many times have you read an analyst's recommendation of "Hold", "Under Perform", "Sell", etc that drives a stock price down significantly? As long as the information collected is not insider information and it is "true" then its legal because that is news and the public should be informed. It's market manipulation if the published information is false with the deliberate intent to move the stock price.

[LOCKSUIT]

Animals always want gains. [Humans] get more gains when we share work/food. But not all things (100%) is shareable yet. So only 1 can get food or work, sorry. Some people don't "know" they can share, some people can't if they are disliked. Stealing a purse, robbing a house, etc can occur if you are very desperate or very uneducated or very upset.

If the government educated everyone on social rules etc we would save so many lives and work! Switch covid hype with education hype.

[HS]

Actually, how is that different from any other kind of news that could drive the stock price down? The analyst can have a vested interest in their recommendations. I mean how many times have you read an analyst's recommendation of "Hold", "Under Perform", "Sell", etc that drives a stock price down significantly? As long as the information collected is not insider information and it is "true" then its legal because that is news and the public should be informed. It's market manipulation if the published information is false with the deliberate intent to move the stock price.

I guess you could argue he is withholding information that should be public knowledge, with the intent of personal gain and at the uniformed public’s loss.

[frankinstien]

I guess you could argue he is withholding information that should be public knowledge, with the intent of personal gain and at the uniformed public’s loss.

Actually no because it was his research that leads him to the awareness of the CEO, so the media becomes informed of the CEO's background when the analyst publishes it. That he decides to take advantage of the situation because he's in the right place at the right time isn't wrong. It's no different than if you discovered gold before anybody else did in a particular property and purchased that property with that knowledge. That there will be losses because of the information release isn't an issue of ethics but a fact of life of speculation, even if its long term, which really doesn't matter if it's long term or short term eventually an investor is going to take a profit if he/she can and reward themselves because of the risk they took.

But risk can never be removed from commodity markets, even if you have insider information, which is illegal, such information doesn't mean that one's speculation as to how that information will be interpreted is going to be as expected. So even if you have knowledge of the earnings that are going to be dismal of a public company before it's released to the public there is no guarantee that the stock price will move in the direction you've anticipated. The market may have already discounted the speculation of such information and the price action actually moves in the opposite direction!

[infurl]

Are you living in an alternate reality where that kind of insider trading isn't a criminal offense?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/021815/how-sec-tracks-insider-trading.asp
The stock market is supposed to be a level playing field; all shareholders are taking risks, but they are supposed to be taking the same risk on any given stock. Those with inside information are allowed to trade in the stocks too, but when they come into such information, they are not permitted to use it until it is public knowledge. Stock markets invest a great deal of time and money detecting that kind of criminal behaviour and they are very good at it.

[frankinstien]

Are you living in an alternate reality where that kind of insider trading isn't a criminal offense?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/021815/how-sec-tracks-insider-trading.asp
The stock market is supposed to be a level playing field; all shareholders are taking risks, but they are supposed to be taking the same risk on any given stock. Those with inside information are allowed to trade in the stocks too, but when they come into such information, they are not permitted to use it until it is public knowledge. Stock markets invest a great deal of time and money detecting that kind of criminal behaviour and they are very good at it.

Nothing about the analyst sources are insider information, if you read the post, it clearly states the analyst used public sources to do a background check on the CEO, so it's not insider information, it was public information...

[infurl]

What the analyst knew which the public did not know was that the CEO's nefarious past was about to be exposed. Only an idiot would think that that event could not affect the stock price and even if the stock price didn't change, the analyst would still be found guilty of insider trading and sent to prison.

[frankinstien]

What the analyst knew which the public did not know was that the CEO's nefarious past was about to be exposed. Only an idiot would think that that event could not affect the stock price and even if the stock price didn't change, the analyst would still be found guilty of insider trading and sent to prison.

No, insider information is not information not known to the public as in information from mainstream media but is information that could only have come from insiders of a company. If the information is from a public source then anyone could have gotten that information and it is not insider information. So no prison time, despite that you may believe the stock price will tank if you publish it...

[infurl]

You're becoming incoherent, maybe it's past your bedtime 

[frankinstien]

You're becoming incoherent, maybe it's past your bedtime 

Maybe you don't understand the term "Public Source" it means information that is of public record and available to anyone who decides to do some research... 

[Yervelcome]

I'm afraid frankinstien is right. Doing research doesn't make something insider info. Warren Buffet is known for researching deeply into the companies he invests in, and that has brought him much success.

Ethics may be a different matter, though. Ethics is not the same as the law. You may think it's 'wrong' to out someone like that, or tank a company. If you'd been discreet, they could have found a replacement CEO before it went public.

As for the car, the whole idea of making a profit on the stock market is to buy something for less than it is worth.

Even jobs aren't fair. It's probably not fair that I make oodles of money sitting at a computer and others in my country can barely scrape by working 12 hours a day. Demand and supply economics are not fair.

[HS]

Ethics is not the same as the law.

I think you got to the crux of the matter. We can't currently have both. Both are of value to society. And we all see a different ratio of their significance as ideal for society.