Share dealing dilemma

fozzeh

Since you are not behind a Chinese Wall and you're acting on hearsay, it's hard to determine. If they are related to a take over bid, they are disclosing information which should not be discussed (until disclosed to the market) in a public place and would be in breach of their contracts.
However, they are predicting a takeover bid and not confirming...also takeovers fall through and the share price plummets.

Turbobob's last sentence sums it up pretty well...but proving that you bought shares on what you heard in a pub is hard to prove.

Mikeyorks

Doesn't a pub make this 'public domain'?

And how is it any different to reading an inference of takeover potential in the financial media ...... yet not knowing where that info was sourced from?

The legislation surely covers 'insider' or direct association from an insider ....... indirect association, such as you infer, can't possibly be covered.

dudenstumpy

I would not trust this information, why ?, because of all the nonsense I've previously heard spoken in pubs.

Stavros_3

dudenstumpy wrote: »

I would not trust this information, why ?, because of all the nonsense I've previously heard spoken in pubs.

Also on this website by some individuals:rotfl:

tradetime

Curious to know what conclusions you draw from your poll results, albeit a very small sample of opinion.

fozzeh

Mikeyorks wrote: »

Doesn't a pub make this 'public domain'?

And how is it any different to reading an inference of takeover potential in the financial media ...... yet not knowing where that info was sourced from?

The legislation surely covers 'insider' or direct association from an insider ....... indirect association, such as you infer, can't possibly be covered.

???

My post says it shouldn't be discussed in a public domain.

Media inputs are taken not deemed fact unless the company can be quoted. It'd be classed as speculation and would start a potential ghost hunt...

Indirect association is covered under insider dealing dependant on your knowledge of the person...but, as per my last paragraph, it'd be a debatable and hard to prove point.