英文原文摘選：
What is Really Unethical about Insider Trading?
Jennifer Moore Source: Journal of Business Ethics 9 (1990): 171-182
…For many, insider trading has become the primary symbol of a widespread ethical rot on Wall Street and in the business community as a whole.
For a practice that has come to epitomize unethical business behavior, insider trading has received surprisingly little ethical analysis. The best ethical assessments of insider trading have come from legal scholars who argue against the practice. But their arguments rest on notions such as fairness or ownership of information that require much more examination than they are usually given. Proponents of insider trading are quick to dismiss these arguments as superficial, but offer very little ethical insight of their own. Arguing almost solely on grounds of economic efficiency, they generally gloss over the ethical arguments or dismiss them entirely. Ironically, their refusal to address the ethical arguments on their merits merely strengthens the impression that insider trading is unethical. Readers are left with the sense that while it might reduce efficiency, the prohibition against insider trading rests on firm ethical grounds. But can we assume this? Not, I think without a good deal more examination.
This paper is divided into two parts. In the first part, I examine critically the principal ethical arguments against insider trading. The arguments fall into three main classes: arguments based on fairness, arguments based on property rights in information, and arguments based on harm to ordinary investors or the market as a whole. Each of these arguments, I contend, has some serious deficiencies. No one of them by itself provides a sufficient reason for outlawing insider trading. This does not mean, however, that there are no reasons for prohibiting the practice. Once we have cleared away the inadequate arguments, other, more cogent reasons for outlawing insider trading come to light. In the second part of. the paper, I set out what I take to be the real reasons for laws against insider trading.
…
I. Ethical arguments against insider trading
…
II. Is there anything wrong with insider trading
…
III. Conclusion
I have argued that the real reason for prohibiting insider trading is that it erodes the fiduciary relationship that lies at the heart of our business organizations. The more frequently heard moral arguments based on fairness, property rights in information in information, and harm to ordinary investors, are not compelling. Of these, the fairness arguments seem to me the least persuasive. The claim that a trader must reveal everything that it is in the interest of another party to know, seems to hold up only when the other is someone to whom he owes a fiduciary duty. But this is not really a "fairness" argument at all. Similarly, the "misappropriation" theory is only persuasive if we can offer reasons for corporations not to assign the right to trade on inside information to their employees, I have found these in the fact that permitting insider trading threatens the fiduciary relationship. I do believe that lifting the ban against insider trading would cause harms to shareholders, corporations, and society at large. But again, these harms stem primarily from the cracks in the fiduciary relationship caused by permitting insider trading, rather than from actual trades with insider. Violation of fiduciary duty, in short, is at the center of insider trading offenses, and it is with good reason that the Supreme Court has kept the fiduciary relationship at the forefront of its deliberations on insider trading.
翻譯文本：
內(nèi)幕交易中究竟有什么不道德?
詹妮弗·穆爾
首次發(fā)表在《商業(yè)倫理雜志》1990年第9期，第171-182頁
……對很多人來說，內(nèi)幕交易成了華爾街乃至整個商業(yè)界普遍道德敗壞的象征。
現(xiàn)實中，內(nèi)幕交易已經(jīng)成為不道德商業(yè)行為的縮影，但奇怪的是，幾乎沒人對其進(jìn)行過倫理分析。對內(nèi)幕交易最好的倫理評估來自于反對這種行為的法律學(xué)者，但他們的理由只是建立在公平和信息所有權(quán)這類需要進(jìn)一步進(jìn)行論證的概念之上。內(nèi)幕交易的支持者雖然很快就反駁說這些理由過于膚淺，但卻幾乎提不出自己的道德見解。他們只是以經(jīng)濟(jì)效率為依據(jù)，要么虛掩其道德觀點(diǎn)，要么完全拋棄。具有諷刺意味的是，他們不做道德上的論證，恰恰使人更加認(rèn)為內(nèi)幕交易是不道德的。讀者也會感覺到，雖然禁止內(nèi)幕交易會降低效率，但這種做法是有堅實道德基礎(chǔ)的。那么，我們也要堅持這種觀點(diǎn)嗎？我認(rèn)為還是做進(jìn)一步的分析為好。
本文分兩部分。在第一部分，我將批判性地分析反對內(nèi)幕交易的主要道德觀點(diǎn)。這些觀點(diǎn)可以分為三類：公平觀點(diǎn)、有關(guān)信息財產(chǎn)權(quán)的觀點(diǎn)、以及對普通投資者或乃至整個市場構(gòu)成危害的觀點(diǎn)。但我認(rèn)為，所有這些觀點(diǎn)都有某些嚴(yán)重缺陷，其中任何一個觀點(diǎn)都不足以構(gòu)成證明內(nèi)幕交易為非法的理由。但是，這并意味著禁止內(nèi)幕交易就是毫無根據(jù)的。我們澄清這些觀點(diǎn)理由不充分之后，證明內(nèi)幕交易為非法的其他更有說服力的理由就會展現(xiàn)出來。在本文第二部分，我提出了從法律上反對內(nèi)幕交易的真正理由。
……
一、反對內(nèi)幕交易的倫理觀點(diǎn)
……
二、內(nèi)幕交易有什么錯？
……
三、結(jié)論
我已經(jīng)說明了禁止內(nèi)幕交易的真正原因是，它侵蝕了作為我們商業(yè)組織核心的信義關(guān)系。人們更常聽說的建立在公平、信息財產(chǎn)權(quán)以及對普通投資者構(gòu)成危害等基礎(chǔ)上的道德觀點(diǎn)，都沒有說服力。在所有這些觀點(diǎn)中，我認(rèn)為公平的論據(jù)最沒說服力。交易者必須向他方透露與其利益相關(guān)的所有信息，這種要求只有當(dāng)交易者對其負(fù)有信義義務(wù)時，似乎才能成立。但是，這已不屬于真正的"公平"觀點(diǎn)。同樣，"盜用"理論也只有當(dāng)我們有理由證明公司沒授權(quán)其員工利用內(nèi)幕信息進(jìn)行交易時，才有說服力。我認(rèn)為，允許內(nèi)幕交易會威脅到信義關(guān)系。我堅信，解除對內(nèi)幕交易的禁令會損害股東、公司乃至整個社會。但是，損害主要來自因允許內(nèi)幕交易而造成的信義關(guān)系斷裂，而不是來自于內(nèi)幕者的實際交易。總之，違背信義義務(wù)是內(nèi)幕交易構(gòu)成犯罪的核心所在，因此，信義關(guān)系應(yīng)該是最高法院考慮內(nèi)幕交易的首要問題。 |
