IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v71y2025i4p3185-3215.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Proprietary Costs Deter Insider Trading?

Author

Listed:
  • Lyungmae Choi

    (The University of Sydney Business School, University of Sydney, Darlington, New South Wales 2006, Australia)

  • Lucile Faurel

    (W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287)

  • Stephen Hillegeist

    (W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287)

Abstract

Insider trading conveys insiders’ private information to outsiders. This private information potentially benefits rival firms, which may reduce the competitive advantage of the insiders’ firms. Using a composite proprietary cost measure, we find proprietary costs are negatively associated with insiders’ purchases, especially when their trades are more likely to be informative to rivals. Consistent with proprietary costs increasing the costs of insider purchases and, hence, the expected benefits required to trade, insiders earn significantly higher abnormal profits when proprietary costs are higher. Exploiting settings with exogenous and event-driven variation in proprietary costs, we find insiders significantly reduce their purchases when noncompete agreement enforceability is high and before new product launches. Moreover, firms with higher proprietary costs are more likely to impose window-based insider trading restrictions and insiders with greater equity holdings reduce their purchases more strongly in the presence of proprietary costs. Finally, we provide evidence of real effects of insider trading on rivals’ investment decisions. We find that investments are associated with insiders’ purchases at rival firms, and these associations are stronger when proprietary costs at rivals are higher. Our findings indicate insiders and firms are aware of potential proprietary costs when insiders trade on private information and respond accordingly.

Suggested Citation

  • Lyungmae Choi & Lucile Faurel & Stephen Hillegeist, 2025. "Do Proprietary Costs Deter Insider Trading?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(4), pages 3185-3215, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:71:y:2025:i:4:p:3185-3215
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2021.02469
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02469
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02469?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:71:y:2025:i:4:p:3185-3215. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.