The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants

Dr. David Edward Marcinko; MBA MEd

SPONSOR: http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

***

***

Insider stock trading sits at the intersection of finance, law, and ethics, and it continues to provoke debate because it challenges the idea of fairness in markets. At its core, insider trading occurs when someone with material, non‑public information about a company buys or sells its securities before that information becomes public. This practice undermines the principle that all investors should have equal access to information when making decisions. Although some argue that insider trading can increase market efficiency, most legal systems treat it as a serious violation because it erodes trust, distorts prices, and privileges a select few over the broader investing public. The tension between these perspectives makes insider trading a compelling topic for examining how markets should function and what society expects from corporate actors.

The modern understanding of insider trading is shaped by the idea that markets depend on confidence. Investors participate because they believe the system is fundamentally fair. When insiders exploit privileged information, they gain an advantage unavailable to ordinary investors, creating a sense of manipulation rather than competition. This imbalance can discourage participation, especially among smaller investors who already feel disadvantaged. The perception of fairness is just as important as fairness itself, and insider trading threatens both. The concept of market integrity becomes central here: without it, the financial system risks becoming a game where only those with connections can win.

Insider trading also raises questions about corporate responsibility. Executives, board members, and employees are entrusted with sensitive information because they need it to perform their roles. Using that information for personal gain violates this trust. It also harms the company by potentially triggering investigations, lawsuits, and reputational damage. Even when insider trading does not directly harm the company’s financial performance, it can weaken internal culture. Employees who see leaders exploiting confidential information may become cynical about ethical standards. This erosion of trust within the organization can be just as damaging as the external consequences.

Despite the widespread condemnation of insider trading, some economists argue that it can have benefits. They claim that allowing insiders to trade on private information helps prices adjust more quickly to reflect a company’s true value. In this view, insider trading contributes to market efficiency by incorporating information into prices sooner than public disclosure would allow. However, this argument overlooks the broader social and ethical implications. Markets are not just mechanisms for price discovery; they are institutions built on shared expectations of fairness. If insider trading were permitted, insiders would have strong incentives to delay disclosure or manipulate information to maximize personal profit. This would undermine transparency, which is essential for efficient markets in the long run.

***

***

Legal frameworks around insider trading attempt to balance these concerns by prohibiting trades based on material, non‑public information while still allowing insiders to participate in the market under controlled conditions. For example, executives may buy or sell shares through pre‑scheduled trading plans that limit the possibility of abuse. These rules aim to preserve fairness without completely excluding insiders from owning stock in their own companies. Enforcement remains challenging, however, because proving that someone acted on confidential information requires detailed investigation. Regulators must demonstrate not only that the person had access to the information but also that it influenced their decision to trade. This difficulty means that some insider trading likely goes undetected, which further complicates public perceptions of fairness.

The consequences of insider trading extend beyond individual cases. When scandals emerge, they can shake confidence in entire sectors or markets. Investors may question whether other companies are engaging in similar behavior, leading to broader skepticism. This is why regulators emphasize deterrence through penalties such as fines, disgorgement of profits, and imprisonment. These punishments signal that insider trading is not merely a technical violation but a serious breach of ethical and legal norms. The goal is to reinforce the idea that markets function best when all participants operate under the same rules.

Ultimately, insider stock trading forces society to confront what it expects from financial markets. Should markets reward those with privileged access, or should they strive for a level playing field? Most legal systems choose the latter, recognizing that fairness is essential for maintaining public trust. Insider trading undermines this trust by creating an uneven distribution of information and opportunity. While debates about efficiency and regulation will continue, the broader consensus remains that insider trading is incompatible with the ethical foundations of modern financial systems. It is not simply a matter of legality but of preserving the integrity of markets that millions of people rely on for investment, retirement, and economic stability.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: Dr. Marcinko will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit an RFP for speaking engagements: CONTACT: Ann Miller RN MHA at MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com -OR- http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Like, Refer and Subscribe

***

***

Filed under: iMBA, Inc. | Tagged: david marcinko | Leave a comment »

Dr. David Edward Marcinko; MBA MEd

SPONSOR: http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

***

***

Delaware Statutory Trusts (DSTs) occupy a distinctive space in the landscape of real estate investing, blending the stability of institutional‑grade property ownership with the accessibility of a passive investment structure. Their rise in popularity—especially among investors seeking tax‑efficient strategies—reflects a broader shift toward vehicles that balance control, diversification, and regulatory clarity. At their core, DSTs are legal entities created under Delaware law that allow multiple investors to hold fractional interests in large real estate assets. This structure enables individuals to participate in opportunities that would typically be out of reach, such as large apartment communities, industrial portfolios, or medical office buildings. The appeal of DSTs lies not only in their accessibility but also in the way they streamline ownership and management responsibilities, offering a path to real estate participation without the burdens of direct oversight.

A defining feature of DSTs is their suitability for 1031 exchange participation, a tax‑deferral mechanism that allows investors to roll proceeds from one property into another of “like‑kind.” For many, this is the primary gateway into DSTs. When an investor sells a property and seeks to defer capital gains taxes, a DST can serve as a replacement property that satisfies IRS requirements while eliminating the need to personally manage a new asset. This combination of tax efficiency and passive ownership makes DSTs particularly attractive to retiring landlords or those looking to simplify their portfolios. Instead of dealing with tenants, repairs, or financing, investors receive distributions from professionally managed assets, freeing them to focus on long‑term planning rather than day‑to‑day operations.

The governance structure of a DST is intentionally rigid, designed to protect the trust’s tax‑advantaged status. Once the trust is established and the property is acquired, the trustee assumes full operational control. Investors, known as beneficial owners, do not vote on management decisions or influence the direction of the asset. This limitation is not a flaw but a feature: the IRS requires that DST investors remain passive to qualify for certain tax treatments. The trustee handles leasing, maintenance, financing, and eventual disposition of the property, ensuring that the investment remains compliant and professionally managed. For investors accustomed to hands‑on real estate ownership, this shift can feel unfamiliar, but it is central to the DST model’s stability and predictability.

Another compelling aspect of DSTs is their ability to provide diversification across property types and geographic regions. Because investors can allocate funds across multiple trusts, they can spread risk in ways that would be difficult with individually owned properties. One DST might hold a multifamily complex in a growing Sun Belt city, while another might own a distribution center leased to a national logistics company. This diversification can help smooth returns and reduce exposure to localized economic downturns. It also allows investors to align their portfolios with broader market trends, such as the rise of e‑commerce or the expansion of healthcare services.

***

***

Despite their advantages, DSTs are not without limitations. The same passivity that protects their tax status also restricts flexibility. Investors cannot force a sale, refinance the property, or adjust strategy in response to market shifts. Liquidity is another consideration: DST interests are not traded on public markets, and exiting early can be difficult. The investment horizon typically ranges from five to ten years, depending on market conditions and the trustee’s disposition strategy. For individuals who require ready access to capital or prefer active decision‑making, these constraints may feel restrictive. Understanding these trade‑offs is essential before committing funds to a DST.

The performance of a DST is closely tied to the quality of its sponsor—the firm responsible for acquiring the property, structuring the trust, and overseeing operations. A strong sponsor brings experience, market insight, and disciplined underwriting, all of which contribute to the stability of investor returns. Conversely, a poorly managed trust can expose investors to unnecessary risk. Evaluating a sponsor’s track record, communication practices, and asset‑management philosophy becomes a critical part of the due‑diligence process. This emphasis on sponsor quality underscores the importance of transparent management practices and alignment between investor expectations and operational realities.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: Dr. Marcinko will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit an RFP for speaking engagements: CONTACT: Ann Miller RN MHA at MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com -OR- http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Like, Refer and Subscribe

***

***

Filed under: iMBA, Inc. | Tagged: david marcinko | Leave a comment »