In our recent study of options trading, we found that approximately 26 percent of all M&A deals in a sample of 1856 cases displayed abnormal options trading volumes during the thirty pre-announcement days. This sample covers M&A announcements over a 17-year period from 1996 to 2012. We further document that the chances of this activity being purely random are rather slim.
This raises the important policy question: Is all such unusual activity based on inside information, which is illegal, or is most of it due to actions by informed traders, who use their superior analytical skills? Is it possible that some sophisticated traders can make reasonable predictions based on publicly available information, and may analyze trends in the industry, follow statements made by management, etc.?
Read MoreLegalize insider trading? That's ridiculous
Though our statistical analysis is rather robust and covers many angles, it is certainly possible that some of the cases we document could be considered perfectly legal, and not necessarily based on inside information. However, it is important to emphasize that such a determination requires a case-by-case detailed inquiry by the regulators.
What seems surprising, at first glance, is that the statistical patterns we present in our research are quite pervasive and overwhelmingly strong, compared with the limited number of cases that have been litigated by the SEC.
In defense of the SEC, we may offer the following explanations for this discrepancy. For one thing, the publicly available litigation reports from the SEC used in our study include only civil litigations, and do not necessarily account for any criminal ones, especially those that are under litigation. For another, given that litigation can be costly, especially given how difficult it is to prove breach of fiduciary duty beyond a reasonable doubt, the SEC may be cautious about initiating action unless they unearth concrete evidence. Thus, it may not be cost effective to initiate litigation if the prospects of prosecution are not bright.
Read MoreThe truth about insider trading: ex-Galleon trader
Such executive choices by the regulator may very well be efficient in the presence of their own resource constraints. A conscious decision not to publicly disclose litigation may be desirable, if a whistleblower protection program needs to be arranged.
We believe that trading based on inside information has negative externalities for the market as a whole and should be illegal, as it is, in many countries. Our study raises a red flag regarding activity in one area of the market, and hence, it may be worth paying more attention to the activity in the options market ahead of important corporate announcements. Does this evidence suggest that the U.S. stock markets are rigged? We do not believe so. There is possibly some rogue trading, but it does not necessarily have a major impact on M&A activity, and certainly not on the market as a whole.