📌 课程目标
- 掌握「重大非公开信息」（MNPI）的判断标准
- 理解内幕信息交易的实际应用场景
- 深入理解 马赛克理论（Mosaic Theory）及其与内幕交易的边界
- 能准确区分合法的投资研究 vs 违规的内幕交易
一、MNPI 判断标准回顾
1.1 「重大」（Material）
信息是否重大，看它是否会影响 理性投资者的投资决策。
重大信息的典型例子： - 并购/收购公告 - 重大诉讼结果 - 产品获批/被拒（如 FDA 审批） - CEO/CFO 突然离职 - 盈利大幅超预期或低于预期 - 重大资产处置或重组
非重大信息例子： - 日常管理层变动（非 C-suite） - 产品微调 - 行业普遍信息
1.2 「非公开」（Nonpublic）
信息尚未向市场广泛传播。
判断依据： - 未通过新闻稿、SEC 文件、财报会议等公开渠道发布 - 面向部分人群的披露 → 仍属非公开 - 即便是公司内部全员邮件 → 若未对外公告，仍为非公开
1.3 "茶叶测试"（The "Tea Leaves" Test）
如果你知道了这个信息，你会不会想交易？→ 如果是，那大概率是 MNPI。
二、内幕信息应用的关键场景
场景 1：选择性披露（Selective Disclosure）
⚠️ Regulation FD（公平披露规则） 要求：上市公司向特定人群（分析师、机构投资者）披露重大信息时，必须同时向公众披露。
案例： A 公司 CFO 在分析师电话会上透露下季度指引大幅上调，但未发新闻稿。 → 参会的分析师不能基于此信息交易，因为信息尚未公开。
场景 2：专家网络（Expert Network）
投资公司通过「专家网络」聘请行业专家提供行业洞察：
✅ 合法做法： - 询问行业趋势、竞争格局（公开/一般性知识） - 不涉及具体公司的非公开信息
❌ 违规做法： - 询问"你公司本季度销量如何？" → MNPI - 询问"你公司正在谈判的并购对象？" → MNPI
经典判例： 对冲基金通过专家网络获取科技公司内部销售数据并交易 → 构成内幕交易。
场景 3：社交场合获取信息
在聚会、餐厅、高尔夫球场等非正式场合无意中听到 MNPI：
- ⚠️ 如果你 有理由知道 这是非公开信息，仍受 Standard II(A) 约束
- 偶然听到 ≠ 豁免
- 建议：停止相关股票的任何交易操作，并报告合规部门
场景 4：竞争对手信息获取
从客户/供应商/竞争对手处获取信息：
- 如果该信息的披露违反了信息来源方对股东的 fiduciary duty → 可能构成 MNPI
- 分析师从供应商处得知某公司订单骤降 → 要判断信息来源是否违反保密义务
场景 5：投资银行「防火墙」问题
投行内部不同部门间的信息隔离：
- 投行部门参与并购谈判 → 研究部门不得基于此发布报告
- 需要建立 信息壁垒（Chinese Wall / Information Barrier）
- 限制名单（Restricted List）和观察名单（Watch List）管理
三、马赛克理论（Mosaic Theory）⭐ 重点
3.1 定义
马赛克理论 是指分析师通过收集 公开信息 和 非重大非公开信息，拼凑出有价值的投资结论，不构成内幕交易。
就像拼马赛克画：每一片瓷砖单独看没有意义，但拼在一起形成完整图像。
3.2 合法的基础
马赛克理论合法的关键在于信息来源：
| 来源 | 性质 | 是否合法 |
|---|---|---|
| 公开财报/公告 | 公开 + 重大 | ✅ 合法 |
| 媒体报道/行业报告 | 公开 + 可能非重大 | ✅ 合法 |
| 走访零售店面观察客流 | 非公开 + 非重大 | ✅ 合法（马赛克） |
| 与公司管理层交流但不涉及 MNPI | 非公开 + 非重大 | ✅ 合法（马赛克） |
| 获取未公开的销售数据 | 非公开 + 重大 | ❌ 违规 |
3.3 关键区分标准
一片马赛克瓷砖 = 非重大非公开信息 → 合法 一整块拼图 = 重大非公开信息 → 违规
判断公式：
公开信息 + 非重大非公开信息 = 马赛克理论（合法）✅
获得 重大非公开信息 并据此交易 = 内幕交易（违规）❌
3.4 经典案例
案例 A（合法 — 马赛克理论）： 分析师： 1. 阅读了 A 公司的公开财报 2. 走访了 A 公司 30 家门店观察人流量 3. 采访了行业专家了解行业趋势（不涉及 A 公司内部数据） 4. 综合得出 A 公司下季度销售将增长的结论 → 建议买入
✅ 合法！因为每一条信息都是公开或非重大的，最终结论是分析拼凑的结果。
案例 B（违规 — 获取 MNPI）： 分析师在走访门店时，店长透露"总部要求下周起全部产品涨薪 20%，因为你不会相信我们本季度利润有多好"。 → 分析师据此买入。
❌ 违规！利润信息是 MNPI。
案例 C（边界场景 — 需要判断）： 分析师发现 B 公司的一家主要供应商突然推迟了交货日期。分析师联系供应商，供应商透露"B 公司要求暂停所有订单，等待进一步通知"。
- 这个信息是公开的吗？→ 否
- 是重大的吗？→ 可能。暂停所有订单暗示 B 公司可能有重大问题。
- 分析师应该：❌ 不能基于此信息交易 B 公司股票，直到信息公开。
四、合规实践建议
4.1 投资公司应建立的流程
- 信息屏障（Information Barriers / Chinese Walls）
- 限制名单（Restricted List）— 禁止交易
- 观察名单（Watch List）— 监控异常交易
- 员工交易预审批制度
- 专家网络使用规范 — 每次交流前签署协议，限定讨论范围
4.2 个人从业者注意事项
- 问自己：这个信息公开发布了吗？
- 问自己：理性投资者会因此改变决策吗？
- 不确定时 → 不要交易，咨询合规部门
- 遵守公司的限制名单和观察名单制度
五、练习题（5 题）
题目 1
分析师 Wang 在餐厅邻桌无意中听到某上市公司 CEO 对朋友说"下周我们要宣布一个重大并购"。Wang 立即通过手机下单买入该公司股票。
Wang 是否违反 Standard II(A)？
A. 没有违反，因为他是无意中听到的 B. 没有违反，因为信息来自公开场合 C. 违反了，因为他获得了 MNPI 并据此交易 D. 没有违反，只要他没有主动去获取
题目 2
分析师 Chen 做了以下研究： - 阅读 A 公司的年报和季报 - 搜索了所有关于 A 公司的公开新闻 - 在 A 公司门店外清点了 2 周的进出顾客数量 - 采访了 5 位行业专家了解整体行业趋势 - 综合判断 A 公司下季度将超预期增长，建议客户买入
以下哪种说法最正确？
A. Chen 违反了 Standard II(A)，因为他使用了非公开信息 B. Chen 没有违反，因为使用的是马赛克理论 C. Chen 违反了，因为他采访了行业专家 D. Chen 没有违反，因为门店观察不构成重大信息
题目 3
分析师 Liu 通过专家网络联系到 X 公司的前员工。该前员工透露："我在离职前看到内部邮件说，下季度的销售额同比下降了 40%。" Liu 据此建议客户卖出 X 公司股票。
Liu 是否违反 Standard II(A)？
A. 没有违反，因为信息来源是前员工，不再受雇于 X 公司 B. 没有违反，因为这是通过合法专家网络获取的 C. 违反了，因为该信息是重大非公开信息 D. 没有违反，因为 Liu 没有直接接触 X 公司
题目 4
分析师 Zhang 注意到 Y 公司的主要供应商公告称"由于最大客户突然削减订单，本季度收入将大幅下滑"。Zhang 推断该最大客户就是 Y 公司，并建议卖出 Y 公司股票。
Zhang 是否违反 Standard II(A)？
A. 违反了，因为她是基于非公开信息推断的 B. 没有违反，因为供应商的公告是公开信息 C. 违反了，因为她没有直接确认 Y 公司的名字 D. 没有违反，只要她之后不买入该供应商的股票
题目 5
以下哪种做法最符合马赛克理论的合法范围？
A. 从公司 CFO 处直接获得下季度 EPS 预估值 B. 收集 50 家门店的停车位使用量数据，结合财报和行业报告进行分析 C. 通过黑客手段获取公司内部销售系统数据 D. 从公司内部员工处购买未公开的客户名单
六、答案与解析
答案 1：C
无意中听到 MNPI 并不能豁免义务。Wang 有理由知道这是非公开重大信息，仍受 Standard II(A) 约束。在信息公开发布前基于该信息交易即构成违规。即使是社交场合意外获取，也不能豁免。
答案 2：B
这是马赛克理论的经典合法应用。Chen 使用的所有信息源都是： - 公开信息（年报、新闻） - 非重大非公开信息（门店观察、行业趋势讨论） 没有获取任何违反保密义务的重大非公开信息，结论是通过分析和拼凑得出的，属于合法的投资研究。
答案 3：C
前员工的身份不改变信息性质。内部销售数据在下季度财报发布前属于 MNPI。前员工的披露行为可能违反其对公司的保密义务。通过专家网络获取 MNPI 并据此交易仍然违规。关键是信息的性质，不是信息来源的身份。
答案 4：B
这是马赛克理论的合法应用。供应商公告本身是公开信息（供应商已公开发布）。Zhang 的推断是基于公开信息利用专业知识（了解 Y 公司的供应链关系）进行的分析。关键在于她使用的是已公开的信息来做出判断。注意：如果在公告发布前从供应商获得此消息，则构成违规。
答案 5：B
B 符合马赛克理论：使用非重大的非公开观察（停车位数据）结合公开信息进行分析。A、C、D 均涉及获取重大非公开信息： - A：EPS 预估 = MNPI - C：非法手段获取 = 严重违规 - D：非公开客户名单 = MNPI，且涉及保密义务违反
📊 核心要点速记
| 概念 | 关键点 |
|---|---|
| MNPI 两要素 | 重大 + 非公开，缺一不可 |
| 选择性披露 | Regulation FD 禁止，必须同步公开 |
| 专家网络 | 可问行业趋势，不可问具体公司 MNPI |
| 马赛克理论 | 公开信息 + 非重大信息 → 合法研究 |
| 边界线 | 是否获得了「重大的」非公开信息 |
| 信息安全 | Chinese Wall, Restricted List, Watch List |
🔑 一句话总结：马赛克理论的核心，是把无数片「非重大」的小信息拼成一副完整图像——关键在于，任何一片都不能是「重大的非公开信息」。拿到一片别人看不到的大拼图，那就是内幕交易。
Module: 1 — Ethics & Professional Standards (1.3 Standard II — Integrity of Capital Markets) Progress: 18/560 lessons Date: May 27, 2026
📖 Review (L017 Recap)
Last lesson covered Standard II(A) — Material Nonpublic Information (MNPI):
- Material: Information that would affect a security's price or that a reasonable investor would want to know before making an investment decision
- Nonpublic: Information not yet disseminated to the general marketplace
- Key Rule: Members and candidates must not act or cause others to act on MNPI
🎯 Today's Focus: Applying II(A) in Practice
Distinguishing between illegal insider trading and legitimate investment research is one of the most nuanced challenges in the CFA ethics framework.
1. Insider Information — Real-World Scenarios
Scenario 1: The Tipping Chain
A junior analyst overhears a company executive discussing upcoming merger details at a restaurant. The executive did not intend to disclose the information.
Analysis: The analyst has received MNPI. Even though the disclosure was accidental, the analyst must: - Not trade on this information - Not share it with anyone who might trade (no "tipping") - Report the situation to their compliance department
Key Principle: It doesn't matter how you obtained MNPI — if you know it's material and nonpublic, you cannot use it, period.
Scenario 2: The Friend's Tip
A friend who works at a pharmaceutical company tells you that the FDA just privately informed the company about an upcoming drug approval rejection. The public announcement is scheduled for next week.
Analysis: This is clearly MNPI: - Material: FDA rejection will crash the stock price - Nonpublic: Public announcement hasn't been made - You: Must NOT trade on this information, NOR pass it to others
Key Principle: The "personal relationship" exception does not exist. Friends, family members, social contacts — no one is an exception.
Scenario 3: The Greedy Consultant
A consultant working on a merger deal buys call options in the target company before the public announcement.
Analysis: Textbook insider trading — criminal in most jurisdictions. The consultant: - Owed a duty to the client (breach of fiduciary duty) - Used MNPI for personal gain - Faces possible jail time + CFA sanctions
2. The Mosaic Theory — Legal Research Framework
What Is the Mosaic Theory?
The mosaic theory is the primary legal framework that allows financial analysts to conduct legitimate, ethical investment research without crossing the line into insider trading.
By gathering public and nonmaterial nonpublic information from multiple sources and synthesizing it, analysts can reach conclusions that the market has not yet priced in — legally.
| Component | Public Info | Nonmaterial Nonpublic | Material Nonpublic (MNPI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Example | SEC filings, press releases | Supplier interviews, store visits | Unreleased earnings, merger talks |
| Can use? | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
| Risk | None | Low | Illegal to trade on |
How Mosaic Theory Works
- Collect public information: 10-Ks, 10-Qs, earnings call transcripts, industry reports, economic data
- Gather nonmaterial nonpublic information: talk to suppliers, visit stores, analyze satellite imagery of parking lots, survey customers
- Synthesize all these pieces together → form a unique investment thesis
- Result: Your conclusion may be non-consensus and valuable — but it's legally derived
Mosaic Theory — Legitimate Examples
✅ Store Traffic Analysis: An analyst counts cars in a retailer's parking lot over several weeks, combines this with credit card data trends and industry reports → concludes Q4 sales will beat estimates.
✅ Supply Chain Investigation: An analyst interviews Apple suppliers in Asia, learns production volumes are increasing, combines with Apple's public guidance and industry growth data → raises Apple price target.
✅ Expert Network Calls: An analyst pays an expert network to connect with a former mid-level employee of a company. The former employee shares general industry trends and non-material observations. Combined with public filings → useful mosaic piece.
Mosaic Theory — Red Flags (Crossing the Line)
❌ Direct MNPI Question: Asking an expert network contact "What were Q3 earnings?" → This is soliciting MNPI.
❌ Tipping from Insider: A current employee leaks specific, unreleased financial data. Even if you "combine" it with public info, the MNPI piece contaminates the whole analysis.
❌ Single-Source Dependency: Your entire investment thesis rests on one piece of nonpublic information from a company insider → that's not a mosaic, that's insider trading.
3. Key Distinction: Mosaic vs. Insider Trading
| Factor | Mosaic Theory (Legal) | Insider Trading (Illegal) |
|---|---|---|
| Information Sources | Multiple diverse sources | Relies on a single MNPI tip |
| Information Quality | Public + nonmaterial nonpublic | Contains material nonpublic information |
| Process | Rigorous, documented analysis | Quick trade based on "hot tip" |
| Disclosure | Can explain methodology | Cannot disclose source |
| Fiduciary Breach? | No duty breached | Insider breached duty |
| Replicability | Other analysts could replicate | Others could NOT replicate |
The "Could Others Replicate?" Test
A good self-check: Could another analyst, starting from scratch with only public sources, reach a similar conclusion?
- If YES → likely legitimate mosaic research
- If NO (your conclusion depends on nonpublic info) → likely problematic
4. Expert Networks — Special Considerations
Expert networks (e.g., GLG, Third Bridge, AlphaSights) connect investors with industry experts. They're legal but high-risk.
Best Practices for Expert Network Calls: - Avoid questions about the expert's current employer's specific, nonpublic information - Use a chaperone/compliance officer on calls - Do not ask about unreleased financial results, pending M&A, or material contracts - Document all calls and research - Focus on industry trends, not company-specific MNPI
📝 Practice Quiz (3 Questions)
Q1. An analyst reads a target company's 10-K, interviews three of its major suppliers, analyzes industry pricing data, and reviews satellite imagery of the company's manufacturing facilities. Based on this synthesis, she downgrades the stock. Has she violated Standard II(A)?
A) Yes, because supplier interviews provided nonpublic information B) Yes, because satellite imagery is not traditional research C) No, because the conclusion was reached through mosaic theory using public and nonmaterial nonpublic information D) No, because she only downgraded instead of shorting the stock
Q2. An analyst attends an investor conference where a CFO accidentally reveals that Q3 earnings will significantly miss estimates — but asks attendees to "keep this confidential" until the official announcement next week. The analyst:
A) Can trade on the information since it was disclosed at a public conference B) Must not trade or cause others to trade until the information is publicly disseminated C) Can share the information with clients who pay for premium research D) Can trade only if she independently verifies the information from public sources
Q3. Which of the following BEST illustrates the legitimate application of mosaic theory?
A) A friend who works at a company tells you their division is being sold; you combine this with public filings to recommend selling the stock B) You analyze public earnings transcripts, interview former employees about general industry trends, and survey the company's customers about satisfaction levels C) An executive gives you specific, unreleased sales figures but you also gather 10 other public data points before trading D) You obtain a leaked internal memo and trade only after confirming some details through public sources
📊 Answer Key
| Question | Answer | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 | C | This is a textbook mosaic theory application: multiple public and nonmaterial nonpublic sources combined to form an independent conclusion. |
| Q2 | B | Even though disclosed at a "public" conference, the information is still nonpublic (only attendees heard it) and the CFO explicitly asked for confidentiality. Must wait for full public dissemination. |
| Q3 | B | Only B uses entirely legitimate sources: public filings + general (non-material) industry discussion + customer surveys. A, C, and D all involve MNPI contamination. |
🔑 Summary
- Insider Trading = Trading on material nonpublic information (or tipping others)
- Mosaic Theory = Combining public + nonmaterial nonpublic information from multiple sources → independent conclusion
- The Line: If your conclusion depends on even one piece of MNPI, the whole analysis is tainted
- Expert Networks are legal tools but require strict protocols to avoid MNPI
- Golden Rule: Would another analyst, using only public sources, reach the same conclusion?
Next: L019 — Standard II(A) Selective Disclosure & Expert Networks