Couldn't see a link to the original research but I read an...

Couldn't see a link to the original research but I read an article referencing it in two places and to me it looks like badly designed research with a different definition of insider trading.

For all I know insider trading could be rife but the reported critics of the conclusion - Marcus Padley and ASIC seem to be making more sense than the research to me - selling after announcements when the public has the knowledge but taking a less extreme view than the market which in my opinion tends to move in the short term to extremes like water in a swinging bucket is not insider trading its just being sensible and keeping things in perspective as opposed to being newsflash focused - which is what I'd expect directors to do if they are focused on the underlying business and to learn to do better with experience of seeing how the market reacts to reports.