A "near-perfect win rate" might suggest strong confidence, but it hardly points to insider trading automatically.
Maybe these traders just have better analysis models or more time to study the publicly available information, making them seem like geniuses.
Calling it insider trading without more solid proof means we're wasting dwindling investigative resources on assumptions, not facts.
We need clear evidence, like specific privileged information access, not just good outcomes; otherwise, it’s just noise that distracts from real issues.