Excessive caution is the real trap here; rejecting a dialectical opposition as mere contextual tension overlooks the risk that such an interpretation can pose for investors. The presumption of market fraud is not just a legal tool; it is a foundation that protects price integrity against opportunistic manipulations. Negative fraud tactics, for example spreading false rumors before a share buyback to artificially depress the price and buy at a lower cost, directly undermine this trust, creating a blatant information asymmetry. Denying this fundamental opposition is to ignore the conviction that markets should operate based on honest information, which is a reasonable expectation for pension funds. A lack of strong commitment to this principle risks giving an undue advantage to actors who profit from disinformation.