Congressional stock trading (not necessarily insider) would be banned by that bill, and to your point about "previous": I think it's fairly well established that laws can't be enforced retroactively: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...
My point is that this bill won't help our desire to see punishment for (alleged) insider trading by congress that is already happening.
They are the government, so clearly there is no will to do anything about it. The same cretins are re-elected (perhaps because the single, viable, alternate option is even more despicable.
If we, the electorate, are not prepared to oust those that are clearly thieves and liars, than we shall receive that which we deserve.
> They found that 81 Democrats & 101 Republicans filed up to 3,700 trades and $100M in possible volume
Corruption should be a non-partisan concern.
But that's not the real corruption -- legalized bribery, I mean campaign contributions is the problem and will never be solved until we can collectively agree on how to do it. Which means never, unfortunately.
These are all solvable problems but not if we are squabbling amongst ourselves.
Your comment reads as a personal attack. I remain hopeful enough to consider the possibility.
I see such a divide in politics today that make me worry that "democracy" itself here is doomed. And attempts at dialog here in HN never bear fruit.
We have on record one party proclaiming that their primary goal is to let the other party succeed, e.g., party over country.
Just that comment alone will bring out the voiceless downvotes that are personally offended by it and refuse to discuss the details in a non-partisan manner.
I'd love to be proven wrong here, but I'm going with past experience and it's not encouraging.
> because the single, viable, alternate option is even more despicable
these 2 lies continue to crack me up.
Lets look at it from the other perspective. There are people trying to provide alternative options. They are not winning because you are not voting for them. There is no excuse, there is no one to point to, it is your vote and you cast it. What others do should have no influence.
If all the voters really cant make their own decisions, if they really cant think for themselves: Then you would provide a major example by doing your own thinking and making your own choices. They would all follow like the sheep they are portrayed as by these lies.
if non of that makes sense, maybe those ignorant enough to provide alternative options deserve your support in their futile effort? it seems the honorable thing to do
>... she served five months in federal prison and was released in March 2005. There was speculation that the incident would effectively end her media empire, but in 2005 Stewart began a comeback campaign and her company returned to profitability in 2006
So nothing? lol
I'd rather forcibly retire any public office holder once they reach age 70. 82 years old shouldn't have any leading position in the government in any form
Martha Stewart was actually not tried nor sentenced for insider trading. Her charges were related to obstructing the investigation and lying to federal agents.
I don't have the impression that people who are against insider trading have a clear definition in their heads, agree with others on a definition, or know what the law is now in the US (let alone other countries, which can be notably different in law or principles).
Why would you ever buy or sell anything unless you thought you knew something other people didn't? But, if that's not insider trading, then what is, and why?
When I write "what is", I mean both as a matter of current law, and as a platonic ideal.
When big investors talk to company management, what are they doing if not getting inside information? Why is this legal? Is it legal? Should it be legal? Isn't it kind of peculiar if someone that supposedly owns something can't talk to the people managing it?
It's fun that the motivation for exposing insider trading is selling an app these days, rather than selling newspapers (or advertising space in newspapers if you are being cynical).
I believe that to be true. In addition they'll be more corrupt in secret. A few things need to happen, reform political contributions and outlaw bribery, as well as enforcing laws, politicians going without punishment when they do illegal shit is just setting precedent for others to follow suit.
I am like more and more certain day by day that political theaters such as what DeSantis and Gavin Newson do back and forth are just theatrical plays that they cook behind the scenes to distract most Americans from politicians, the real criminals.
Would you feel cheated if you sold your options to someone who had insider information and then got rich a week later? Do you think it's unfair that they had knowledge that if you had the same public information would have helped you to make a better informed decision? Would you have faith in a market that was rigged like that?
I mean there are companies that have software that downloads and analyzes press releases (Fed meeting minutes, corporate reports, etc) and bases trades on them.
That’s not something I can do. So the folks who analyze “public” information fast enough effectively turn it into “private information” for the first few milliseconds.
The apocryphal story about the Rothschilds building special boats to report the outcome of Waterloo is like that.
So it seems that you can have massively asymmetrical information, as long as it’s passed on public info. Which seems like a dumb distinction.
In regards to congressmen, they’re often the first people to be exposed to new public information. So the distinction between public and private is less clear for them.
Yeah, that's public information. It's fair to everyone. We're specifically talking about "insider" knowledge which they take advantage of before anyone else knows.
There are people who can remember the cards already played during a poker game. I cannot. This is massively asymmetrical, but it doesn't allow me to peek at the next card in the deck before bidding.
Firstly, this being allowed creates perverse incentives where policy direction can be dictated by what is profitable for a given politician's portfolio. Policies affect everyone.
Second, why the hell should it be legal if the same thing done by a normal citizen results in ultra harsh penalties ( look up laws on Insider Trading).
It’s not clear to me why insider trading is wrong for anyone. I’m not an expert at securities law, and don’t have a refined opinion.
But the distinction between public information and private information can be quite arbitrary. Especially when Congressional leaks are so common.
If a congressman takes confidential information, puts it in their blog, then makes trades with it, is that ok?
It just seems like the “public information/private information” distinction is less clear, and the harm the law seeks to prevent less defined. And it’s already pretty unclear and undefined, at least to me.
If widely sanctioned instead of largely banned, insider trading by company leaders and decisionmakers. The leaders would be incentivized to make decisions that preference their own interests rather than the interests of the company as a whole. Putting gypsum in with the flour to report better margins, that sort of thing.
I think that that ownership by a diverse group of non-insiders is preferable to consolidating the control over huge individual insider shareholders, for two reasons:
- That ordinary citizens can be shareholders of companies, and so won't make decisions against their own interests.
- That large groups tend to be more ethically moderated (in the nuclear physics sense: slowed down from snap decisions) and less likely to become cynically corrupt than individuals.
Now, big groups still do those things all the time, but the idea is that, for a few reasons (e.g. people don't corrupt at the same rates, so the unless the group shifts all at once they'll identify the people that become corrupt as interlopers and outgroup them), it's still better than taking the chance on an individual.
Insider trading laws are there to protect the health of the market itself.
If people believe that there is widespread insider trading going on, the stock market becomes a market for lemons. As someone without insider information, your assumption should be that whoever you are trading against has more information than you, which means you got the raw end of the deal. If your assumption is that you get a bad deal whenever you trade, you are never going to trade, and then the market collapses.
This was a contributing factor to the crash of '29, and sure enough, the SEC was created in 1933. Its first chairman, Joe Kennedy (father of JFK), was one of the most notorious insider traders in history, and his mission was to prevent anyone else from getting away with what he did.
It's foolish to think that banning politicians from stock trading would do anything.
Politician Bob can always call his friend Alice to do the trading on his behalf.
People are constantly convicted of insider trading that have very remote connections with the people receiving the privileged information. The great thing about insider trading is that the trading part is public, regulators do track trading activity and suspiciously well timed trades can be investigated. It is definately not something that wouldn't have any effect.
50 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 120 ms ] threadCongressional stock trading (not necessarily insider) would be banned by that bill, and to your point about "previous": I think it's fairly well established that laws can't be enforced retroactively: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...
My point is that this bill won't help our desire to see punishment for (alleged) insider trading by congress that is already happening.
https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate
Nancy Pelosi has her own page: https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate_member/Nancy%20Pel...
https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate/pelosi
They are the government, so clearly there is no will to do anything about it. The same cretins are re-elected (perhaps because the single, viable, alternate option is even more despicable.
If we, the electorate, are not prepared to oust those that are clearly thieves and liars, than we shall receive that which we deserve.
Corruption should be a non-partisan concern.
But that's not the real corruption -- legalized bribery, I mean campaign contributions is the problem and will never be solved until we can collectively agree on how to do it. Which means never, unfortunately.
These are all solvable problems but not if we are squabbling amongst ourselves.
With that attitude you're correct
I see such a divide in politics today that make me worry that "democracy" itself here is doomed. And attempts at dialog here in HN never bear fruit.
We have on record one party proclaiming that their primary goal is to let the other party succeed, e.g., party over country.
Just that comment alone will bring out the voiceless downvotes that are personally offended by it and refuse to discuss the details in a non-partisan manner.
I'd love to be proven wrong here, but I'm going with past experience and it's not encouraging.
- direct election of Senators basically eliminated them being recalled and fired; and
- capped growth of House of Representatives with population growth.
That also ignores my point about campaign financing. It's legalized bribery.
these 2 lies continue to crack me up.
Lets look at it from the other perspective. There are people trying to provide alternative options. They are not winning because you are not voting for them. There is no excuse, there is no one to point to, it is your vote and you cast it. What others do should have no influence.
If all the voters really cant make their own decisions, if they really cant think for themselves: Then you would provide a major example by doing your own thinking and making your own choices. They would all follow like the sheep they are portrayed as by these lies.
if non of that makes sense, maybe those ignorant enough to provide alternative options deserve your support in their futile effort? it seems the honorable thing to do
So nothing? lol
I'd rather forcibly retire any public office holder once they reach age 70. 82 years old shouldn't have any leading position in the government in any form
[1] https://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdi...
Why would you ever buy or sell anything unless you thought you knew something other people didn't? But, if that's not insider trading, then what is, and why?
When I write "what is", I mean both as a matter of current law, and as a platonic ideal.
When big investors talk to company management, what are they doing if not getting inside information? Why is this legal? Is it legal? Should it be legal? Isn't it kind of peculiar if someone that supposedly owns something can't talk to the people managing it?
>Senator Warren's bipartisan bill with Senator Daines would ban Members of Congress and their spouses from owning or trading individual stocks.
https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/at-hea...
Im asking as a serious question … who is being hurt by this?
That’s not something I can do. So the folks who analyze “public” information fast enough effectively turn it into “private information” for the first few milliseconds.
The apocryphal story about the Rothschilds building special boats to report the outcome of Waterloo is like that.
So it seems that you can have massively asymmetrical information, as long as it’s passed on public info. Which seems like a dumb distinction.
In regards to congressmen, they’re often the first people to be exposed to new public information. So the distinction between public and private is less clear for them.
Yeah, that's public information. It's fair to everyone. We're specifically talking about "insider" knowledge which they take advantage of before anyone else knows.
Second, why the hell should it be legal if the same thing done by a normal citizen results in ultra harsh penalties ( look up laws on Insider Trading).
But the distinction between public information and private information can be quite arbitrary. Especially when Congressional leaks are so common.
If a congressman takes confidential information, puts it in their blog, then makes trades with it, is that ok?
It just seems like the “public information/private information” distinction is less clear, and the harm the law seeks to prevent less defined. And it’s already pretty unclear and undefined, at least to me.
I think that that ownership by a diverse group of non-insiders is preferable to consolidating the control over huge individual insider shareholders, for two reasons:
- That ordinary citizens can be shareholders of companies, and so won't make decisions against their own interests.
- That large groups tend to be more ethically moderated (in the nuclear physics sense: slowed down from snap decisions) and less likely to become cynically corrupt than individuals.
Now, big groups still do those things all the time, but the idea is that, for a few reasons (e.g. people don't corrupt at the same rates, so the unless the group shifts all at once they'll identify the people that become corrupt as interlopers and outgroup them), it's still better than taking the chance on an individual.
But I see a lot of confusion here between “public” in the sense of “oriented towards the common good” and “public” in the sense of “not widely known”.
Same with “private” - could mean “oriented towards the good of only certain individuals” and also “not generally known.”
If people believe that there is widespread insider trading going on, the stock market becomes a market for lemons. As someone without insider information, your assumption should be that whoever you are trading against has more information than you, which means you got the raw end of the deal. If your assumption is that you get a bad deal whenever you trade, you are never going to trade, and then the market collapses.
This was a contributing factor to the crash of '29, and sure enough, the SEC was created in 1933. Its first chairman, Joe Kennedy (father of JFK), was one of the most notorious insider traders in history, and his mission was to prevent anyone else from getting away with what he did.
When a politician makes a positive return on selling their contract(s), another person loses and their wealth is transferred to the politician.