6 ms·
This is great. If I had the patience I would write some script that alerts you when there are major sell offs. The last crash was preceded by heavy sales by a f
by joelbluminator 6y ago
This is great. If I had the patience I would write some script that alerts you when there are major sell offs. The last crash was preceded by heavy sales by a few senators that were exposed to data and knew how serious the COVID19 thing was before the public.
- albntomat0 6y agoThere is a significant reporting lag, between the actual stock sales and the notification on the tracker. For example, the sales of Sen Loeffler that were widely reported in the news, were not released until 12 March, for transactions in early February. The stock market as a whole had already significantly declined, but was still a ways from its low, on that date. Link (you have to accept the initial terms of use thing, and then reload that link): https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/view/ptr/370492b8-ed0a-4792-b45b-972d5da8a1e5/ https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/view/ptr/370492b8-ed0a-4...
- phreeza 6y agoThey also probably don't have a sufficient fraction of their net worth in public stocks to make insider trading worth the risk of the repercussions of being caught doing so.
- joelbluminator 6y agoI don't think it counts as inside trading. If a senator hears expert discussions about a pandemic in China and sells all his stocks - does that count as insider trading?
- albntomat0 6y agoThe particular words for insider trading are "material non-public information." If the expert discussion is on Youtube, fine. If it's only available to senators, using resources of the US government, then it meets the definition of insider trading.
- perl4ever 6y agoI don't think there's any law against using material non-public information unless it's illicitly obtained. This is a frequent theme of Matt Levine's Bloomberg column that's often mentioned on HN. Why would anyone ever trade unless they had material non-public information? The point of having markets is so such information becomes public through prices, isn't it? Conversely, if you don't have it, you're purely gambling aren't you? "Not legal advice" though.
- pb7 6y ago>illicitly obtained No such stipulation. I'm not allowed to trade my company's stock based on information I acquire through performing my standard everyday job duties.
- derivativethrow 6y agoThat is because the actual stipulation is for there to be a confidentiality or fiduciary agreement. As shorthand, "illicitly obtained" could therefore be replaced with, "illicitly appropriated." On its own, material and nonpublic information is fine to trade with. Likewise not all insider trading is illegal; most of it is explicitly legal and mundane.
- perl4ever 6y agoYou can't defend against insider trading accusations by saying "I had insider knowledge but I didn't base my trades on it". Therefore your statement implies that you can't trade your company's stock at all. However, it is an empirical fact that companies sometimes offer it as an option in the 401k plan, which seems like an endorsement that it's ok in some situation. Nonpublic information about, say, a merger, would be "illicit" in my understanding. But what if you have worked for a company for 10 years and you think management is really great? You can be guilty of insider trading for not buying something that you'd otherwise have done, too. So if you worked for a company and found it a terrible place to work and therefore never bought company stock, or sold the stock you had, you would in fact have profited from material nonpublic knowledge. Obviously that can't generally be a crime.
- cobbzilla 6y agoIt wouldn't matter anyway. Congress is exempt from insider trading laws. It is perfectly legal for members of Congress to trade based on any information, public or not.