3 ms·

If you think about "insider trading" in the sense of trading on "material non-public information" then it makes sense to say that congresspeople are legally ins

If you think about "insider trading" in the sense of trading on "material non-public information" then it makes sense to say that congresspeople are legally insider trading. If I hear from a friend at X that company X is about to Y and trade off that, that's insider trading. Right? If a congressman heard in closed testimony that a bad thing is about to happen to X and trades off that...

Consultant32452 6y ago
Congress gets a lot of info first. For example, some got caught making trades after they got briefed on covid, before the info was public. They know who's about to win big contacts in their district. They know who is about to be affected be legislation that was snuck into the budget last minute without debate.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  A lot of people know about a lot of things before the "public" knows. That doesn't make it "insider trading". It is a very specific legal term that deals with the internal information of public corporations - eg: their quarterly sales revenues. It doesn't make sense out of that context. Also, there were TONS of people talking about the outbreak in China when those Congresspeople sold shares. I sold at the same time. The information was out there - it's just that the Western MSM wasn't covering it.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    The people talking about the outbreak didn't get classified briefings.
koheripbal 6y ago
Obviously if you redefine the term, you can make it whatever you want. ...but in legal-reality it has a specific meaning that doesn't cover what you're referring to. Also, the notion that Congress found out about COVID-19 before everyone else is ludicrous. People who took the time to read the reports out of China sold WELL BEFORE even congress sold. I know - I was one of them. The problem is that MSM did NOT cover the outbreak in China. Many accused those who did of racism and posts on social media were squashed from brigades more concerned with "fear-mongering".
- nerdponx 6y ago
  The story about Congress trading on Covid news (and briefings?) is not that they traded, it's that they traded and didn't do much else except wait for 500k people to die.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I don't think I'm redefining the term. "Insider trading involves trading in a public company's stock by someone who has non-public, material information about that stock for any reason. Insider trading can be either illegal or legal depending on when the insider makes the trade. It is illegal when the material information is still non-public, and this sort of insider trading comes with harsh consequences." https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insidertrading.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insidertrading.asp
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    "about that stock" is not phrased well in that entry. It makes it sound like any information that isn't public that might impact that stock is legally "insider trading". That is not correct. It has to be non-public *company* information - not just ANY non-public information. If you discover a comet in outer space that is going to crash into McDonalds HQ. Shorting that stock does not make you an insider. That's why it's called INSIDER trading. Because it's all about the non-public information INSIDE the corporation in question.
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      It seems clear to me that the government has insider information. For example, they get classified briefings on all manner of things and they determine how and where government money is spent. I would agree that it's not legally insider trading, because of course the people who wrote the laws on insider trading excluded their privileged knowledge from being considered insider trading in the law.

Consultant32452 6y ago

Congress gets a lot of info first. For example, some got caught making trades after they got briefed on covid, before the info was public. They know who's about to win big contacts in their district. They know who is about to be affected be legislation that was snuck into the budget last minute without debate.

koheripbal 6y ago
A lot of people know about a lot of things before the "public" knows. That doesn't make it "insider trading". It is a very specific legal term that deals with the internal information of public corporations - eg: their quarterly sales revenues. It doesn't make sense out of that context. Also, there were TONS of people talking about the outbreak in China when those Congresspeople sold shares. I sold at the same time. The information was out there - it's just that the Western MSM wasn't covering it.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  The people talking about the outbreak didn't get classified briefings.

koheripbal 6y ago

Obviously if you redefine the term, you can make it whatever you want. ...but in legal-reality it has a specific meaning that doesn't cover what you're referring to. Also, the notion that Congress found out about COVID-19 before everyone else is ludicrous. People who took the time to read the reports out of China sold WELL BEFORE even congress sold. I know - I was one of them. The problem is that MSM did NOT cover the outbreak in China. Many accused those who did of racism and posts on social media were squashed from brigades more concerned with "fear-mongering".

nerdponx 6y ago
The story about Congress trading on Covid news (and briefings?) is not that they traded, it's that they traded and didn't do much else except wait for 500k people to die.
ALittleLight 6y ago
I don't think I'm redefining the term. "Insider trading involves trading in a public company's stock by someone who has non-public, material information about that stock for any reason. Insider trading can be either illegal or legal depending on when the insider makes the trade. It is illegal when the material information is still non-public, and this sort of insider trading comes with harsh consequences." https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insidertrading.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insidertrading.asp
- koheripbal 6y ago
  "about that stock" is not phrased well in that entry. It makes it sound like any information that isn't public that might impact that stock is legally "insider trading". That is not correct. It has to be non-public *company* information - not just ANY non-public information. If you discover a comet in outer space that is going to crash into McDonalds HQ. Shorting that stock does not make you an insider. That's why it's called INSIDER trading. Because it's all about the non-public information INSIDE the corporation in question.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    It seems clear to me that the government has insider information. For example, they get classified briefings on all manner of things and they determine how and where government money is spent. I would agree that it's not legally insider trading, because of course the people who wrote the laws on insider trading excluded their privileged knowledge from being considered insider trading in the law.