3 ms·
While it makes sense to bar congresspeople from trading (IMO), this article is wildly misleading. The article's outrage depends on the reader not understanding
by bun_at_work 6y ago
While it makes sense to bar congresspeople from trading (IMO), this article is wildly misleading.
The article's outrage depends on the reader not understanding how options work. The options contract was purchased in February 2020, more than a year before it was exercised. It's also not stated when the calls expired.
There's no doubt that congress uses their information to place favorable trades in the market, but this article is just manufactured outrage to get more clicks.
- BrianOnHN 6y agoWhile I disagree with your opinion, as I think it is a symptom of a broader issue, your explanation about the unclear options and outrage manufacturing is spot on.
- tzs 6y ago> The options contract was purchased in February 2020, more than a year before it was exercised. It's also not stated when the calls expired. They expired 2021-03-19 [1]. [1] https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate_member/Nancy%20Pelosi https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate_member/Nancy%20Pel...
- disgrunt 6y agoTheStreet.com is misunderstanding how options work? Okay. Let me explain it for you. A government contract takes a while to secure. A year long process wouldn't be out of the ordinary. So Pelosi's husband buys a $10M option early in the process and keeps tabs. As the contract goes public, he executes his options with an already profitable strike price, making approximately $1.1M in the process.