7 ms·

"Controversial" has no meaning in this context and I dislike the framing. Insider trading is defined as both material and non-public. The notion that a senate b

"Controversial" has no meaning in this context and I dislike the framing. Insider trading is defined as both material and non-public. The notion that a senate briefing about COVID by some random person about their personal opinion on what might happen doesn't even come close to qualifying as material. Nowhere close, not even in the universe of material. People might not like it, but not only were these stock sales 100% legal, they weren't even controversial.

hartator 5y ago
The thing they will decide policies that will influence markets. So it’s material and non-public if they make trades before an announcement.
- kortilla 5y ago
  Nope. That’s not enough. This happens many times a year with company buyouts where many shares are accumulated first, then a buyout is announced, which boosts the share price further.
  - hartator 5y ago
    > This happens many times a year with company buyouts where many shares are accumulated first, then a buyout is announced, which boosts the share price further. That doesn't make it more ethical.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      I don’t think you’ve thought that through. This is how it works for everyone who promotes something they have a vested interest in. Professors who promote their own research programs. Surgeons who come up with new techniques, etc. There is nothing wrong with coming out and saying, “we really like this company so we bought 5% of the shares and intend to take it fully private at $X/share” if the rest of the share holders are interested.
ProjectArcturis 5y ago
The Senate is never briefed by "some random person." These were expert virologists and epidemiologists testifying in a closed door session. Absolutely material, absolutely nonpublic. Absolutely obscene that Burr in particular would publicly say that everything is fine while selling off most of his stocks.
- kortilla 5y ago
  Unless the information is from someone with a fiduciary duty to the company, it does not count as insider trading. Information that will impact a company or many companies that is the result of research is never insider trading, at least not by any legal definition. Millions of investors do private analysis on things that could impact securities, trade on that info, and share that info with others to trade on. Just being information not publicly available doesn’t make it “non-public” for the legal definition of “material non-public information”.
  - ProjectArcturis 5y ago
    The fact that this behavior may not meet the legal criteria for an insider trading charge does not make it morally right.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    You're really fixating legal definitions on insider trading. Oddly enough, we're discussing the activities of the people WHO MAKE THOSE DEFINITIONS. I think most americans are pretty uncomfortable with our leaders profiting off their own decisions and information they have access to but we don't. Those briefings were private. It's also deeply troubling that they were saying one thing, and privately doing another
    - kortilla 5y ago
      There is no other definition. It’s not “insider trading” anymore if it’s just people with private information because anyone can come up with private information that might be useful to trade on. An excellent weather forecaster can make a fortune in the natural gas market, could trade fruit company stock, etc. and there is nothing wrong with that. You have a problem with Congress using their access, that’s fine. But let’s not call it something it’s not because that hurts your cause.
LatteLazy 5y ago
It's "controversial" because people don't like when politicians use their positions to make private profits. That it isn't insider trading in the strictly legal sense doesn't really change that it is questionable behaviour...
jkhdigital 5y ago
Yeah, and I didn’t even need a secret congressional briefing to know that I should be selling hand-over-fist when it became clear that the virus was pandemic-bound.

hartator 5y ago

The thing they will decide policies that will influence markets. So it’s material and non-public if they make trades before an announcement.

kortilla 5y ago
Nope. That’s not enough. This happens many times a year with company buyouts where many shares are accumulated first, then a buyout is announced, which boosts the share price further.
- hartator 5y ago
  > This happens many times a year with company buyouts where many shares are accumulated first, then a buyout is announced, which boosts the share price further. That doesn't make it more ethical.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    I don’t think you’ve thought that through. This is how it works for everyone who promotes something they have a vested interest in. Professors who promote their own research programs. Surgeons who come up with new techniques, etc. There is nothing wrong with coming out and saying, “we really like this company so we bought 5% of the shares and intend to take it fully private at $X/share” if the rest of the share holders are interested.

ProjectArcturis 5y ago

The Senate is never briefed by "some random person." These were expert virologists and epidemiologists testifying in a closed door session. Absolutely material, absolutely nonpublic. Absolutely obscene that Burr in particular would publicly say that everything is fine while selling off most of his stocks.

kortilla 5y ago
Unless the information is from someone with a fiduciary duty to the company, it does not count as insider trading. Information that will impact a company or many companies that is the result of research is never insider trading, at least not by any legal definition. Millions of investors do private analysis on things that could impact securities, trade on that info, and share that info with others to trade on. Just being information not publicly available doesn’t make it “non-public” for the legal definition of “material non-public information”.
- ProjectArcturis 5y ago
  The fact that this behavior may not meet the legal criteria for an insider trading charge does not make it morally right.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  You're really fixating legal definitions on insider trading. Oddly enough, we're discussing the activities of the people WHO MAKE THOSE DEFINITIONS. I think most americans are pretty uncomfortable with our leaders profiting off their own decisions and information they have access to but we don't. Those briefings were private. It's also deeply troubling that they were saying one thing, and privately doing another
  - kortilla 5y ago
    There is no other definition. It’s not “insider trading” anymore if it’s just people with private information because anyone can come up with private information that might be useful to trade on. An excellent weather forecaster can make a fortune in the natural gas market, could trade fruit company stock, etc. and there is nothing wrong with that. You have a problem with Congress using their access, that’s fine. But let’s not call it something it’s not because that hurts your cause.

LatteLazy 5y ago

It's "controversial" because people don't like when politicians use their positions to make private profits. That it isn't insider trading in the strictly legal sense doesn't really change that it is questionable behaviour...

jkhdigital 5y ago

Yeah, and I didn’t even need a secret congressional briefing to know that I should be selling hand-over-fist when it became clear that the virus was pandemic-bound.