4 ms·

The Senate is never briefed by "some random person." These were expert virologists and epidemiologists testifying in a closed door session. Absolutely material,

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.
reasonabl_human 5y ago
They weren’t given financial data from company execs… instead a research report on pathology / virology. Cut and dry, not insider trading. Vote to pass new / other legislation if it bothers you that politicians can trade stocks freely.
- ViViDboarder 5y ago
  Sorry, that’s not how it works. The people who are doing it are the ones that can vote to pass new / other legislation.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    And they are voted into office by people like you. It’s called representative government.
    - ViViDboarder 5y ago
      Yes. That’s exactly my point. We don’t have a direct democracy so then it fea that people should stop complaining and “just vote” is ignorant of how change happens. You have to get a loud enough voice to make representatives to take up this action in the first place.

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.

reasonabl_human 5y ago

They weren’t given financial data from company execs… instead a research report on pathology / virology. Cut and dry, not insider trading. Vote to pass new / other legislation if it bothers you that politicians can trade stocks freely.

ViViDboarder 5y ago
Sorry, that’s not how it works. The people who are doing it are the ones that can vote to pass new / other legislation.
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  And they are voted into office by people like you. It’s called representative government.
  - ViViDboarder 5y ago
    Yes. That’s exactly my point. We don’t have a direct democracy so then it fea that people should stop complaining and “just vote” is ignorant of how change happens. You have to get a loud enough voice to make representatives to take up this action in the first place.