3 ms·

The crime isn't "beating the market," it's "insider trading" because it's supposed to be a level playing field for the good of the system and the people in it.

The crime isn't "beating the market," it's "insider trading" because it's supposed to be a level playing field for the good of the system and the people in it. It seems self defeating to decide the fairness of an unfair advantage by whether or not it panned out - which we don't even know. The cohort is so small that there's a fair chance that the (vast, even) majority of Congressmen are really bad at trading, just due to random variation. Who's to say that without that insider information, the politicians wouldn't be homeless? The control group - say, all the people who can but have no chance at entering politics ever - tends to be very, very bad at investing and does worse than the market.

gabereiser 5y ago
Right. It’s not whether he was successful or not, it’s whether he used knowledge not disclosed to the public to make his decisions.
bko 5y ago
> Who's to say that without that insider information, the politicians wouldn't be homeless? Homeless people don't generally make it to Senator. Most of these people have wealth from the beginning, which is unfortunately required to invest so much time and money to attain the office. You have to show that they used insider information to make trades. Most senators have immense wealth and make trading decisions based on circumstances. For instance, if they have a large tax bill or need money for an investment or money to send their children to college, they may sell some stock. I just don't buy the narrative that someone worth tens of millions is trading a few thousand here and there to make some small return relative to their wealth. It just doesn't make sense. You can decide that senators shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks, but again that's impractical for anyone of means. You have to actively buy and sell stocks to meet personal liquidity needs or rebalance your portfolio. I think it would make more sense to limit them to ETF purchases, much like most employees at US banks have to do.
- akiselev 5y ago
  > Homeless people don't generally make it to Senator. Most of these people have wealth from the beginning, which is unfortunately required to invest so much time and money to attain the office. That was a bit of cheeky hyperbole that got in the way of my actual point. People in power have been recorded using insider information in a general sense for profit since at least the early Romans so at this point it's pretty much baked into society and any extant political/upper class structures. Without resetting the world to zero, we have no idea whether the selective pressures on that class structure "converge" with the rest of the population. For all we know, the advantages of intergenerational wealth and power instill beliefs and habits that over generations makes them worse investors on average, propped up by access to easy capital and inside info. Intuitively it would make them better investors on average, but even then random variations mean that the probability of a long streak of incompetent and immoral politicians isn't astronomical. Maybe people from the political class are predisposed to successful investing thanks to better education, or that might not be a factor at all and their success could be predicated on access to existing family connections and wealth to bootstrap into a position with access to insider information. None of that precludes a natural turnover where, whether by luck or meritocracy, outsiders become wealthy enough to enter the political class before returning to the mean (or worse), now propped up by new access to insider information. Question is whats the balance between the groups? At the end of the day, this is a bunch of vague generalizations (what is the "political class?") and there are a lot of selective pressure of unknown strength. The sample size is so small it's probably random anyway but I enjoy the speculation :) Thank you for reading my off topic rant > I just don't buy the narrative that someone worth tens of millions is trading a few thousand here and there to make some small return relative to their wealth. It just doesn't make sense. Regardless of the accuracy of my speculation, I don't buy that having X amount of money fundamentally changes human nature, especially when the characteristic in question (greed) provides a significant competitive advantage for suppressing one's conscience and attaining that X. I don't believe it changes people's knack for obsessing over matters that are trivial in the grand scheme of things, nor reduce envy or competitiveness. I'm sure there are many exceptions to these generalizations, but I don't believe many of them want to (or can) be politicians. Humans are humans so hope for the best and expect the worst but don't project motives or perspectives.

gabereiser 5y ago

Right. It’s not whether he was successful or not, it’s whether he used knowledge not disclosed to the public to make his decisions.

bko 5y ago

> Who's to say that without that insider information, the politicians wouldn't be homeless? Homeless people don't generally make it to Senator. Most of these people have wealth from the beginning, which is unfortunately required to invest so much time and money to attain the office. You have to show that they used insider information to make trades. Most senators have immense wealth and make trading decisions based on circumstances. For instance, if they have a large tax bill or need money for an investment or money to send their children to college, they may sell some stock. I just don't buy the narrative that someone worth tens of millions is trading a few thousand here and there to make some small return relative to their wealth. It just doesn't make sense. You can decide that senators shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks, but again that's impractical for anyone of means. You have to actively buy and sell stocks to meet personal liquidity needs or rebalance your portfolio. I think it would make more sense to limit them to ETF purchases, much like most employees at US banks have to do.

akiselev 5y ago
> Homeless people don't generally make it to Senator. Most of these people have wealth from the beginning, which is unfortunately required to invest so much time and money to attain the office. That was a bit of cheeky hyperbole that got in the way of my actual point. People in power have been recorded using insider information in a general sense for profit since at least the early Romans so at this point it's pretty much baked into society and any extant political/upper class structures. Without resetting the world to zero, we have no idea whether the selective pressures on that class structure "converge" with the rest of the population. For all we know, the advantages of intergenerational wealth and power instill beliefs and habits that over generations makes them worse investors on average, propped up by access to easy capital and inside info. Intuitively it would make them better investors on average, but even then random variations mean that the probability of a long streak of incompetent and immoral politicians isn't astronomical. Maybe people from the political class are predisposed to successful investing thanks to better education, or that might not be a factor at all and their success could be predicated on access to existing family connections and wealth to bootstrap into a position with access to insider information. None of that precludes a natural turnover where, whether by luck or meritocracy, outsiders become wealthy enough to enter the political class before returning to the mean (or worse), now propped up by new access to insider information. Question is whats the balance between the groups? At the end of the day, this is a bunch of vague generalizations (what is the "political class?") and there are a lot of selective pressure of unknown strength. The sample size is so small it's probably random anyway but I enjoy the speculation :) Thank you for reading my off topic rant > I just don't buy the narrative that someone worth tens of millions is trading a few thousand here and there to make some small return relative to their wealth. It just doesn't make sense. Regardless of the accuracy of my speculation, I don't buy that having X amount of money fundamentally changes human nature, especially when the characteristic in question (greed) provides a significant competitive advantage for suppressing one's conscience and attaining that X. I don't believe it changes people's knack for obsessing over matters that are trivial in the grand scheme of things, nor reduce envy or competitiveness. I'm sure there are many exceptions to these generalizations, but I don't believe many of them want to (or can) be politicians. Humans are humans so hope for the best and expect the worst but don't project motives or perspectives.