3 ms·

The question isn't whether they used insider information well, it's whether they used insider information at all. Using information gained through their politi

The question isn't whether they used insider information well, it's whether they used insider information at all. Using information gained through their political office to inform their personal trading is improper, even if they lose money. Just because many of these trades are bad or useless in retrospect doesn't mean that didn't try to profit from insider information. EDIT: And I don't buy the argument that the small size of the trades relative to wealth implies that they're not using insider information. Martha Stewart went to jail over a $230,000 trade [0] at a point when her net worth was likely hundreds of times that amount. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImClone_stock_trading_case - interestingly the loss she avoided was only $45,673

chii 5y ago
> used insider information well, it's whether they used insider information at all. it'd be impossible to detect inaction as a result of insider info. For example, if someone were originally planning on selling, but based on some insider info, changed their mind to not do anything. So - the point i'm trying to make is that if they _profited_ from insider info, rather than just merely utilizing it, then it should be prosecuted. But if they are stupid and did the "wrong" thing with insider info, i don't see why there needs to be any effort trying to prosecute. They got their just punishment by losing money already.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
barry-cotter 5y ago
> Martha Stewart went to jail over a $230,000 trade [0] at a point when her net worth was likely hundreds of times that amount. Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to an FBI agent. The trade was irrelevant. Never talk to the FBI.
- throwaaskjdfh 5y ago
  The trade was relevant because it's what she was lying to protect. My point still stands: people will take a large risk for a gain that is negligible relative to their net worth.

chii 5y ago

> used insider information well, it's whether they used insider information at all. it'd be impossible to detect inaction as a result of insider info. For example, if someone were originally planning on selling, but based on some insider info, changed their mind to not do anything. So - the point i'm trying to make is that if they _profited_ from insider info, rather than just merely utilizing it, then it should be prosecuted. But if they are stupid and did the "wrong" thing with insider info, i don't see why there needs to be any effort trying to prosecute. They got their just punishment by losing money already.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

barry-cotter 5y ago

> Martha Stewart went to jail over a $230,000 trade [0] at a point when her net worth was likely hundreds of times that amount. Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to an FBI agent. The trade was irrelevant. Never talk to the FBI.

throwaaskjdfh 5y ago
The trade was relevant because it's what she was lying to protect. My point still stands: people will take a large risk for a gain that is negligible relative to their net worth.