5 ms·
Yeah, but take the random trades of 435 people and a normal distribution is still going to have a top (and bottom!) outlier. It's certainly reasonable to assume
by lostcolony 5y ago
Yeah, but take the random trades of 435 people and a normal distribution is still going to have a top (and bottom!) outlier. It's certainly reasonable to assume an investment manager (her husband, who is making most of the trades) might be part of the reason to be such an outlier.
And even discounting that and looking for shenanigans, well..."she timed buying NFLX almost perfectly" with a purchase a month before it was announced they were going into the video game space; why the heck would she have known that? That isn't related to legislation, that isn't something they would have gone to the government for; that would be a purely business decision by Netflix. How the heck would she know about it?
- hanniabu 5y ago> why the heck would she have known that? That isn't related to legislation Who knows, maybe insider info they can trade on is a form of bribery and getting a congressman's ear.
- emkoemko 5y agohow about people in these positions shouldn't be trading... if i was in power i would think people would assume i am corrupt if i did trade.
- lostcolony 5y agoI mean, I'd be all for politicians having to put any investment money into blind trusts, sure. But that's different than saying they're insider trading.
- qwertyuiop_ 5y ago“It’s a big club and you ain’t in it” - George Carlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyvxt1svxso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyvxt1svxso