5 ms·

Does anyone think the SEC will take similar actions against elected officials? Given there have been plenty of stories about this happening it seems like it sho

Does anyone think the SEC will take similar actions against elected officials? Given there have been plenty of stories about this happening it seems like it should be up for consideration.

flyingfences 5y ago
I don't think they will, but I do think they should.
- slowmovintarget 5y ago
  I don't think they can. Current law in that respect does not apply to members of Congress, IIRC. Instead, Congress has decided that its members should: 1. Self-report on themselves, their spouses, their dependent children (why dependent children would be trading securities is beyond me, but OK.) 2. Be subject to a $200 fine for conflicts of interest or failure to report "in a timely manner" 3. Have the fine waived at the discretion of the House or Senate ethics committees In other words, the rules they've applied to themselves are toothless.
  - gnopgnip 5y ago
    The SEC can still pursue criminal charges
    - zrail 5y ago
      The SEC is not a law enforcement agency. They can and do partner with the FBI but there's a separation of powers problem with that.
    - bcrosby95 5y ago
      Criminal charges for what exactly? The SEC exists by authority of Congress, and their purview is defined by Congress, just like every other regulatory body.
    - sgent 5y ago
      The SEC even in overt insider trading cases doesn't pursue criminal charges -- they refer it to the Justice Department. Congress currently is exempt from insider trading that comes about due to executing congressional duties. They would have to pass a law subjecting themselves to it.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > The SEC can still pursue criminal charges The SEC can refer apparent criminal violations to the Department of Justice, which is the only federal agency which can pursue criminal charges.
davidw 5y ago
I think Congress makes its own rules up there, no? One of my Senators is pushing for an end to trading of individual stocks: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039565467/many-believe-its-time-to-do-away-with-lawmakers-making-stock-trades https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039565467/many-believe-its-t...
- brodouevencode 5y ago
  I think you're right after doing some research. Getting Congress to police themselves is going to be a tough haul.
mywittyname 5y ago
Even if they could ban them, it probably wouldn't curb their behavior. It's trivial to obscure trades. A better approach, IMHO, is to make their trades available to the public as quickly as possible, and force brokers to mandate trading grace periods for elected officials. At least then, the public has a chance to get in on the action. So if a corrupt-ass senator on the house foreign intelligence committee buys up some pharma companies after a closed door briefing, r/WSB will have a chance to get in on the action first.
- bee_rider 5y ago
  The higher ups in the fed, under the plan reported in the article, will still be able to do things like invest in a mutual fund. Applying that rule to elected officials would seem to be a good first step toward getting or obviating the type of transparency you are looking for.
  - fakedang 5y ago
    In fact, it's a better step. The rules should be stupid simple and leave no room for manipulation or collusion. Simply barring them from trading individual stocks and making that history public is far more enforceable than trying to ensure that their trades follow some arbitrary grace period.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Does anyone think the SEC will take similar actions against elected officials? No, because the SEC doesn’t have authority to do that. Congress did that, once, but then delayed it becoming effective until finally they decided to repeal it.
- chii 5y ago
  it'd be easier to make the trades of congress people (and anyone associated with inside information as part of the gov't) public as soon as they are placed (rather than any delay like today). I think transparency is enough, because banning trades is too hard, and probably unfair.
bcrosby95 5y ago
It's literally not their job, because elected officials made it not their job. If you don't like that, it's our job to vote them out. But that can't happen. Because people are more likely to vote for a knowingly corrupt politician as long as they're in the right party, over another politician in the wrong party. Probably - in part - because of conditioning by our politicians, scaring us that the other "side" is going to do something real bad if they ever "win". Nevermind the other "side" "wins" every 8 years or so. I don't say this disparagingly. I think I suffer from it to some extent too. I just don't know what to do about it and it makes me sad.

Does anyone think the SEC will take similar actions against elected officials? Given there have been plenty of stories about this happening it seems like it should be up for consideration.

flyingfences 5y ago

I don't think they will, but I do think they should.

slowmovintarget 5y ago
I don't think they can. Current law in that respect does not apply to members of Congress, IIRC. Instead, Congress has decided that its members should: 1. Self-report on themselves, their spouses, their dependent children (why dependent children would be trading securities is beyond me, but OK.) 2. Be subject to a $200 fine for conflicts of interest or failure to report "in a timely manner" 3. Have the fine waived at the discretion of the House or Senate ethics committees In other words, the rules they've applied to themselves are toothless.
- gnopgnip 5y ago
  The SEC can still pursue criminal charges
  - zrail 5y ago
    The SEC is not a law enforcement agency. They can and do partner with the FBI but there's a separation of powers problem with that.
  - bcrosby95 5y ago
    Criminal charges for what exactly? The SEC exists by authority of Congress, and their purview is defined by Congress, just like every other regulatory body.
  - sgent 5y ago
    The SEC even in overt insider trading cases doesn't pursue criminal charges -- they refer it to the Justice Department. Congress currently is exempt from insider trading that comes about due to executing congressional duties. They would have to pass a law subjecting themselves to it.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The SEC can still pursue criminal charges The SEC can refer apparent criminal violations to the Department of Justice, which is the only federal agency which can pursue criminal charges.

davidw 5y ago

I think Congress makes its own rules up there, no? One of my Senators is pushing for an end to trading of individual stocks: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039565467/many-believe-its-time-to-do-away-with-lawmakers-making-stock-trades https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039565467/many-believe-its-t...

brodouevencode 5y ago
I think you're right after doing some research. Getting Congress to police themselves is going to be a tough haul.

mywittyname 5y ago

Even if they could ban them, it probably wouldn't curb their behavior. It's trivial to obscure trades. A better approach, IMHO, is to make their trades available to the public as quickly as possible, and force brokers to mandate trading grace periods for elected officials. At least then, the public has a chance to get in on the action. So if a corrupt-ass senator on the house foreign intelligence committee buys up some pharma companies after a closed door briefing, r/WSB will have a chance to get in on the action first.

bee_rider 5y ago
The higher ups in the fed, under the plan reported in the article, will still be able to do things like invest in a mutual fund. Applying that rule to elected officials would seem to be a good first step toward getting or obviating the type of transparency you are looking for.
- fakedang 5y ago
  In fact, it's a better step. The rules should be stupid simple and leave no room for manipulation or collusion. Simply barring them from trading individual stocks and making that history public is far more enforceable than trying to ensure that their trades follow some arbitrary grace period.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Does anyone think the SEC will take similar actions against elected officials? No, because the SEC doesn’t have authority to do that. Congress did that, once, but then delayed it becoming effective until finally they decided to repeal it.

chii 5y ago
it'd be easier to make the trades of congress people (and anyone associated with inside information as part of the gov't) public as soon as they are placed (rather than any delay like today). I think transparency is enough, because banning trades is too hard, and probably unfair.

bcrosby95 5y ago

It's literally not their job, because elected officials made it not their job. If you don't like that, it's our job to vote them out. But that can't happen. Because people are more likely to vote for a knowingly corrupt politician as long as they're in the right party, over another politician in the wrong party. Probably - in part - because of conditioning by our politicians, scaring us that the other "side" is going to do something real bad if they ever "win". Nevermind the other "side" "wins" every 8 years or so. I don't say this disparagingly. I think I suffer from it to some extent too. I just don't know what to do about it and it makes me sad.