6 ms·

The crime is insider trading. They have information the rest of the market does not. This is already against the law. If we really care about the law we need to

The crime is insider trading. They have information the rest of the market does not. This is already against the law. If we really care about the law we need to enforce it even when the rich and powerful break it.

FredPret 5y ago
It’s a crime for corporate insiders under certain circumstances. What she’s doing is perfectly legal, even if clearly immoral.
- monocasa 5y ago
  Insider trading has been illegal for congressmen and women for almost ten years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
  - FredPret 5y ago
    I stand corrected. Now let’s hope they enforce the Stock Act.
ludamad 5y ago
"Insider trading is about theft, not fairness". Many sophisticated traders have proprietary information on their positions. The key is the conflict of interest
- elliekelly 5y ago
  I disagree. It is about fairness to some degree. Insider trading undermines the integrity of market. Which is why Pelosi's statement here is so absurd.
  - ludamad 5y ago
    I'm quoting Matt Levine, who is in turn summarizing the state of US law. That's not my personal philosophy, ftr
    - tiahura 5y ago
      Not my area of the law, but I don’t think he’s right. I think the general consensus is essentially “fairness” for utilitarian reasons. Markets are important, and insider trading discourages investment because it creates an impression of unfairness and increases uncertainty.
      - gruez 5y ago
        > Not my area of the law, but I don’t think he’s right. As far as I know that's how the law is structured. A second source that say the same thing: >KESTENBAUM: And she says while everybody gets upset at insider trading because it gives someone an unfair advantage, that is not the legal reason why it gets you into trouble. The argument used these days in court for why it's illegal is that insider trading amounts to stealing information from a company. It's like theft. And so for that reason, proving that someone traded on insider information - that is not enough to convict them. If, say, a financial document from some company blows out the window, and you happen to find it sitting there on the sidewalk, Sarah says it's not insider trading for you to use that to make money in the stock market because you didn't steal it. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/460689797 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/460689797 As for your "fairness" hypothesis, it really doesn't hold. Is it "fair" that hedge funds can afford to spend millions on alternative data sources (eg. flying helicopters with thermal cameras over oil fields, to see how much oil is being stored) to get a edge over traders who can't? Probably not. Is it banned? No. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-12-19/helicopter-edge-is-better-than-black-edge https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-12-19/helico...
        elliekelly 5y ago
        The entire basis of US Federal Securities Laws is the concept of "full and fair disclosure".
Freskis 5y ago
You're making a very serious allegation, that a politician has been using insider trading to make money on the stock market. Do you have any evidence of this, or are you repeating something you read on Reddit/Twitter/Facebook etc?
- disambiguation 5y ago
  I'm not aware of any direct evidence, but I think there's plenty of indirect evidence that should prompt an investigation. Senators dumping stocks prior to the pandemic shutdowns, for example. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/488593-four-senators-sold-stocks-before-coronavirus-threat-crashed-market https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/488593-four-senators-sol...
  - Freskis 5y ago
    Do you think that people should be calling for the death of a politician based on "indirect evidence"?
    - disambiguation 5y ago
      Personally I'm against the death penalty, so I don't think we should listen to people that call for any ones death, for any reason. Reading between the lines, however, I do think people have a right to be upset due to indirect evidence.
- publicexecution 5y ago
  [flagged]
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  Which part are you doubting? That Pelosi has access to material nonpublic information? Or that she's making money on trades after she attains that knowledge? The latter is public record. She and her husband have drastically outperformed the market for years. I think the former is undeniable given her job. Just a comment about an industry she likes or doesn't like can impact share prices.
throwaway8582 5y ago
This is quite different from insider trading in the private sector. In addition to having information that is not public, legislators also have the power to influence the value of their investments by passing legislation favorable to companies they are invested in or harmful to their competition. Does anyone think lawmakers can be objective when they may have millions of dollars at stake?

FredPret 5y ago

It’s a crime for corporate insiders under certain circumstances. What she’s doing is perfectly legal, even if clearly immoral.

monocasa 5y ago
Insider trading has been illegal for congressmen and women for almost ten years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
- FredPret 5y ago
  I stand corrected. Now let’s hope they enforce the Stock Act.

ludamad 5y ago

"Insider trading is about theft, not fairness". Many sophisticated traders have proprietary information on their positions. The key is the conflict of interest

elliekelly 5y ago
I disagree. It is about fairness to some degree. Insider trading undermines the integrity of market. Which is why Pelosi's statement here is so absurd.
- ludamad 5y ago
  I'm quoting Matt Levine, who is in turn summarizing the state of US law. That's not my personal philosophy, ftr
  - tiahura 5y ago
    Not my area of the law, but I don’t think he’s right. I think the general consensus is essentially “fairness” for utilitarian reasons. Markets are important, and insider trading discourages investment because it creates an impression of unfairness and increases uncertainty.
    - gruez 5y ago
      > Not my area of the law, but I don’t think he’s right. As far as I know that's how the law is structured. A second source that say the same thing: >KESTENBAUM: And she says while everybody gets upset at insider trading because it gives someone an unfair advantage, that is not the legal reason why it gets you into trouble. The argument used these days in court for why it's illegal is that insider trading amounts to stealing information from a company. It's like theft. And so for that reason, proving that someone traded on insider information - that is not enough to convict them. If, say, a financial document from some company blows out the window, and you happen to find it sitting there on the sidewalk, Sarah says it's not insider trading for you to use that to make money in the stock market because you didn't steal it. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/460689797 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/460689797 As for your "fairness" hypothesis, it really doesn't hold. Is it "fair" that hedge funds can afford to spend millions on alternative data sources (eg. flying helicopters with thermal cameras over oil fields, to see how much oil is being stored) to get a edge over traders who can't? Probably not. Is it banned? No. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-12-19/helicopter-edge-is-better-than-black-edge https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-12-19/helico...
      - elliekelly 5y ago
        The entire basis of US Federal Securities Laws is the concept of "full and fair disclosure".

Freskis 5y ago

You're making a very serious allegation, that a politician has been using insider trading to make money on the stock market. Do you have any evidence of this, or are you repeating something you read on Reddit/Twitter/Facebook etc?

disambiguation 5y ago
I'm not aware of any direct evidence, but I think there's plenty of indirect evidence that should prompt an investigation. Senators dumping stocks prior to the pandemic shutdowns, for example. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/488593-four-senators-sold-stocks-before-coronavirus-threat-crashed-market https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/488593-four-senators-sol...
- Freskis 5y ago
  Do you think that people should be calling for the death of a politician based on "indirect evidence"?
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    Personally I'm against the death penalty, so I don't think we should listen to people that call for any ones death, for any reason. Reading between the lines, however, I do think people have a right to be upset due to indirect evidence.
publicexecution 5y ago
[flagged]
Rebelgecko 5y ago
Which part are you doubting? That Pelosi has access to material nonpublic information? Or that she's making money on trades after she attains that knowledge? The latter is public record. She and her husband have drastically outperformed the market for years. I think the former is undeniable given her job. Just a comment about an industry she likes or doesn't like can impact share prices.

throwaway8582 5y ago

This is quite different from insider trading in the private sector. In addition to having information that is not public, legislators also have the power to influence the value of their investments by passing legislation favorable to companies they are invested in or harmful to their competition. Does anyone think lawmakers can be objective when they may have millions of dollars at stake?