12 ms·
Not inside trading just 100% winning rate
- notaboredguy 4y agoIt's foolish to think that banning politicians from stock trading would do anything. Politician Bob can always call his friend Alice to do the trading on his behalf.
- pipodeclown 4y agoPeople are constantly convicted of insider trading that have very remote connections with the people receiving the privileged information. The great thing about insider trading is that the trading part is public, regulators do track trading activity and suspiciously well timed trades can be investigated. It is definately not something that wouldn't have any effect.
- immigrantheart 4y agoI am like more and more certain day by day that political theaters such as what DeSantis and Gavin Newson do back and forth are just theatrical plays that they cook behind the scenes to distract most Americans from politicians, the real criminals.
- johng 4y agoThis is bonkers. Will they do anything about it though?
- esalman 4y agohttps://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3494 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/349...
- johng 4y agoI want the previous insider traders punished as well.
- ttymck 4y agoInsider trading is currently illegal (nominally). Congressional stock trading (not necessarily insider) would be banned by that bill, and to your point about "previous": I think it's fairly well established that laws can't be enforced retroactively: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-3/ex-post-facto-laws https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec... My point is that this bill won't help our desire to see punishment for (alleged) insider trading by congress that is already happening.
- sarcasmatwork 4y agoUnusual whales has been tracking this for a long time. https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate Nancy Pelosi has her own page: https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate_member/Nancy%20Pelosi https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate_member/Nancy%20Pel... https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate/pelosi https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate/pelosi
- exabrial 4y agoIf you really want some fun, look up her husband's business relationships with train to nowhere in California.
- throwayyy479087 4y agoAre you referring to the HSR?
- fullsend 4y agoWhat’s so fun here? How is it related to insider trading?
- GeneT45 4y ago99% of them had the last name 'Pelosi'... They are the government, so clearly there is no will to do anything about it. The same cretins are re-elected (perhaps because the single, viable, alternate option is even more despicable. If we, the electorate, are not prepared to oust those that are clearly thieves and liars, than we shall receive that which we deserve.
- pstuart 4y ago> They found that 81 Democrats & 101 Republicans filed up to 3,700 trades and $100M in possible volume Corruption should be a non-partisan concern. But that's not the real corruption -- legalized bribery, I mean campaign contributions is the problem and will never be solved until we can collectively agree on how to do it. Which means never, unfortunately. These are all solvable problems but not if we are squabbling amongst ourselves.
- maerF0x0 4y ago> Which means never, unfortunately. With that attitude you're correct
- pstuart 4y agoYour comment reads as a personal attack. I remain hopeful enough to consider the possibility. I see such a divide in politics today that make me worry that "democracy" itself here is doomed. And attempts at dialog here in HN never bear fruit. We have on record one party proclaiming that their primary goal is to let the other party succeed, e.g., party over country. Just that comment alone will bring out the voiceless downvotes that are personally offended by it and refuse to discuss the details in a non-partisan manner. I'd love to be proven wrong here, but I'm going with past experience and it's not encouraging.
- maerF0x0 4y agoI'm simply pointing out the net effect of the resolution/learned helplessness of seeing the situation as "Never" going to be resolved.
- vondur 4y agoThey should all be locked up. Look what they did to Martha Stewart for insider trading.
- haunter 4y ago>... she served five months in federal prison and was released in March 2005. There was speculation that the incident would effectively end her media empire, but in 2005 Stewart began a comeback campaign and her company returned to profitability in 2006 So nothing? lol I'd rather forcibly retire any public office holder once they reach age 70. 82 years old shouldn't have any leading position in the government in any form
- jc_811 4y agoMartha Stewart was actually not tried nor sentenced for insider trading. Her charges were related to obstructing the investigation and lying to federal agents. [1] https://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdict/ https://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdi...
- maerF0x0 4y agoRules for thee but not for me
- wyclif 4y agoIt should be totally illegal. It's probably the one issue I share with Elizabeth Warren.
- vba616 4y agoI don't have the impression that people who are against insider trading have a clear definition in their heads, agree with others on a definition, or know what the law is now in the US (let alone other countries, which can be notably different in law or principles). Why would you ever buy or sell anything unless you thought you knew something other people didn't? But, if that's not insider trading, then what is, and why? When I write "what is", I mean both as a matter of current law, and as a platonic ideal. When big investors talk to company management, what are they doing if not getting inside information? Why is this legal? Is it legal? Should it be legal? Isn't it kind of peculiar if someone that supposedly owns something can't talk to the people managing it?
- csande17 4y agoI enjoy that the author of this Tweet thread is working on a "copy Nancy Pelosi's stock trades" robo-investor app: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/autopilot-investment-app/id1613625799 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/autopilot-investment-app/id161...
- layer8 4y agoMaybe Vanguard could create a US Politicians ETF.
- fancyfredbot 4y agoIt's fun that the motivation for exposing insider trading is selling an app these days, rather than selling newspapers (or advertising space in newspapers if you are being cynical).
- wildrhythms 4y agoI know it's never going to actually be implemented, but I admire Elizabeth Warren for actually trying to do something to address this - >Senator Warren's bipartisan bill with Senator Daines would ban Members of Congress and their spouses from owning or trading individual stocks. https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/at-hearing-on-insider-trading-senator-warren-makes-case-for-her-bipartisan-bill-to-ban-members-of-congress-from-owning-or-trading-stocks https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/at-hea...
- CodeWriter23 4y agoThey're gonna do it. At this point, they have to sacrifice a few for the good of the collective.
- thunky 4y agoYeah because politicians are great at sacrificing for the common good.
- fullsend 4y agoI wonder if losing this income stream will ironically just make them even more beholden to their corporate masters for succor and sustenance.
- Bilal_io 4y agoI believe that to be true. In addition they'll be more corrupt in secret. A few things need to happen, reform political contributions and outlaw bribery, as well as enforcing laws, politicians going without punishment when they do illegal shit is just setting precedent for others to follow suit.
- dtx1 4y agoHow can I invest my money exactly how they do to get the same winning rate? Is that info publicly tracked?
- wyclif 4y agoI'm sure the author of that thread would answer by saying "Download my app!"
- pyuser583 4y agoWhy should I care? Who is being hurt by this? Im asking as a serious question … who is being hurt by this?
- millzlane 4y agoWould you feel cheated if you sold your options to someone who had insider information and then got rich a week later? Do you think it's unfair that they had knowledge that if you had the same public information would have helped you to make a better informed decision? Would you have faith in a market that was rigged like that?
- pyuser583 4y agoI mean there are companies that have software that downloads and analyzes press releases (Fed meeting minutes, corporate reports, etc) and bases trades on them. That’s not something I can do. So the folks who analyze “public” information fast enough effectively turn it into “private information” for the first few milliseconds. The apocryphal story about the Rothschilds building special boats to report the outcome of Waterloo is like that. So it seems that you can have massively asymmetrical information, as long as it’s passed on public info. Which seems like a dumb distinction. In regards to congressmen, they’re often the first people to be exposed to new public information. So the distinction between public and private is less clear for them.
- Bilal_io 4y ago> analyzes press releases Yeah, that's public information. It's fair to everyone. We're specifically talking about "insider" knowledge which they take advantage of before anyone else knows.
- teo_zero 4y agoThere are people who can remember the cards already played during a poker game. I cannot. This is massively asymmetrical, but it doesn't allow me to peek at the next card in the deck before bidding.
- 4y ago
- v7engine 4y ago