3 ms·
Shaming people for purchasing/selling S&P 500 mutual funds is really dumb. Expected better from the WSJ. But yeah, trading individual stocks is highly suspect
by TotoHorner 4y ago
Shaming people for purchasing/selling S&P 500 mutual funds is really dumb. Expected better from the WSJ.
But yeah, trading individual stocks is highly suspect and should be illegal.
- dereg 4y agoIf you have the knowledge that Congress does, the S&P 500 is the only instrument you need to do very well for yourself
- shaburn 4y agoIncorrect. Rarely, if ever, does any congress person have any insight or control into detrimental effects that would cause a market wide bear market or correction. If the do, it is even more unlikely the certainty of timing would be an advantage.
- freeplay 4y ago> Rarely, if ever, does any congress person have any insight or control into detrimental effects that would cause a market wide bear market or correction Rarely like a once in a lifetime global pandemic? Control like the ability to force shut downs of businesses across the country?
- eloff 4y agoIf you're going short or long the entire index on non public information, is that really innocent?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- xboxnolifes 4y agoShorting? Maybe not. But I would think we want congress to be long on the S&P, even if it also benefits them.
- jollyllama 4y agoBaked into this assumption is the assumption that the markets reflect the well being of the citizens, which is not the case, unfortunately.
- whimsicalism 4y ago> which is not the case, unfortunately. Generally when the markets are doing well are good times for more Americans. Obviously not a 1-to-1 and not necessarily a cause-effect.
- whimsicalism 4y agoEh, so they have a vested interest in the 500 biggest companies particularly?
- freeplay 4y agoIt's really more like 5 or 10 companies though. S&P is very top heavy these days.
- eloff 4y agoLong in the long term, yes. Entering and leaving positions for short periods of time based on insider information seems sketchy to me.