4 ms·
More reasonable would be a ban on trading, if not ownership. But then again, lawmakers would just advocate positions in favour of their static portfolio. It do
by mikrl 3y ago
More reasonable would be a ban on trading, if not ownership. But then again, lawmakers would just advocate positions in favour of their static portfolio.
It does seem better than the status quo of ‘extremely lucky’ returns though.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoLegislators are already under the imperative to backstop public equity markets (and hence all the biggest companies) because the most active voters also have a significant amount of their wealth in the public equity markets. And also all the state and local governments are heavily depending on equities to deliver major gains to fulfill their deferred compensation for government employees (otherwise they have to increase taxes to make up for lack of any performance), so the more state and local tax you pay or are able to pay, the more invested you are in backstopping the markets also.