11 ms·

My wife works in the audit department of a bank. I'm heavily regulated by the SEC on what stocks, ETFs, mutual funds I can buy/sell. An internal group monitors

by _lb0d 3y ago

My wife works in the audit department of a bank. I'm heavily regulated by the SEC on what stocks, ETFs, mutual funds I can buy/sell. An internal group monitors my buying/selling and makes approval/denial before I can do so. I have to hold an ETF for 1 month before I can sell it--not that I should be swing trading ETFs, but still. It's very frustrating at times, especially when I'm relegated to using just her bank's trading platform, too.

jchanimal 3y ago
I think is standard practice at larger firms in the banking industry, it should be for government as well.
- _lb0d 3y ago
  Agreed.
- ghaff 3y ago
  There are significant restrictions in a number of sectors--including ones that don't necessarily compensate terribly well--that I expect many people reading this would bridle at if they applied to themselves but which are in place (usually for understandable reasons) nonetheless.
- ksec 3y ago
  Not just in banking industry but many other Finance or Legal industry as well. Pretty much standard practice.
  - vinceguidry 3y ago
    Why would this solve the problem? They're still incentivized to make decisions on behalf of the nation in their own financial interests. The conflict of interest in the financial industry is with the companies they work with and for. For lawmakers it's with the whole country. They should absolutely not be allowed to benefit personally from legislating.
    - datavirtue 3y ago
      I wish we just called people up like we do for jury duty.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        That basically devolves all the power to full-time congressional staffs because the representatives themselves would be even less educated on issues before them than they are today. (Though this is already close to being the case in some states that only have part-time legislators who are paid next to nothing.)
        katbyte 3y ago
        > representatives themselves would be even less educated on issues before them than they are today. i dare say politicians are far from even the smallest bit educated on any issue as it is not what gets them votes, and even an amateur in any field or profession is likely more aware and educated then them. how many times do we hear about laws the pass about technology that clearly have no idea how said technology works? perhapses having expects, scientists, and data be how we make choices would result in better outcomes then simply who is best at winning a popularity contest. i recall a study done with high school class leaders where instead of voting they did something else and it resulted in better, more capable leadership, but i can't find it at the moment
      - mensetmanusman 3y ago
        That would be amazing. Maybe have some minimum requirement afterwards with knowledge though.
        HWR_14 3y ago
        Government tests for knowledge to participate in democracy do not have a good history.
grog454 3y ago
Why? What kinds of things might you be able to do through your wife that require all this scrutiny?
- BlandDuck 3y ago
  Trade on insider information.
- neuronexmachina 3y ago
  An example that comes to mind would be overlooking something during an audit in exchange for a kickback.
- FuriouslyAdrift 3y ago
  Timing buys/sells before during investigations, early access to judgements, pre-IPO info... your basic insider trading.
- ghaff 3y ago
  She would almost certainly have early knowledge of irregularities at her own company but potentially more broadly in the sector because people talk. Trading restrictions don't really cost an employer anything so they often figure that it's easier to get rid of even the possible appearance of impropriety even if it costs some employees/their spouses money. At the most basic level, I worked for a company that wouldn't let you sell company stock, even as a non-executive, during a window around earnings being reported.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  The wife may be privy to the banks customers activities, and the husband must be considered privy to all the same, simply by proximity regardless of her honesty or intent. The wife may have knowledge about $bigco buying or selling $bigthing, and the husband may gain that same knowledge from her, even if she's honest and never intentionally disclosed it. (people aren't perfect and clues can slip, or he simply has access to her laptop or that scratch pad where she wrote down the essentials of a phone call etc.
BurningFrog 3y ago
I can't think of any other situation when one person getting a job puts legal obligations on their spouse, but I haven't looked into it.
- skizm 3y ago
  To less of a degree, when applying for law enforcement jobs, family members and sometimes friends have to surrender a lot of personal data. I had to hand over my SSN along with pretty much all my PII and do interviews on behalf family members when they applied to be cops. I tried to say no, but at the end of the day they're holding their jobs hostage until I comply. Hate it.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    What, the cops are actually doing at least something to weed out the bad apples now? Sarcasm aside: interesting how far they go for a simple copper on the street now. Here in Germany, that level of background checks (Sicherheitsüberprüfung Ü2/Ü3) is only done for higher level (i.e. leadership) cops and IT staff. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheits%C3%BCberpr%C3%BCfung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheits%C3%BCberpr%C3%BCfu...
    - tivert 3y ago
      >> To less of a degree, when applying for law enforcement jobs, family members and sometimes friends have to surrender a lot of personal data. I had to [hand] over my SSN along with pretty much all my PII and do interviews on behalf family members when they applied to be cops. I tried to say no, but at the end of the day they're holding their jobs hostage until I comply. Hate it. > What, the cops are actually doing at least something to weed out the bad apples now? How is forcing a friend or family member to surrender their own PII have anything to do about "weed[ing] out the bad apples"? My intuition is that those kinds of background checks have been going on for a long time, and have been focused on stuff like preventing infiltration by organized crime rather than specifically rooting out police brutality.
csomar 3y ago
Don't worry, to make it fairer Congress will make a law to ban trading for the rest of the citizenry. It won't affect the market too much though as they'll be the only guys trading and owning stocks.
blitzar 3y ago
Also at a bank. If I am authorized to trade it on behalf of the Bank - I am not allowed to trade it for myself, nor is anyone in my family. Anything I am not authorized to trade it on behalf of the Bank, I have to seek approval and agree to minimum holding periods (for me and my family). Anything close to what I am authorized to trade it on behalf of the Bank would be instantly rejected for personal trading.
tmaly 3y ago
I am in finance. We are not allow to sell stock unless it is in very small windows after earnings releases have happened. I am not sure how this proposed ban would handle cases where someone is a founder of a company that goes public? I agree the current setup is not good. Look at how many members in Congress have made millions trading stock. All that aside, I don't like the double standard on insider trading. I think the law should be applied equally to everyone.
- olliej 3y ago
  I think the answer is "if you are a founder of a company going public (or any business), you shouldn't be in office". This is the requirement the GOP had for Jimmy Carter.

by _lb0d 3y ago

jchanimal 3y ago

I think is standard practice at larger firms in the banking industry, it should be for government as well.

_lb0d 3y ago
Agreed.
ghaff 3y ago
There are significant restrictions in a number of sectors--including ones that don't necessarily compensate terribly well--that I expect many people reading this would bridle at if they applied to themselves but which are in place (usually for understandable reasons) nonetheless.
ksec 3y ago
Not just in banking industry but many other Finance or Legal industry as well. Pretty much standard practice.
- vinceguidry 3y ago
  Why would this solve the problem? They're still incentivized to make decisions on behalf of the nation in their own financial interests. The conflict of interest in the financial industry is with the companies they work with and for. For lawmakers it's with the whole country. They should absolutely not be allowed to benefit personally from legislating.
  - datavirtue 3y ago
    I wish we just called people up like we do for jury duty.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      That basically devolves all the power to full-time congressional staffs because the representatives themselves would be even less educated on issues before them than they are today. (Though this is already close to being the case in some states that only have part-time legislators who are paid next to nothing.)
      - katbyte 3y ago
        > representatives themselves would be even less educated on issues before them than they are today. i dare say politicians are far from even the smallest bit educated on any issue as it is not what gets them votes, and even an amateur in any field or profession is likely more aware and educated then them. how many times do we hear about laws the pass about technology that clearly have no idea how said technology works? perhapses having expects, scientists, and data be how we make choices would result in better outcomes then simply who is best at winning a popularity contest. i recall a study done with high school class leaders where instead of voting they did something else and it resulted in better, more capable leadership, but i can't find it at the moment
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      That would be amazing. Maybe have some minimum requirement afterwards with knowledge though.
      - HWR_14 3y ago
        Government tests for knowledge to participate in democracy do not have a good history.

grog454 3y ago

Why? What kinds of things might you be able to do through your wife that require all this scrutiny?

BlandDuck 3y ago
Trade on insider information.
neuronexmachina 3y ago
An example that comes to mind would be overlooking something during an audit in exchange for a kickback.
FuriouslyAdrift 3y ago
Timing buys/sells before during investigations, early access to judgements, pre-IPO info... your basic insider trading.
ghaff 3y ago
She would almost certainly have early knowledge of irregularities at her own company but potentially more broadly in the sector because people talk. Trading restrictions don't really cost an employer anything so they often figure that it's easier to get rid of even the possible appearance of impropriety even if it costs some employees/their spouses money. At the most basic level, I worked for a company that wouldn't let you sell company stock, even as a non-executive, during a window around earnings being reported.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Brian_K_White 3y ago
The wife may be privy to the banks customers activities, and the husband must be considered privy to all the same, simply by proximity regardless of her honesty or intent. The wife may have knowledge about $bigco buying or selling $bigthing, and the husband may gain that same knowledge from her, even if she's honest and never intentionally disclosed it. (people aren't perfect and clues can slip, or he simply has access to her laptop or that scratch pad where she wrote down the essentials of a phone call etc.

BurningFrog 3y ago

I can't think of any other situation when one person getting a job puts legal obligations on their spouse, but I haven't looked into it.

skizm 3y ago
To less of a degree, when applying for law enforcement jobs, family members and sometimes friends have to surrender a lot of personal data. I had to hand over my SSN along with pretty much all my PII and do interviews on behalf family members when they applied to be cops. I tried to say no, but at the end of the day they're holding their jobs hostage until I comply. Hate it.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  What, the cops are actually doing at least something to weed out the bad apples now? Sarcasm aside: interesting how far they go for a simple copper on the street now. Here in Germany, that level of background checks (Sicherheitsüberprüfung Ü2/Ü3) is only done for higher level (i.e. leadership) cops and IT staff. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheits%C3%BCberpr%C3%BCfung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheits%C3%BCberpr%C3%BCfu...
  - tivert 3y ago
    >> To less of a degree, when applying for law enforcement jobs, family members and sometimes friends have to surrender a lot of personal data. I had to [hand] over my SSN along with pretty much all my PII and do interviews on behalf family members when they applied to be cops. I tried to say no, but at the end of the day they're holding their jobs hostage until I comply. Hate it. > What, the cops are actually doing at least something to weed out the bad apples now? How is forcing a friend or family member to surrender their own PII have anything to do about "weed[ing] out the bad apples"? My intuition is that those kinds of background checks have been going on for a long time, and have been focused on stuff like preventing infiltration by organized crime rather than specifically rooting out police brutality.

csomar 3y ago

Don't worry, to make it fairer Congress will make a law to ban trading for the rest of the citizenry. It won't affect the market too much though as they'll be the only guys trading and owning stocks.

blitzar 3y ago

Also at a bank. If I am authorized to trade it on behalf of the Bank - I am not allowed to trade it for myself, nor is anyone in my family. Anything I am not authorized to trade it on behalf of the Bank, I have to seek approval and agree to minimum holding periods (for me and my family). Anything close to what I am authorized to trade it on behalf of the Bank would be instantly rejected for personal trading.

tmaly 3y ago

I am in finance. We are not allow to sell stock unless it is in very small windows after earnings releases have happened. I am not sure how this proposed ban would handle cases where someone is a founder of a company that goes public? I agree the current setup is not good. Look at how many members in Congress have made millions trading stock. All that aside, I don't like the double standard on insider trading. I think the law should be applied equally to everyone.

olliej 3y ago
I think the answer is "if you are a founder of a company going public (or any business), you shouldn't be in office". This is the requirement the GOP had for Jimmy Carter.