4 ms·

> It should be banned out right or every position they take is public knowledge within 1 trading day or less. Other way around, every position they _plan_ to t

> It should be banned out right or every position they take is public knowledge within 1 trading day or less. Other way around, every position they _plan_ to take is public knowledge 24 hours in advance. EDIT: ==== Other comment says a week, I'm good with that

psychlops 3y ago
Really if they simply became subject to the same rules as everyone else that has sensitive insider information, the problem would be solved. Those who work in the investment industry are subject to strict rules.
andsoitis 3y ago
> every position they _plan_ to take is public knowledge 24 hours in advance. If you know in advance what position someone is going to take, then, logically they have already taken the position (otherwise, how would you know with certainty what position they're going to take?. This isn't mere wordplay; the practical consequence is that even if you knew in advance how they would vote on a particular decision (maybe you're definition of "position they plan to take"), you should assume they have also already made other steps to take advantage of that public knowledge. If my reasoning is correct, then I don't know that your proposal would make too much of a dent in the (safe to assume) "insider trading" that's happening. So I think a better policy would be to be ban trading altogether for these folks, because that would also disincentivize people from pursuing these careers for extreme profit.
- tzs 3y ago
  The above comments are talking about positions in stocks, not positions on issues. In finance a position is having ownership of something. For example right now I do not own any Apple stock so it might be said I do not have a position in Apple. If I were to buy Apple stock that would be taking a position. What then is being suggested above is that Congress members and Executive members have to make public trades they are going to do 24 hours before making those trades.

psychlops 3y ago

Really if they simply became subject to the same rules as everyone else that has sensitive insider information, the problem would be solved. Those who work in the investment industry are subject to strict rules.

andsoitis 3y ago

> every position they _plan_ to take is public knowledge 24 hours in advance. If you know in advance what position someone is going to take, then, logically they have already taken the position (otherwise, how would you know with certainty what position they're going to take?. This isn't mere wordplay; the practical consequence is that even if you knew in advance how they would vote on a particular decision (maybe you're definition of "position they plan to take"), you should assume they have also already made other steps to take advantage of that public knowledge. If my reasoning is correct, then I don't know that your proposal would make too much of a dent in the (safe to assume) "insider trading" that's happening. So I think a better policy would be to be ban trading altogether for these folks, because that would also disincentivize people from pursuing these careers for extreme profit.

tzs 3y ago
The above comments are talking about positions in stocks, not positions on issues. In finance a position is having ownership of something. For example right now I do not own any Apple stock so it might be said I do not have a position in Apple. If I were to buy Apple stock that would be taking a position. What then is being suggested above is that Congress members and Executive members have to make public trades they are going to do 24 hours before making those trades.