3 ms·

Sure, but they are not considered “insiders” when trading on non public information obtained during their official duties. So sure, if his wife told him about h

Sure, but they are not considered “insiders” when trading on non public information obtained during their official duties. So sure, if his wife told him about her company’s merger he could go to jail. You are either ignorant or willfully misleading people.

kasey_junk 3y ago
Lots of people aren’t considered insiders when trading on non public information obtained during their official duties. Congress people aren’t held to a different standard here. If you want to argue that they should be held to a higher standard that’s reasonable but the way the comment was worded suggested there is some extra immunity for Congress. Which there isn’t.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  well then, you are either educated/intelligent, or thoughtfully trying not to mislead people! which one is it, buddy!? what is the definition of non-public information in the context of congress and corporate "inside" information? If the congressional subcommittees get briefed on the Covid crisis or trade laws or policy, they might have advance knowledge that companies themselves don't have. Or if a company insider reveals information to subcommittees, is that actually making the information public?
  - riotnrrd 3y ago
    If you're curious, you can read the relevant laws yourself. I suggest you start with the STOCK act of 2012 (S. 2038, 126 Stat. 291, enacted April 4, 2012). This law prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading by members of Congress and other government employees. You can also follow up with the relevant SEC definitions of "non public information."
    - junofan 3y ago
      It’s a $200 fine for a failure to file. 10% penalty for prohibited trades. Enforcement is at ethics committee discretion. Those aren’t the rules normal people have to follow. Maybe people have a problem with that?
      - kasey_junk 3y ago
        Those are _more_ rules than normal people have to follow. The whole point is there is no special exemption for Congress though people seem to think there is. Should there be even more strict rules for Congress than there are? Sure! But it’s not because they currently aren’t subject to insider laws.
  - kasey_junk 3y ago
    The SEC is currently pursuing a very expansive definition of insider trading (and are losing some cases because of it). I'm extremely nervous about stating definitively what they think is illegal insider trading. That said, historically one of the things US* insider trading requires "breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence". Trading on material non-public information is not enough, there must be a relationship, there is a whole industry of people devoted to trading on material non-public information. They just have to get it without that breach. So the argument for congress people (presumably, I'm not an securities lawyer) would be that most of the information they receive they do not receive via a fiduciary relationship or one of trust and confidence. Or that by Congress getting it, it becomes part of the public record. Though I can certainly see sealed/confidential testimony going the other way. *This is an important distinction. In the US insider trading laws aren't about protecting the markets, they are about protecting shareholders. Its more about theft than market manipulation. European laws can have a completely different basis.

kasey_junk 3y ago

Lots of people aren’t considered insiders when trading on non public information obtained during their official duties. Congress people aren’t held to a different standard here. If you want to argue that they should be held to a higher standard that’s reasonable but the way the comment was worded suggested there is some extra immunity for Congress. Which there isn’t.

fsckboy 3y ago
well then, you are either educated/intelligent, or thoughtfully trying not to mislead people! which one is it, buddy!? what is the definition of non-public information in the context of congress and corporate "inside" information? If the congressional subcommittees get briefed on the Covid crisis or trade laws or policy, they might have advance knowledge that companies themselves don't have. Or if a company insider reveals information to subcommittees, is that actually making the information public?
- riotnrrd 3y ago
  If you're curious, you can read the relevant laws yourself. I suggest you start with the STOCK act of 2012 (S. 2038, 126 Stat. 291, enacted April 4, 2012). This law prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading by members of Congress and other government employees. You can also follow up with the relevant SEC definitions of "non public information."
  - junofan 3y ago
    It’s a $200 fine for a failure to file. 10% penalty for prohibited trades. Enforcement is at ethics committee discretion. Those aren’t the rules normal people have to follow. Maybe people have a problem with that?
    - kasey_junk 3y ago
      Those are _more_ rules than normal people have to follow. The whole point is there is no special exemption for Congress though people seem to think there is. Should there be even more strict rules for Congress than there are? Sure! But it’s not because they currently aren’t subject to insider laws.
- kasey_junk 3y ago
  The SEC is currently pursuing a very expansive definition of insider trading (and are losing some cases because of it). I'm extremely nervous about stating definitively what they think is illegal insider trading. That said, historically one of the things US* insider trading requires "breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence". Trading on material non-public information is not enough, there must be a relationship, there is a whole industry of people devoted to trading on material non-public information. They just have to get it without that breach. So the argument for congress people (presumably, I'm not an securities lawyer) would be that most of the information they receive they do not receive via a fiduciary relationship or one of trust and confidence. Or that by Congress getting it, it becomes part of the public record. Though I can certainly see sealed/confidential testimony going the other way. *This is an important distinction. In the US insider trading laws aren't about protecting the markets, they are about protecting shareholders. Its more about theft than market manipulation. European laws can have a completely different basis.