4 ms·

The family has the obligation. When you're trading one of the questions is if you, or your family, has rank at public companies. That would make the link from t

The family has the obligation. When you're trading one of the questions is if you, or your family, has rank at public companies. That would make the link from the guy, to wife, to company.

lowbloodsugar 3y ago
Unless your wife is the leader of the house.
- kasey_junk 3y ago
  The Nancy Pelosi case is extremely interesting from a market manipulation point of view! It’s one of the strongest arguments for extreme restrictions on Congress trading. Trumps behavior in office is a similarly strong argument for extreme restrictions on Presidential trading. But it’s not strictly about insider trading. Pelosi (or trump or Pelosis’ husband) are not traditionally insiders. The testimony they receive is by its nature public. That we’ve allowed lots of things that shouldn’t be secret doesn’t change that. That elected officials can be corrupted by their power isn’t an insider trading issue, it’s a corruption one.
  - lowbloodsugar 3y ago
    Sure. But the issue is when they have insider information on how a vote is going to go, when the vote impacts stock prices. She has material information that the public does not.
    - kasey_junk 3y ago
      But she's not an insider. The common belief is that insider trading laws are about having data that the market doesn't know. In the US that's just not the basis for the law. In the US there is no expectation that everyone has the same information when trading. The expectation is that people who have a duty to the shareholders are not trading on any non public material information. If you don't have a duty to the shareholders, it doesn't matter how you trade. Is that the appropriate standard to hold congress people to? I don't know, personally i think, no. But its not obvious that its incorrect from a legal point of view. What fiduciary duty does Nancy Pelosi have to some fund her husband owns? I'm good with a definition that says "once you become a congress person you have fiduciary duty to everyone" but thats not the law now.
      - lowbloodsugar 3y ago
        So if I’m a billionaire, I can say I’m going to buy a company, to build up its stock price, and then short it and publicly walk away? That’s fine because I don’t have a duty to that company’s shareholders? I mean sure, can only do it once, but that’s legal?
        kasey_junk 3y ago
        :shrug: it’s not insider trading (by historical norms) that doesn’t make it legal. There are other laws that you might be breaking.

The family has the obligation. When you're trading one of the questions is if you, or your family, has rank at public companies. That would make the link from the guy, to wife, to company.

lowbloodsugar 3y ago

Unless your wife is the leader of the house.

kasey_junk 3y ago
The Nancy Pelosi case is extremely interesting from a market manipulation point of view! It’s one of the strongest arguments for extreme restrictions on Congress trading. Trumps behavior in office is a similarly strong argument for extreme restrictions on Presidential trading. But it’s not strictly about insider trading. Pelosi (or trump or Pelosis’ husband) are not traditionally insiders. The testimony they receive is by its nature public. That we’ve allowed lots of things that shouldn’t be secret doesn’t change that. That elected officials can be corrupted by their power isn’t an insider trading issue, it’s a corruption one.
- lowbloodsugar 3y ago
  Sure. But the issue is when they have insider information on how a vote is going to go, when the vote impacts stock prices. She has material information that the public does not.
  - kasey_junk 3y ago
    But she's not an insider. The common belief is that insider trading laws are about having data that the market doesn't know. In the US that's just not the basis for the law. In the US there is no expectation that everyone has the same information when trading. The expectation is that people who have a duty to the shareholders are not trading on any non public material information. If you don't have a duty to the shareholders, it doesn't matter how you trade. Is that the appropriate standard to hold congress people to? I don't know, personally i think, no. But its not obvious that its incorrect from a legal point of view. What fiduciary duty does Nancy Pelosi have to some fund her husband owns? I'm good with a definition that says "once you become a congress person you have fiduciary duty to everyone" but thats not the law now.
    - lowbloodsugar 3y ago
      So if I’m a billionaire, I can say I’m going to buy a company, to build up its stock price, and then short it and publicly walk away? That’s fine because I don’t have a duty to that company’s shareholders? I mean sure, can only do it once, but that’s legal?
      - kasey_junk 3y ago
        :shrug: it’s not insider trading (by historical norms) that doesn’t make it legal. There are other laws that you might be breaking.