4 ms·

Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy stock at all? Because you could cherry-pick any period of time to highlight that they have outperformed the mar

Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy stock at all? Because you could cherry-pick any period of time to highlight that they have outperformed the market.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
You could, but I'm positive that statisticians much smarter than me have devised a test tunable to any sensitivity one desires. The real question is, "What's our threshold of sensitivity, and what are the FPR and FNRs are we willing to endure?"
BobaFloutist 3y ago
Yeah probably not individually. They could put investment money in like an independent index fund maybe...? Although honestly there should probably be a "Congressional Investment Fund" that they have to put any stock investment money into that invests equally across all publicly traded companies or something.
CydeWeys 3y ago
That would be a very reasonable restriction. Anyone who works on Wall Street can only own broad index mutual funds.
- seanhunter 3y ago
  It may have changed recently but that's not quite how the restrictions worked on Wall St in my experience (8yrs in the front office at Goldman). There are lots of restrictions to the point where owning broad funds often becomes simpler, but you can do single-stock trades etc if you want to. See another comment where I explain more but how it used to work for me was you have to trade through the employee trading desk (and aren't allowed to have unmonitored brokerage accounts) then any trade gets vetted against various lists (some but not all of which are available to you ahead of time to protect deal confidentiality) and then there are static criteria about how long you have to hold particular positions etc.
bmitc 3y ago
> Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy stock at all? There are several jobs that are less powerful and have less conflicts of interest where that is indeed the policy.
mardifoufs 3y ago
Sure, why not? If they aren't willing to sacrifice that for their constituents, as to reduce any risk of conflicts of interest... I'm not sure they should be in any position of power to begin with. Why not just have their savings/pension in a known, public index fund?

Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy stock at all? Because you could cherry-pick any period of time to highlight that they have outperformed the market.

kelseyfrog 3y ago

You could, but I'm positive that statisticians much smarter than me have devised a test tunable to any sensitivity one desires. The real question is, "What's our threshold of sensitivity, and what are the FPR and FNRs are we willing to endure?"

BobaFloutist 3y ago

Yeah probably not individually. They could put investment money in like an independent index fund maybe...? Although honestly there should probably be a "Congressional Investment Fund" that they have to put any stock investment money into that invests equally across all publicly traded companies or something.

CydeWeys 3y ago

That would be a very reasonable restriction. Anyone who works on Wall Street can only own broad index mutual funds.

seanhunter 3y ago
It may have changed recently but that's not quite how the restrictions worked on Wall St in my experience (8yrs in the front office at Goldman). There are lots of restrictions to the point where owning broad funds often becomes simpler, but you can do single-stock trades etc if you want to. See another comment where I explain more but how it used to work for me was you have to trade through the employee trading desk (and aren't allowed to have unmonitored brokerage accounts) then any trade gets vetted against various lists (some but not all of which are available to you ahead of time to protect deal confidentiality) and then there are static criteria about how long you have to hold particular positions etc.

bmitc 3y ago

> Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy stock at all? There are several jobs that are less powerful and have less conflicts of interest where that is indeed the policy.

mardifoufs 3y ago

Sure, why not? If they aren't willing to sacrifice that for their constituents, as to reduce any risk of conflicts of interest... I'm not sure they should be in any position of power to begin with. Why not just have their savings/pension in a known, public index fund?