3 ms·

If the 'other investing approach' is a broad market index like the S&P 500, where is the 'appearance if insider trading'? GP's point is that they could be almo

by OJFord 3y ago

If the 'other investing approach' is a broad market index like the S&P 500, where is the 'appearance if insider trading'? GP's point is that they could be almost entirely in the S&P500, with some minor innocuous deviation (tracking error, frankly!) and it would look the same. So this isn't really suspicious at all. Sure it's a US-focussed index, but isn't that you want from your politicians? (Outsider perspective here fwiw.) It'd be worse if they were some foreign country's politicians where the markets at home had done poorly and they'd basically tracked much better performing US index.

despideme 3y ago
Anecdata to follow. Does this not look suspicious? https://www.threads.net/@quiverquantitative/post/CzcB_jyA_pD https://www.threads.net/@quiverquantitative/post/CzcB_jyA_pD The politician in question is a 69 year old former football coach who bought stock in a cloud-based e-commerce software vendor before the company was acquired, then when the stock spiked 50%, he sold it right away.
- defrost 3y ago
  Well, if you factor in that he bought his position of > $600K US in multiple buys less than a month before the spike then yes, you might say it was a little suspicious. What a lucky man.
  - kasey_junk 3y ago
    Turns out US insider trading laws have nothing to do with fairness (even if you aren’t a congressperson). They have to do with theft. Me trading against you from an information advantage is encouraged! This isn’t an insider trading issue, it’s an ethics issue.
- stouset 3y ago
  Yes, it is likely individual politicians are making insider trades. It is also likely that some of those politicians are making bad trades based on overvalued or misvalued insider information. I have personally seen this in other contexts where people know something presumed private about a company, assume it’s a bigger deal than it is, and trade on that information. It’s also likely that there are a lot of politicians who are generally just as bad as the average person at stockpicking. All this combined, and it’s reasonable that the overall trend will be mostly in-line with the market, but likely overperforming sonewhat in the long run based on the volume and quality of insider trades. One year and change isn’t the long run.
- blitzar 3y ago
  Kids on wallstbets were buying 100-1 leveraged short dated options paid for with their credit cards on the same stonk for the acquisition.
SoftTalker 3y ago
If you’re holding elected office or have other regulatory/lawmaking powers you should only be permitted to hold index funds, or preferably you should have to move all your investments into a blind trust. Then there’s little chance you’re benefiting personally from inside info
- davidgay 3y ago
  Down this path is the requirement that politicians be independently wealthy, so that we can require them to earn no money and take no money-related actions, as those all risk corruption. Is that really what you want?
  - fennecfoxy 3y ago
    Politicians should be all tax paid. There should be some entry requirements based on skills and abilities rather than connections/tenure/etc same as everything else. Campaigns should be paid for with tax money with a strict limit for every candidate and harsh penalties for any under the table bullshit. Corporations that would nominally donate can just not. And we can fucking tax them appropriately and stop them and their C levels tax dodging at every available opportunity. The way things are at the moment, democracy is really just a corporation/business, isn't it? Pretty sure all of this is driven by apathy though, the average voter doesn't really care enough about these issues + humans are too easy to manipulate into race/class/etc wars to divide voters and distract them from thinking about the real issues - but the only reason they're so easy to distract is because we're all so self serving; people don't care so long as they can vote for the "team" that says they hate the people they hate.
    - lobocinza 3y ago
      > Campaigns should be paid for with tax money with a strict limit for every candidate and harsh penalties for any under the table bullshit. > Corporations that would nominally donate can just not. In Brazil campaigns are funded with taxpayer money, there are very strict rules for donations to election campaigns and donations from corporations aren't allowed. This is the theory but for real nobody gives a damn about the rules, corporations donate outrageous amounts behind the scenes and politicians do whatever they want. It is a clown show.

by OJFord 3y ago

despideme 3y ago

Anecdata to follow. Does this not look suspicious? https://www.threads.net/@quiverquantitative/post/CzcB_jyA_pD https://www.threads.net/@quiverquantitative/post/CzcB_jyA_pD The politician in question is a 69 year old former football coach who bought stock in a cloud-based e-commerce software vendor before the company was acquired, then when the stock spiked 50%, he sold it right away.

defrost 3y ago
Well, if you factor in that he bought his position of > $600K US in multiple buys less than a month before the spike then yes, you might say it was a little suspicious. What a lucky man.
- kasey_junk 3y ago
  Turns out US insider trading laws have nothing to do with fairness (even if you aren’t a congressperson). They have to do with theft. Me trading against you from an information advantage is encouraged! This isn’t an insider trading issue, it’s an ethics issue.
stouset 3y ago
Yes, it is likely individual politicians are making insider trades. It is also likely that some of those politicians are making bad trades based on overvalued or misvalued insider information. I have personally seen this in other contexts where people know something presumed private about a company, assume it’s a bigger deal than it is, and trade on that information. It’s also likely that there are a lot of politicians who are generally just as bad as the average person at stockpicking. All this combined, and it’s reasonable that the overall trend will be mostly in-line with the market, but likely overperforming sonewhat in the long run based on the volume and quality of insider trades. One year and change isn’t the long run.
blitzar 3y ago
Kids on wallstbets were buying 100-1 leveraged short dated options paid for with their credit cards on the same stonk for the acquisition.

SoftTalker 3y ago

If you’re holding elected office or have other regulatory/lawmaking powers you should only be permitted to hold index funds, or preferably you should have to move all your investments into a blind trust. Then there’s little chance you’re benefiting personally from inside info

davidgay 3y ago
Down this path is the requirement that politicians be independently wealthy, so that we can require them to earn no money and take no money-related actions, as those all risk corruption. Is that really what you want?
- fennecfoxy 3y ago
  Politicians should be all tax paid. There should be some entry requirements based on skills and abilities rather than connections/tenure/etc same as everything else. Campaigns should be paid for with tax money with a strict limit for every candidate and harsh penalties for any under the table bullshit. Corporations that would nominally donate can just not. And we can fucking tax them appropriately and stop them and their C levels tax dodging at every available opportunity. The way things are at the moment, democracy is really just a corporation/business, isn't it? Pretty sure all of this is driven by apathy though, the average voter doesn't really care enough about these issues + humans are too easy to manipulate into race/class/etc wars to divide voters and distract them from thinking about the real issues - but the only reason they're so easy to distract is because we're all so self serving; people don't care so long as they can vote for the "team" that says they hate the people they hate.
  - lobocinza 3y ago
    > Campaigns should be paid for with tax money with a strict limit for every candidate and harsh penalties for any under the table bullshit. > Corporations that would nominally donate can just not. In Brazil campaigns are funded with taxpayer money, there are very strict rules for donations to election campaigns and donations from corporations aren't allowed. This is the theory but for real nobody gives a damn about the rules, corporations donate outrageous amounts behind the scenes and politicians do whatever they want. It is a clown show.