3 ms·

Or speculate on real estate or non-covered securities of which I am sure there are many. Or buy crypto, or Art, or ...

viraptor 2y ago
All of those are fine. It's not to prevent them from investing, but to prevent some form of insider trading (does that name still apply for people who know about policy / funding changes ahead of time?)
- dgfitz 2y ago
  The headline says "bipartisan deal for BAN on stock trading" doesn't it? Inside trading is already notionally illegal, isn't it? Why would this law be trying to re-make insider trading illegal?
  - viraptor 2y ago
    Because we have a good idea of many people abusing the position, just haven't caught anyone red handed. It's a bit like "why have traffic rules that differ for specific places and people if we already made killing others illegal?".
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      What I meant was, insider trading is already illegal. This is allegedly going to make trading itself illegal. What was your point about insider trading?
- toast0 2y ago
  I wouldn't really put real estate in the group of investments that's OK, depending on details. There's plenty of stories of well-connected people frontrunning government endeavors that require lots of land. Sometimes that has positive results: civic minded person buys up land without raising eyebrows, then sells it to government for a song; sometimes it's negative: less civic minded person buys up land and then sells it to government or others for much more than they purchased it for, in large part because of official decisions they participated in. I know some states have part time legislatures, so the members often have other jobs, but a federal office is a full time job, year round, regardless of recesses. I don't think it's unreasonable to demand that office holders avoid potential conflicts of interest by avoiding any sort of investment outside of personal residences and well diversified mutual funds (and well diversified ETFs). Plus or minus rental housing owned prior to office. It's not that big of an imposition, unless your spouse is an active stock trader (for work or hobby), but in that case... Sometimes you have to make sacrifices for a spouse's career.
- greentxt 2y ago
  If they are in a position to have inside information about the future performance of those assett classes it's arguably not "fine." Let's say the buy up a lot of houses before passing new regulation that specifically makes those properties increase dramatically in value. I'd argue that is insider trading in spirit, despite those properties not being covered securities. Similar for policy that might substantially impact crypto, Art, etc... There are endless ways to leverege their power and inside knowledge for personal gain. With securities trading it's at least possible for retail investors to ride along, buying up $NANC or mimic'ing specific traders and trades.

All of those are fine. It's not to prevent them from investing, but to prevent some form of insider trading (does that name still apply for people who know about policy / funding changes ahead of time?)

dgfitz 2y ago
The headline says "bipartisan deal for BAN on stock trading" doesn't it? Inside trading is already notionally illegal, isn't it? Why would this law be trying to re-make insider trading illegal?
- viraptor 2y ago
  Because we have a good idea of many people abusing the position, just haven't caught anyone red handed. It's a bit like "why have traffic rules that differ for specific places and people if we already made killing others illegal?".
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    What I meant was, insider trading is already illegal. This is allegedly going to make trading itself illegal. What was your point about insider trading?
toast0 2y ago
I wouldn't really put real estate in the group of investments that's OK, depending on details. There's plenty of stories of well-connected people frontrunning government endeavors that require lots of land. Sometimes that has positive results: civic minded person buys up land without raising eyebrows, then sells it to government for a song; sometimes it's negative: less civic minded person buys up land and then sells it to government or others for much more than they purchased it for, in large part because of official decisions they participated in. I know some states have part time legislatures, so the members often have other jobs, but a federal office is a full time job, year round, regardless of recesses. I don't think it's unreasonable to demand that office holders avoid potential conflicts of interest by avoiding any sort of investment outside of personal residences and well diversified mutual funds (and well diversified ETFs). Plus or minus rental housing owned prior to office. It's not that big of an imposition, unless your spouse is an active stock trader (for work or hobby), but in that case... Sometimes you have to make sacrifices for a spouse's career.
greentxt 2y ago
If they are in a position to have inside information about the future performance of those assett classes it's arguably not "fine." Let's say the buy up a lot of houses before passing new regulation that specifically makes those properties increase dramatically in value. I'd argue that is insider trading in spirit, despite those properties not being covered securities. Similar for policy that might substantially impact crypto, Art, etc... There are endless ways to leverege their power and inside knowledge for personal gain. With securities trading it's at least possible for retail investors to ride along, buying up $NANC or mimic'ing specific traders and trades.