8 ms·

“Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX), the author of the bill to ban TikTok, owns hundreds of thousands of dollars of stock in Meta, one of TikTok's chief rivals.

by hbarka 2y ago

“Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX), the author of the bill to ban TikTok, owns hundreds of thousands of dollars of stock in Meta, one of TikTok's chief rivals. Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) bought up to $50,000 worth of Meta stock last January before voting to ban TikTok in April." Exhibit 1. https://www.capitoltrades.com/issuers/431610?page=2 https://www.capitoltrades.com/issuers/431610?page=2

lm28469 2y ago
To be fair they're all inside trading and most of them are corrupt. Time to wake up America
- mmooss 2y ago
  That kind of comment has the opposite effect, it keeps people asleep with lazy (and corrupt) misinformation. Whenever people say 'they are all the same', they help cover for the actual bad behavior - it's now hidden among all the other behavior and not worth examining or pursuing, and rationalized. They are certainly not all the same. If you don't distinguish them, you cut down the people actually fighting on the front lines. It's friendly fire. They are shot in the back.
  - lm28469 2y ago
    At some point you have to wonder if they're just not allowed to exist to allow plausible deniability... Either way it's clearly not going in the right direction when you have a guy selling cans of fucking beans from the oval office and launching crypto rug pulls
- MichaelDickens 2y ago
  Suppose I wake up and discover that all congresspeople are insider trading. What do I do next?
  - dymk 2y ago
    Tell everybody else about it, because most Americans are simply unaware at how blatant the insider trading is and how it works.
  - mft_ 2y ago
    Well, you either join them [0, 1] (no affiliation to either) or support people trying to fight them? [2] [0] https://www.joinautopilot.com/ https://www.joinautopilot.com/ [1] https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/ https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/ [2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/pennsylvania-leads-effort-against-congressional-stock-trading/ar-BB1rfgQv https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/pennsylvania-l...
    - woodson 2y ago
      Shame that there’s often a delay of 1-2 months between the trades and when they’re disclosed, so the first option likely isn’t going to work.
  - JasserInicide 2y ago
    Pray for something very destructive to happen to Capitol Hill during a full session of Congress.
- jjeaff 2y ago
  they aren't all corrupt. and for those that are insider trading, few are beating the market.
  - galangalalgol 2y ago
    That is a good point, the nance and kruz etfs aren't doing badly, but they aren't rockstars either.
nextworddev 2y ago
that’s like 300 shares at most.
- echoangle 2y ago
  What does the absolute number of shares tell you?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
accrual 2y ago
Another: - Markwayne Mullin (R Oklahoma) purchased $15-$50k Meta stock on 01/02/2024 [0] A nice list: https://www.capitoltrades.com/issuers/431610 https://www.capitoltrades.com/issuers/431610 [0] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/3-politicians-who-own-meta-platforms-stock-as-tiktok-ban-passes-1033435648?op=1 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/3-politician...
thrance 2y ago
Surely they are doing this to preserve free speech and for the security of hard-working freedom-loving god-fearing americans, and not for their own selfish interests.
- jjeaff 2y ago
  I think they are doing it so the CCP doesn't have direct propaganda line into the home of most Americans. imagine how easy it would be to tip the algorithm scales to show, for example, stolen election conspiracy videos.
airstrike 2y ago
A lot of people have some Meta shares. It's a widely owned stock. You may believe no member of congress should own equity in any company, but that's a separate issue
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  I think it's the 'bought shares', then voted to ban a competitor that may be the issue.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    But you could also make money on Meta tanking if you had prior knowledge.
gdhkgdhkvff 2y ago
Couldn’t find recent info but back in 2014, Michael McCaul’s net worth was in the hundreds of millions. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in meta stock doesn’t seem like much for someone worth 1000 times that amount over a decade ago… Markeayne Mullin’s net worth was ~$50 million a few years ago. $50k is 1/1000th of that networth also… That’s not to say congress shouldn’t be banned from trading stocks like every other profession that might potentially have insider info. They absolutely should.
- gdhkgdhkvff 2y ago
  And in fact, currently 2.5% of the sp500 is meta. So if these guys just have 100% of their net worth in the sp500, they’d have more META than these two transactions.
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  > Hundreds of thousands of dollars in meta stock doesn’t seem like much for someone worth 1000 times that amount over a decade ago… That fact that it was a drop in the bucket for them makes it that much more outrageous, not less. It would have cost virtually nothing for them to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and yet they didn't. And why should they? There was no consequence. They are taunting us. If you or I trade off anything close to insider information, we'd be in jail and lose most of our (ostensibly much more limited) assets.
  - gdhkgdhkvff 2y ago
    “That fact that it was a drop in the bucket for them makes it that much more outrageous, not less” I disagree. I get the point that you’re making. That they could have more easily NOT done it. But I would be a lot more ensconced if these people were putting up 50% of their net worth on these bets. And again, I fully agree that they shouldn’t be able to trade individual stocks. In my past I was a dev at a private wealth management company. While working there I was completely barred from trading individual stocks because it’s possible that I could have come across nonpublic info in the company because they would do internal audits for some entities. It made sense. Congress is an even bigger deal because they literally write the rules of companies that can affect stock prices. I was barred because I could have passively found nonpublic info, but they can actively cause the situations that cause price movement.
nickvec 2y ago
It's still mind-boggling to me that those in Congress can be shareholders.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
simonsarris 2y ago
McCaul's net worth is estimated $294 million. His positions are a rounding error. That he owns so little Meta is impressive. Mullin's net worth is 20-75 million. So up to 0.25% of his net worth if we use the low estimate is a Meta acquisition? Who cares?
- timewizard 2y ago
  > His net worth was estimated at $294 million, up from $74 million the previous year. In 2004, the same publication estimated his net worth at $12 million. His wealth increase was due to large monetary transfers from his wife's family. You do realize these people have friends and family. > Who cares? Insider trading deprives _all other_ legitimate participants of the market. That the trade is small relative to this individual net worth is meaningless. That is value that should have been captured by someone else taking a genuine risk. It's a thumb on the scale of the market and it is morally repugnant.
  - simonsarris 2y ago
    But it's not insider trading at this level, that's the whole point. This is a freakishly small amount of stock. At these levels he would own a lot more META if he just bought QQQ (META is 3.3% of composition) with a fraction of his net worth
    - timewizard 2y ago
      > not insider trading at this level The definition of insider trading does not take into consideration "levels." > This is a freakishly small amount of stock. That he personally purchased. I don't know what private and public entities he may have shared the information with or what other purchases traded on his information. > At these levels he would own a lot more META if he just bought QQQ (META is 3.3% of composition) with a fraction of his net worth At the level of an individual game a card counter is mathematically not a huge problem. They're just shifting the odds by 1 or 2% in their favor. I wonder why casinos bother to kick them out? They'd stand to win a lot more if they just flopped everything on roulette anyways. I think you're letting the imputed scope interfere with your evaluation and mistaking net worth for liquid assets.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
zackmorris 2y ago
Here's a video from March 14, 2024 on how Mike Gallagher (R-WI), who sponsored the H.R.7521 - Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, accepted his largest campaign contributions from Palantir, Google, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC): https://www.tiktok.com/@iancarrollshow/video/7346427175878495534 https://www.tiktok.com/@iancarrollshow/video/734642717587849... https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4jA_k8Pn12 https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4jA_k8Pn12 (in case of censorship) https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/mike-gallagher/summary?cid=N00039330 https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/mike-gallagh... Looks like Steven Mnuchin, David Friedman and Yossi Cohen were also involved. Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), said that "we really have a TikTok problem", since it's acting to alchemize the left-right political divide into a young-old one. The video says that pro-Palestine content is some of the most censored content there is, but despite that, a large number of TikTok users are supporting Palestine and questioning Israel's authority to continue hostilities. It suggests that silencing these objections to the Israel-Palestine conflict by preventing their discussion and spread is one of the primary motives for banning TikTok. I'm deeply disappointed in members of the Democratic Party who voted for the TikTok ban, whose actions call into question the integrity of their party and its priorities. I'm not as surprised by the actions of the Republican Party, which historically has sided with the establishment (Meta and other social networks under US jurisdiction), but openly voting for censorship in the face of calls to protect free speech from Donald Trump and Elon Musk is suspect. And I'm profoundly troubled by antisemitism and how whataboutism is clouding journalistic integrity. With derogatory comments about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and wokeism becoming more prevalent, we should be mindful of the slippery slope from oppressed to oppressor. This is why we must always call out injustice in all forms, even when it's inconvenient to do so, or risk sacrificing our principles and eventually our freedoms. I'm reminded of the Paradox of Intolerance, that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

by hbarka 2y ago

lm28469 2y ago

To be fair they're all inside trading and most of them are corrupt. Time to wake up America

mmooss 2y ago
That kind of comment has the opposite effect, it keeps people asleep with lazy (and corrupt) misinformation. Whenever people say 'they are all the same', they help cover for the actual bad behavior - it's now hidden among all the other behavior and not worth examining or pursuing, and rationalized. They are certainly not all the same. If you don't distinguish them, you cut down the people actually fighting on the front lines. It's friendly fire. They are shot in the back.
- lm28469 2y ago
  At some point you have to wonder if they're just not allowed to exist to allow plausible deniability... Either way it's clearly not going in the right direction when you have a guy selling cans of fucking beans from the oval office and launching crypto rug pulls
MichaelDickens 2y ago
Suppose I wake up and discover that all congresspeople are insider trading. What do I do next?
- dymk 2y ago
  Tell everybody else about it, because most Americans are simply unaware at how blatant the insider trading is and how it works.
- mft_ 2y ago
  Well, you either join them [0, 1] (no affiliation to either) or support people trying to fight them? [2] [0] https://www.joinautopilot.com/ https://www.joinautopilot.com/ [1] https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/ https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/ [2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/pennsylvania-leads-effort-against-congressional-stock-trading/ar-BB1rfgQv https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/pennsylvania-l...
  - woodson 2y ago
    Shame that there’s often a delay of 1-2 months between the trades and when they’re disclosed, so the first option likely isn’t going to work.
- JasserInicide 2y ago
  Pray for something very destructive to happen to Capitol Hill during a full session of Congress.
jjeaff 2y ago
they aren't all corrupt. and for those that are insider trading, few are beating the market.
- galangalalgol 2y ago
  That is a good point, the nance and kruz etfs aren't doing badly, but they aren't rockstars either.

nextworddev 2y ago

that’s like 300 shares at most.

echoangle 2y ago
What does the absolute number of shares tell you?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

accrual 2y ago

Another: - Markwayne Mullin (R Oklahoma) purchased $15-$50k Meta stock on 01/02/2024 [0] A nice list: https://www.capitoltrades.com/issuers/431610 https://www.capitoltrades.com/issuers/431610 [0] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/3-politicians-who-own-meta-platforms-stock-as-tiktok-ban-passes-1033435648?op=1 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/3-politician...

thrance 2y ago

Surely they are doing this to preserve free speech and for the security of hard-working freedom-loving god-fearing americans, and not for their own selfish interests.

jjeaff 2y ago
I think they are doing it so the CCP doesn't have direct propaganda line into the home of most Americans. imagine how easy it would be to tip the algorithm scales to show, for example, stolen election conspiracy videos.

airstrike 2y ago

A lot of people have some Meta shares. It's a widely owned stock. You may believe no member of congress should own equity in any company, but that's a separate issue

Ylpertnodi 2y ago
I think it's the 'bought shares', then voted to ban a competitor that may be the issue.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  But you could also make money on Meta tanking if you had prior knowledge.

gdhkgdhkvff 2y ago

Couldn’t find recent info but back in 2014, Michael McCaul’s net worth was in the hundreds of millions. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in meta stock doesn’t seem like much for someone worth 1000 times that amount over a decade ago… Markeayne Mullin’s net worth was ~$50 million a few years ago. $50k is 1/1000th of that networth also… That’s not to say congress shouldn’t be banned from trading stocks like every other profession that might potentially have insider info. They absolutely should.

gdhkgdhkvff 2y ago
And in fact, currently 2.5% of the sp500 is meta. So if these guys just have 100% of their net worth in the sp500, they’d have more META than these two transactions.
arrosenberg 2y ago
> Hundreds of thousands of dollars in meta stock doesn’t seem like much for someone worth 1000 times that amount over a decade ago… That fact that it was a drop in the bucket for them makes it that much more outrageous, not less. It would have cost virtually nothing for them to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and yet they didn't. And why should they? There was no consequence. They are taunting us. If you or I trade off anything close to insider information, we'd be in jail and lose most of our (ostensibly much more limited) assets.
- gdhkgdhkvff 2y ago
  “That fact that it was a drop in the bucket for them makes it that much more outrageous, not less” I disagree. I get the point that you’re making. That they could have more easily NOT done it. But I would be a lot more ensconced if these people were putting up 50% of their net worth on these bets. And again, I fully agree that they shouldn’t be able to trade individual stocks. In my past I was a dev at a private wealth management company. While working there I was completely barred from trading individual stocks because it’s possible that I could have come across nonpublic info in the company because they would do internal audits for some entities. It made sense. Congress is an even bigger deal because they literally write the rules of companies that can affect stock prices. I was barred because I could have passively found nonpublic info, but they can actively cause the situations that cause price movement.

nickvec 2y ago

It's still mind-boggling to me that those in Congress can be shareholders.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

simonsarris 2y ago

McCaul's net worth is estimated $294 million. His positions are a rounding error. That he owns so little Meta is impressive. Mullin's net worth is 20-75 million. So up to 0.25% of his net worth if we use the low estimate is a Meta acquisition? Who cares?

timewizard 2y ago
> His net worth was estimated at $294 million, up from $74 million the previous year. In 2004, the same publication estimated his net worth at $12 million. His wealth increase was due to large monetary transfers from his wife's family. You do realize these people have friends and family. > Who cares? Insider trading deprives _all other_ legitimate participants of the market. That the trade is small relative to this individual net worth is meaningless. That is value that should have been captured by someone else taking a genuine risk. It's a thumb on the scale of the market and it is morally repugnant.
- simonsarris 2y ago
  But it's not insider trading at this level, that's the whole point. This is a freakishly small amount of stock. At these levels he would own a lot more META if he just bought QQQ (META is 3.3% of composition) with a fraction of his net worth
  - timewizard 2y ago
    > not insider trading at this level The definition of insider trading does not take into consideration "levels." > This is a freakishly small amount of stock. That he personally purchased. I don't know what private and public entities he may have shared the information with or what other purchases traded on his information. > At these levels he would own a lot more META if he just bought QQQ (META is 3.3% of composition) with a fraction of his net worth At the level of an individual game a card counter is mathematically not a huge problem. They're just shifting the odds by 1 or 2% in their favor. I wonder why casinos bother to kick them out? They'd stand to win a lot more if they just flopped everything on roulette anyways. I think you're letting the imputed scope interfere with your evaluation and mistaking net worth for liquid assets.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

zackmorris 2y ago

Here's a video from March 14, 2024 on how Mike Gallagher (R-WI), who sponsored the H.R.7521 - Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, accepted his largest campaign contributions from Palantir, Google, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC): https://www.tiktok.com/@iancarrollshow/video/7346427175878495534 https://www.tiktok.com/@iancarrollshow/video/734642717587849... https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4jA_k8Pn12 https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4jA_k8Pn12 (in case of censorship) https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/mike-gallagher/summary?cid=N00039330 https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/mike-gallagh... Looks like Steven Mnuchin, David Friedman and Yossi Cohen were also involved. Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), said that "we really have a TikTok problem", since it's acting to alchemize the left-right political divide into a young-old one. The video says that pro-Palestine content is some of the most censored content there is, but despite that, a large number of TikTok users are supporting Palestine and questioning Israel's authority to continue hostilities. It suggests that silencing these objections to the Israel-Palestine conflict by preventing their discussion and spread is one of the primary motives for banning TikTok. I'm deeply disappointed in members of the Democratic Party who voted for the TikTok ban, whose actions call into question the integrity of their party and its priorities. I'm not as surprised by the actions of the Republican Party, which historically has sided with the establishment (Meta and other social networks under US jurisdiction), but openly voting for censorship in the face of calls to protect free speech from Donald Trump and Elon Musk is suspect. And I'm profoundly troubled by antisemitism and how whataboutism is clouding journalistic integrity. With derogatory comments about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and wokeism becoming more prevalent, we should be mindful of the slippery slope from oppressed to oppressor. This is why we must always call out injustice in all forms, even when it's inconvenient to do so, or risk sacrificing our principles and eventually our freedoms. I'm reminded of the Paradox of Intolerance, that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance