4 ms·

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 s

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.

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.