3 ms·

I'll save everyone hours of headache. The only politician's disclosures that are worth anything are Pelosi's. And by Pelosi, it is actually her husband that tra

I'll save everyone hours of headache. The only politician's disclosures that are worth anything are Pelosi's. And by Pelosi, it is actually her husband that trades but that she has to disclose those trades as a politician. You can also copy Pelosi's trades exactly if you are into speculation and you can experience first hand how many of his trades end up -30% or more, but over the course of the year they have a chance of gaining. They gain not so much because there is any meaningful insider information, but because he holds the position for 1 year and we are still in a bull market (even as of tonight). I think it's amusing that folks think that politicians have any sort of capability to be able to consistently beat the S&P 500.

jatora 1y ago
Hmm this seems like a strange take. A bull market when we have s&p drops steeper then covid? And you are aware politicians have insider knowledge, correct? That is how you beat the s&p.
- astrange 1y ago
  > And you are aware politicians have insider knowledge, correct? That is how you beat the s&p. No, this is how low info conspiratorial voters think it works, because their worldview is everything is 1. a conspiracy 2. involves "money" in some basic way they can easily imagine. Insider knowledge doesn't reliably beat passive investing and why would politicians even have it? You can see what they're voting for by watching CSPAN.
  - jatora 1y ago
    I dont think everything is a conspiracy, but it is obvious corruption is rampant in US politics, and who in their right mind would think that that stops at leveraging special committee insider knowledge for personal gains?
    - astrange 1y ago
      No, that isn't obvious. You just think that because you believe that thinking this makes you cooler.
      - jatora 1y ago
        Hmm. Good argument. Look into how the revolving door works, or citizens united and it's after-effects... if you're interested in even just the bottom of the barrel to get your feet wet on the topic.
        astrange 1y ago
        Like I said, you're making everything about money in a basic way you can easily imagine. One thing that happens if you actually watch election results here is 1. the left candidates have more money and 2. it doesn't help.
        jatora 1y ago
        You should actually make an argument for your case if you care to, rather than streaming baseless assumptions and dangling random comments.
    - mrguyorama 1y ago
      Then why do they suck so bad at it? Why is Pelosi not a billionaire if they have such easy access to privileged info? Why do they barely do any better than anyone else?
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > why would politicians even have it? You can see what they're voting for by watching CSPAN. There are many discussions long before you see anything on C-SPAN, and some are top secret.
    - epoxyhockey 1y ago
      Their staffers are in the discussions and do you know that they leak information like sieves. A "top secret business discussion" in Washington, are you kidding me?
      - mmooss 1y ago
        > Their staffers are in the discussions I'm sure they are in some discussions, I'm sure both staffers and elected officials are in others, and I'm sure elected officials have some without their staff. > A "top secret business discussion" in Washington, are you kidding me? There are those, of course; the incredulity you typed isn't evidence otherwise. But I was referring to top secret discussions that affect businesses; for example, the armed services committees have secret meetings about things that greatly affect companies in the defense industry.
      - HaZeust 1y ago
        There's literally TS/SCI for several departments, including the DOL, to get post-priced strike prices and costs for options before market open. And no, the prices you see before market open and saying, "Yeah! I can see that too!" is not the same. That's PRE-priced in.
  - outer_web 1y ago
    Taking "time in the market beats timing the market" a bit to the extreme, I think.
  - sksxihve 1y ago
    How is acknowledging that politicians have insider information a conspiracy?
  - pton_xd 1y ago
    > No, this is how low info conspiratorial voters think it works, because their worldview is everything is 1. a conspiracy 2. involves "money" in some basic way they can easily imagine. There's no conspiracy in acknowledging that politicians sometimes use their influence for personal gain, when it's convenient. That's just human nature.
outer_web 1y ago
Why are the only trades worth following the Pelosi ones?
- epoxyhockey 1y ago
  He is a professional trader and the others are politicians.
  - outer_web 1y ago
    How do his rates of return compare to these politicians?
echelon 1y ago
> we are still in a bull market (even as of tonight). Are you so sure about that? Presumably tomorrow's > 3% crash will mean we've had more consecutive crashes of note than any other period since the Great Depression. This is truly one of the most remarkable market downturns in all history, and by all accounts it is only just getting started.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
fragmede 1y ago
Looking at their performance numbers as a whole, they're nothing special, but the underlying story where they make policy changes that affect the markets, and they're also allowed to bet on that market, just feels so unfair that it's no longer about the numbers but it's about the emotion.

jatora 1y ago

Hmm this seems like a strange take. A bull market when we have s&p drops steeper then covid? And you are aware politicians have insider knowledge, correct? That is how you beat the s&p.

astrange 1y ago
> And you are aware politicians have insider knowledge, correct? That is how you beat the s&p. No, this is how low info conspiratorial voters think it works, because their worldview is everything is 1. a conspiracy 2. involves "money" in some basic way they can easily imagine. Insider knowledge doesn't reliably beat passive investing and why would politicians even have it? You can see what they're voting for by watching CSPAN.
- jatora 1y ago
  I dont think everything is a conspiracy, but it is obvious corruption is rampant in US politics, and who in their right mind would think that that stops at leveraging special committee insider knowledge for personal gains?
  - astrange 1y ago
    No, that isn't obvious. You just think that because you believe that thinking this makes you cooler.
    - jatora 1y ago
      Hmm. Good argument. Look into how the revolving door works, or citizens united and it's after-effects... if you're interested in even just the bottom of the barrel to get your feet wet on the topic.
      - astrange 1y ago
        Like I said, you're making everything about money in a basic way you can easily imagine. One thing that happens if you actually watch election results here is 1. the left candidates have more money and 2. it doesn't help.
        jatora 1y ago
        You should actually make an argument for your case if you care to, rather than streaming baseless assumptions and dangling random comments.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    Then why do they suck so bad at it? Why is Pelosi not a billionaire if they have such easy access to privileged info? Why do they barely do any better than anyone else?
- mmooss 1y ago
  > why would politicians even have it? You can see what they're voting for by watching CSPAN. There are many discussions long before you see anything on C-SPAN, and some are top secret.
  - epoxyhockey 1y ago
    Their staffers are in the discussions and do you know that they leak information like sieves. A "top secret business discussion" in Washington, are you kidding me?
    - mmooss 1y ago
      > Their staffers are in the discussions I'm sure they are in some discussions, I'm sure both staffers and elected officials are in others, and I'm sure elected officials have some without their staff. > A "top secret business discussion" in Washington, are you kidding me? There are those, of course; the incredulity you typed isn't evidence otherwise. But I was referring to top secret discussions that affect businesses; for example, the armed services committees have secret meetings about things that greatly affect companies in the defense industry.
    - HaZeust 1y ago
      There's literally TS/SCI for several departments, including the DOL, to get post-priced strike prices and costs for options before market open. And no, the prices you see before market open and saying, "Yeah! I can see that too!" is not the same. That's PRE-priced in.
- outer_web 1y ago
  Taking "time in the market beats timing the market" a bit to the extreme, I think.
- sksxihve 1y ago
  How is acknowledging that politicians have insider information a conspiracy?
- pton_xd 1y ago
  > No, this is how low info conspiratorial voters think it works, because their worldview is everything is 1. a conspiracy 2. involves "money" in some basic way they can easily imagine. There's no conspiracy in acknowledging that politicians sometimes use their influence for personal gain, when it's convenient. That's just human nature.

outer_web 1y ago

Why are the only trades worth following the Pelosi ones?

epoxyhockey 1y ago
He is a professional trader and the others are politicians.
- outer_web 1y ago
  How do his rates of return compare to these politicians?

echelon 1y ago

> we are still in a bull market (even as of tonight). Are you so sure about that? Presumably tomorrow's > 3% crash will mean we've had more consecutive crashes of note than any other period since the Great Depression. This is truly one of the most remarkable market downturns in all history, and by all accounts it is only just getting started.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

fragmede 1y ago

Looking at their performance numbers as a whole, they're nothing special, but the underlying story where they make policy changes that affect the markets, and they're also allowed to bet on that market, just feels so unfair that it's no longer about the numbers but it's about the emotion.