3 ms·

It might be reasonable to say they shouldn't own individual stocks (of their own selection), but not owning stocks is unreasonable. They get paid well, but not

It might be reasonable to say they shouldn't own individual stocks (of their own selection), but not owning stocks is unreasonable. They get paid well, but not that well. https://radiotv.house.gov/house-data/salaries https://radiotv.house.gov/house-data/salaries That's several times over median but many of us on this site make that much or more. More reasonable restrictions would be things like requiring them to use a blind trust, to restrict investments to index funds or managed portfolios, or something.

ivanmontillam 2y ago
But isn't that a significant conflict of interest if they are public service employees? If they are truly people-oriented as they oath when they join public service, why allow them to own stock at all?
- kasey_junk 2y ago
  Should all government employees be banned from owning stock?
  - AngryData 2y ago
    If it may be involved with or adjacent to the work they are doing, I would say yes.
    - mvc 2y ago
      You gonna give them all a defined benefit pension scheme too because otherwise, how will they save for retirement?
      - AngryData 2y ago
        I have no problem with them getting a pension. There are also plenty of other ways to invest your money that aren't putting it right into the stock market. Multiple kinds of bonds, CDs, annuities, etc.
  - bigbacaloa 2y ago
    [dead]
  - fragmede 2y ago
    So we were meeting with a group of customers in the morning and we wanted to bring doughnuts to the meeting. Unfortunately, one of the customers was NASA, so we couldn't bring doughnuts to the meeting because that would have been too much of a gift/bribe. The rules for rank and file employees already exist, it's the ones at the top that can flout the rules that are an issue.
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      https://www.justice.gov/jmd/gifts-and-entertainment#outside https://www.justice.gov/jmd/gifts-and-entertainment#outside You can bring coffee and donuts, those are even specifically called out: > Modest items of food and non-alcoholic refreshments, such as soft drinks, coffee and donuts, offered other than as part of a meal;
      - fragmede 2y ago
        Good to know! I'm a software engineer not a lawyer and it's been roughly 20 years since this incident.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > If they are truly people-oriented as they oath when they join public service, why allow them to own stock at all? I take this to mean you think that civil servants and members of the military should also be barred from holding stocks? > But isn't that a significant conflict of interest if they are public service employees? There is no inherent conflict of interest in owning stocks. The risk is when they own (especially if they are heavily invested in) individual stocks. Use a blind trust like I mentioned or disallow holding individual stocks if they want to manage their own portfolio, then they still have a vested interest in the economy (how well businesses are doing as proxied by the stock market) but their conflicts are limited or removed.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
autobodie 2y ago
Then we can pay them more, or not and they can take another job instead. Either way, I can't take you seriously.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > Either way, I can't take you seriously. Why not? I've suggested solutions that let them invest without even being aware of what they're invested in or only minimally (index funds, specific portfolios). This resolves the conflict of interest problem while allowing them to still gain the financial benefits of investing some of their money.
  - autobodie 2y ago
    No need for complexity here. Anyone who needs those benefits to accept the position is a poor choice anyhow. Forget them.
    - mvc 2y ago
      Again, how do people here think public servants will live beyond their service to the government? Or is the idea that if they choose to work for the government, they need to work until they die.
      - autobodie 2y ago
        They can just get paid more. Why do I need to repeat myself?
tombert 2y ago
I agree; I don't think it's realistic to tell them not to invest at all. The only real way to preserve your money is to invest it somewhere. I think if the only thing that they could invest in was total-market index funds (or something similar), that would not have too much of a conflict of interest. They'd have the incentive to make the entire market happy, not just individual stocks, which benefits nearly everyone. If the only stock that politicians owned was VTI or something similar, I think most people would mostly be fine with that. That would still have problem in terms of the uneven weighting, but it would certainly better than what we have right now.
- AbstractH24 2y ago
  > The only real way to preserve your money is to invest it somewhere Don’t tell that to folks planning to retire soon.
  - rezz 2y ago
    Unless they had a 6 month career they likely have still done very well
    - AbstractH24 2y ago
      Doing very well and having your expectations abruptly reset are two different things.

ivanmontillam 2y ago

But isn't that a significant conflict of interest if they are public service employees? If they are truly people-oriented as they oath when they join public service, why allow them to own stock at all?

kasey_junk 2y ago
Should all government employees be banned from owning stock?
- AngryData 2y ago
  If it may be involved with or adjacent to the work they are doing, I would say yes.
  - mvc 2y ago
    You gonna give them all a defined benefit pension scheme too because otherwise, how will they save for retirement?
    - AngryData 2y ago
      I have no problem with them getting a pension. There are also plenty of other ways to invest your money that aren't putting it right into the stock market. Multiple kinds of bonds, CDs, annuities, etc.
- bigbacaloa 2y ago
  [dead]
- fragmede 2y ago
  So we were meeting with a group of customers in the morning and we wanted to bring doughnuts to the meeting. Unfortunately, one of the customers was NASA, so we couldn't bring doughnuts to the meeting because that would have been too much of a gift/bribe. The rules for rank and file employees already exist, it's the ones at the top that can flout the rules that are an issue.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    https://www.justice.gov/jmd/gifts-and-entertainment#outside https://www.justice.gov/jmd/gifts-and-entertainment#outside You can bring coffee and donuts, those are even specifically called out: > Modest items of food and non-alcoholic refreshments, such as soft drinks, coffee and donuts, offered other than as part of a meal;
    - fragmede 2y ago
      Good to know! I'm a software engineer not a lawyer and it's been roughly 20 years since this incident.
Jtsummers 2y ago
> If they are truly people-oriented as they oath when they join public service, why allow them to own stock at all? I take this to mean you think that civil servants and members of the military should also be barred from holding stocks? > But isn't that a significant conflict of interest if they are public service employees? There is no inherent conflict of interest in owning stocks. The risk is when they own (especially if they are heavily invested in) individual stocks. Use a blind trust like I mentioned or disallow holding individual stocks if they want to manage their own portfolio, then they still have a vested interest in the economy (how well businesses are doing as proxied by the stock market) but their conflicts are limited or removed.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

autobodie 2y ago

Then we can pay them more, or not and they can take another job instead. Either way, I can't take you seriously.

Jtsummers 2y ago
> Either way, I can't take you seriously. Why not? I've suggested solutions that let them invest without even being aware of what they're invested in or only minimally (index funds, specific portfolios). This resolves the conflict of interest problem while allowing them to still gain the financial benefits of investing some of their money.
- autobodie 2y ago
  No need for complexity here. Anyone who needs those benefits to accept the position is a poor choice anyhow. Forget them.
  - mvc 2y ago
    Again, how do people here think public servants will live beyond their service to the government? Or is the idea that if they choose to work for the government, they need to work until they die.
    - autobodie 2y ago
      They can just get paid more. Why do I need to repeat myself?

tombert 2y ago

I agree; I don't think it's realistic to tell them not to invest at all. The only real way to preserve your money is to invest it somewhere. I think if the only thing that they could invest in was total-market index funds (or something similar), that would not have too much of a conflict of interest. They'd have the incentive to make the entire market happy, not just individual stocks, which benefits nearly everyone. If the only stock that politicians owned was VTI or something similar, I think most people would mostly be fine with that. That would still have problem in terms of the uneven weighting, but it would certainly better than what we have right now.

AbstractH24 2y ago
> The only real way to preserve your money is to invest it somewhere Don’t tell that to folks planning to retire soon.
- rezz 2y ago
  Unless they had a 6 month career they likely have still done very well
  - AbstractH24 2y ago
    Doing very well and having your expectations abruptly reset are two different things.