2 ms·
Publicly announcing trades many months ahead should be enough, without having to get too radical about it. It pretty much prevents benefiting from "subtle insi
by hamstergene 2y ago
Publicly announcing trades many months ahead should be enough, without having to get too radical about it.
It pretty much prevents benefiting from "subtle insider" trading via being lobbied by corporate officials or getting any friendly hints from them. The problem with "follow Nancy's trades" idea is that by the time the trade is known, the price has already corrected. The first one to complete the trade is often the only one to collect a significant benefit, the followers get scraps.
And it indirectly disincentivizes owning individual stock because prearranged trade of one stock carries a risk of being screwed by market manipulators, while prearranged trade of a broad index fund is not a problem.
- darth_avocado 2y agoHolding public officials to the same standards as insiders should also suffice. Trading windows, pre set trading schedules, immediate disclosures etc. are all easily enforceable solutions. That would allow them to trade as much as they like, but with reasonable restrictions.
- Terr_ 2y ago> Publicly announcing trades many months ahead should be enough, without having to get too radical about it. A complete disclosure of all holdings will also be required, so that you can see if they're picking policy to assist their existing portfolio.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]