4 ms·

> But what about the ones that very obviously are? Why did they sell a lot of Visa stocks? That's a good question and let's use that example. According to the

by rvz 2y ago

> But what about the ones that very obviously are? Why did they sell a lot of Visa stocks? That's a good question and let's use that example. According to the article and as you mentioned, they sold Visa stock less than 3 months ago and THEN the DOJ filed a lawsuit against the company. So how did Pelosi know that that would cause the stock to drop and the DOJ was going to file it? The lawsuit wasn't public months ago and it is related to none other than the government which she has access to. Then she traded with that information with no downside risk which she benefited from. If that is not an insider trading loophole, I don't know what is.

LeafItAlone 2y ago
>So how did Pelosi know that that would cause the stock to drop and the DOJ was going to file it? The lawsuit wasn't public months ago and it is related to none other than the government which she has access to. >Then she traded with that information with no downside risk which she benefited from. >If that is not an insider trading loophole, I don't know what is. Yes, if you start with the conclusion (that she traded because of the impending DOJ lawsuit), then, yes, you will reach the conclusion that she insider traded because of the DOJ lawsuit. If you instead ask why they might have traded Visa at the time they did, you will see that there were many valid reasons that they (and many, many others) decided it was a good time to sell. And as it turns out, they were all wrong, because Visa is up compared to the broad market since their sell date (July 1, 2024). https://portfolioslab.com/tools/stock-comparison/V/SPY https://portfolioslab.com/tools/stock-comparison/V/SPY
- rvz 2y ago
  > If you instead ask why they might have traded Visa at the time they did, you will see that there were many valid reasons that they (and many, many others) decided it was a good time to sell. All said in hindsight today, but never for those who benefitted from the insider information. Investors will always buy the stock after it plummets, whilst those who didn't sell had to wait or buy lower to break even. This does not excuse the fact that the Pelosis' benefitted from insider (political) information and traded on that, like this blatant example. An advantage that neither of us have. Defending politicians trading on insider info (political or economic) isn't the hill one should die on. If you did exactly that and made tens of millions, you would be in prison and be replying to me years later telling others not to do it.
  - LeafItAlone 2y ago
    >This does not excuse the fact that the Pelosis' benefitted from insider (political) information and traded on that, like this blatant example. You, nor others, have not actually proven that. >Defending politicians trading on insider info (political or economic) isn't the hill one should die on. Right, and that’s not what I’m doing. I think politicians in top levels of government should be banned from trading their own stocks (and family, etc.). (Though admittedly I don’t know exactly what that looks like) They should be serving the people, not themselves. But if I tell you sandwiches should be banned because they are bad for you and I bring you a bowl of pasta as an example of their harmful ways, I’m going to look silly, aren’t I?
    - rvz 2y ago
      > You, nor others, have not actually proven that. In the Pelosis' circumstance, clearly their repeated actions of such trades and their connection to the timing of key legislation or lawsuits requires no further proof, given their long history of this front-running such that other congressmen and women are doing the same thing believing they can get away with the insider trading loophole. By inspection, it is quite obvious to see how one can repeatedly front-run legislation ahead of everyone else and outperform the market. > Right, and that’s not what I’m doing. I think politicians in top levels of government should be banned from trading their own stocks (and family, etc.). Why not ban them from trading all stocks instead of just their own and why only those just from "top levels" of government? They are serving the people as well and there shouldn't be exceptions for those that have access to that level of legislation before it is made public and then trade against it no?
      - LeafItAlone 2y ago
        >In the Pelosis' circumstance, clearly their repeated actions of such trades and their connection to the timing of key legislation or lawsuits requires no further proof, given their long history of this front-running such that other congressmen and women are doing the same thing believing they can get away with the insider trading loophole. Claiming this happens, no matter how many times you repeat it (without evidence) does not mean it happens. Clearly, Your repeated denial of fact implies that it is instead _you_ are trading on insider information. The evidence is all right there. You should be locked up. >it is quite obvious to see how one can repeatedly front-run legislation ahead of everyone else and outperform the market Yes, by doing exactly what the the Pelosis and many of us did in the same time period: invest heavily in tech. I have have about double the rate of return since 2020 than the Pelosis. Many of my moves independently mimic theirs. I personally got out of Visa in Spring of 2024, also in favor of NVDA. Am I insider trading?

by rvz 2y ago

LeafItAlone 2y ago

>So how did Pelosi know that that would cause the stock to drop and the DOJ was going to file it? The lawsuit wasn't public months ago and it is related to none other than the government which she has access to. >Then she traded with that information with no downside risk which she benefited from. >If that is not an insider trading loophole, I don't know what is. Yes, if you start with the conclusion (that she traded because of the impending DOJ lawsuit), then, yes, you will reach the conclusion that she insider traded because of the DOJ lawsuit. If you instead ask why they might have traded Visa at the time they did, you will see that there were many valid reasons that they (and many, many others) decided it was a good time to sell. And as it turns out, they were all wrong, because Visa is up compared to the broad market since their sell date (July 1, 2024). https://portfolioslab.com/tools/stock-comparison/V/SPY https://portfolioslab.com/tools/stock-comparison/V/SPY

rvz 2y ago
> If you instead ask why they might have traded Visa at the time they did, you will see that there were many valid reasons that they (and many, many others) decided it was a good time to sell. All said in hindsight today, but never for those who benefitted from the insider information. Investors will always buy the stock after it plummets, whilst those who didn't sell had to wait or buy lower to break even. This does not excuse the fact that the Pelosis' benefitted from insider (political) information and traded on that, like this blatant example. An advantage that neither of us have. Defending politicians trading on insider info (political or economic) isn't the hill one should die on. If you did exactly that and made tens of millions, you would be in prison and be replying to me years later telling others not to do it.
- LeafItAlone 2y ago
  >This does not excuse the fact that the Pelosis' benefitted from insider (political) information and traded on that, like this blatant example. You, nor others, have not actually proven that. >Defending politicians trading on insider info (political or economic) isn't the hill one should die on. Right, and that’s not what I’m doing. I think politicians in top levels of government should be banned from trading their own stocks (and family, etc.). (Though admittedly I don’t know exactly what that looks like) They should be serving the people, not themselves. But if I tell you sandwiches should be banned because they are bad for you and I bring you a bowl of pasta as an example of their harmful ways, I’m going to look silly, aren’t I?
  - rvz 2y ago
    > You, nor others, have not actually proven that. In the Pelosis' circumstance, clearly their repeated actions of such trades and their connection to the timing of key legislation or lawsuits requires no further proof, given their long history of this front-running such that other congressmen and women are doing the same thing believing they can get away with the insider trading loophole. By inspection, it is quite obvious to see how one can repeatedly front-run legislation ahead of everyone else and outperform the market. > Right, and that’s not what I’m doing. I think politicians in top levels of government should be banned from trading their own stocks (and family, etc.). Why not ban them from trading all stocks instead of just their own and why only those just from "top levels" of government? They are serving the people as well and there shouldn't be exceptions for those that have access to that level of legislation before it is made public and then trade against it no?
    - LeafItAlone 2y ago
      >In the Pelosis' circumstance, clearly their repeated actions of such trades and their connection to the timing of key legislation or lawsuits requires no further proof, given their long history of this front-running such that other congressmen and women are doing the same thing believing they can get away with the insider trading loophole. Claiming this happens, no matter how many times you repeat it (without evidence) does not mean it happens. Clearly, Your repeated denial of fact implies that it is instead _you_ are trading on insider information. The evidence is all right there. You should be locked up. >it is quite obvious to see how one can repeatedly front-run legislation ahead of everyone else and outperform the market Yes, by doing exactly what the the Pelosis and many of us did in the same time period: invest heavily in tech. I have have about double the rate of return since 2020 than the Pelosis. Many of my moves independently mimic theirs. I personally got out of Visa in Spring of 2024, also in favor of NVDA. Am I insider trading?