4 ms·

> 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) dec

by 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?
    - rvz 2y ago
      > Claiming this happens, no matter how many times you repeat it (without evidence) does not mean it happens. You already know they did and yet still continue to defend politicians like the Pelosis' trading on insider political AND legislative information before it it released publicly and that privileged access entirely benefits them, not retail investors like yourself. So, I don't think you even believe in what you just said about supporting a ban on politicians front-running the market. It should be ALL of them and there are zero exceptions. It's as if you really want politicians to continue front-running the market with the sort of access that they have. > 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. You got it all mixed up and it is other way round. I'm not the one here admitting on this site to be "trading" or copying politicians trades to get an "edge" (it really isn't) like the Pelosis' and others (who truly have insider access to decision making legislation) really have on their trades. The stock can drop / rise before the disclosure and you would always be behind regardless. So this accusatory comment is hilarious and laughable coming from someone like you supporting politicians using such loopholes for years. The entire point is, if YOU did that yourself, made millions BEFORE the release of key legislation and knew people with connections to congress or the government; YOU would be talking to me on this site from your prison cell telling others to not do it.

by rvz 2y ago

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?
  - rvz 2y ago
    > Claiming this happens, no matter how many times you repeat it (without evidence) does not mean it happens. You already know they did and yet still continue to defend politicians like the Pelosis' trading on insider political AND legislative information before it it released publicly and that privileged access entirely benefits them, not retail investors like yourself. So, I don't think you even believe in what you just said about supporting a ban on politicians front-running the market. It should be ALL of them and there are zero exceptions. It's as if you really want politicians to continue front-running the market with the sort of access that they have. > 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. You got it all mixed up and it is other way round. I'm not the one here admitting on this site to be "trading" or copying politicians trades to get an "edge" (it really isn't) like the Pelosis' and others (who truly have insider access to decision making legislation) really have on their trades. The stock can drop / rise before the disclosure and you would always be behind regardless. So this accusatory comment is hilarious and laughable coming from someone like you supporting politicians using such loopholes for years. The entire point is, if YOU did that yourself, made millions BEFORE the release of key legislation and knew people with connections to congress or the government; YOU would be talking to me on this site from your prison cell telling others to not do it.