3 ms·

Maybe allow for two options: Option A: Blind trust with some capital gains incentives? Option B: Ability to manage your own portfolio, but can't act on SEC+co

• bagels 13y ago
  How about C: They aren't allowed to trade at all.
  • mkartic 13y ago
    Isn't that a bit extreme? I'm not saying there should be implicit trust or that there is no risk of insider trading, but still. Its not right to deny them of all rights to have other sources of income apart from their job. I mean, having to sell all their stocks of a certain company before investigation is forfeiture enough. My two cents, D: Some sort of anonymized peer review of transactions? Maybe even automated.
• dredmorbius 13y ago
  The problem with option B is that it leads to a moral hazard in SEC enforcement actions. Selling stocks in which you're conducting an investigation discharges the conflict in pursuing the investigation, but likely accrues a gain consequent to it. Even, say, requiring a public disclosure of investigation, then* allowing SEC staff to sell stocks, would create a conflict to the extent that the decision to conduct an investigation would have a likely known negative influence on stock holdings.