Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

unusualwhales.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 493 posts

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#421

Post by eloff »

jacques_chester wrote: post #413
apis_nearctica wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I buy some MSFT shares on the market, is my money being put to use by Microsoft? I see this kind of sentiment all the time but it seems to rely on a VC model of investment where you’re buying shares from the company/founders. I am dumb about this stuff so please someone correct me.

It's true for shares at issuing. After that, typically, the company sees no funds from shares changing hands. Folks buy shares because they want dividends or capital appreciation. A few to show up at AGMs. But after the shares change hands once, the idea that the Noble Capitalist Heroes Of Galt's Gulch make the world turn by purchasing shares is false.

Companies can issue shares down the road, and they do for compensation, so people buying shares and pushing the stock price up is actually an ongoing assist. But, yes it's complex.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#422

Post by eloff »

burkaman wrote: post #416
slashdev wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have a fundamental misapprehension of capitalism. If you invest your capital, it's not being hoarded in a money bank like Scrooge McDuck. It's being put to use by the companies and institutions you invest in to provide products and services. Now I'm all for donating to charity, and it's a much better option than leaving massive wealth to your offspring, in my opinion. But investing your money is totally r…

I agree with everything you say. My argument is not that investment is bad, but that as your wealth increases, your interest in getting even richer should decrease, and your interest in getting non-financial returns should increase. If you have $100 million dollars, and you're investing in the stock market purely because that's the way to get the highest financial return, that is not rational, unless money is literal…

Sure, if you have better uses for the money, put it to work. Most people don't, so ingesting in the stock market is totally rational.

At te very least with a good chunk of it. Again diversification is good.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#423

Post by ABeeSea »

busymom0 wrote: post #418
ABeeSea wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a specific article with a first hand source saying she was against stimulus? Because her continued and unwavering support for the HEROES act suggest she was always pro-stimulus. The top article in your Google search (lol) link is the Sun. A British tabloid with the same owner as Fox News. Also calling me “r****” is definitely against HN civility rules.

> with the same owner You know the entire establishment media is owned by a select few people right? She was very clearly against stimulus before election because she didn't want to give a win to her political opponent. We can say whatever we want about her political opponent but he had made it very clear on Twitter that he would instantly sign a stimulus only bill without pork if it's brought to him. Pelosi on the o…

The criticism linked in those articles was there wasn’t enough stimulus. She passed the massive stimulus bill of the HEROES Act that the Republicans senate refused to even put up for a vote. She never changes her opinion on more stimulus. She was never against stimulus. She criticized a particular Trump White House plan as not having enough stimulus; a Trump plan that Senate Republicans were against.

Do you have a direct quote from her that says she doesn’t want stimulus compared to the avalanche of quotes supporting more stimulus?

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#424

Post by thatguy987 »

RhodoGSA wrote: post #232
thepete2 wrote: post #135

One thing I've always wondered: Does the stock market basically consist of insider traders making a profit off of people without that knowledge? I feel like even with immense restrictions on insiders in place, information is so easy to pass on to sb. else, that it should be impossible to prevent this. Heck, I could cough once for buy, twice for sell. Who's going to surveil me and notice that?

for that matter, day trading and technical analysis is literally just insider trading. This chart, based on some analysis of the way it's moved, with no interest in the metrics of the company itself, dictates buy or sell. Every 'Technical Trader' learns these 'indicators' and trades on them. It's just shadow insider trading under the guise of providing 'liquidity' but in reality just contributes to more volatility. B…

That's not what insider trading is. Insider trading is specifically using non-public information about a company to make investment decisions.

Technical analysis generally uses only publicly available information; it's finding patterns in those publicly available data that can help you make investment decisions.

I'm not saying it's socially useful; just that it is distinct from insider trading.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#425

Post by egypturnash »

xienze wrote: post #276
throwawaygh wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just prohibit members of Congress of owning stock? They are some of the most powerful people in the world. Why is it so much to ask that a Senator or especially Representative serving in the most powerful legislative body in the world just take a cash position for 2-6 years?

> Why is it so much to ask that a Senator or especially Representative serving in the most powerful legislative body in the world just take a cash position for 2-6 years? I agree in principle, but a lot of these people literally serve until they drop dead, which is a different problem with congress. Might be a bit much to tell someone not to invest for 40+ years.

I submit that this would kind of help stop the "sit in the same position until death" problem.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#426

Post by burkaman »

eloff wrote: post #422
burkaman wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything you say. My argument is not that investment is bad, but that as your wealth increases, your interest in getting even richer should decrease, and your interest in getting non-financial returns should increase. If you have $100 million dollars, and you're investing in the stock market purely because that's the way to get the highest financial return, that is not rational, unless money is literal…

Sure, if you have better uses for the money, put it to work. Most people don't, so ingesting in the stock market is totally rational. At te very least with a good chunk of it. Again diversification is good.

> Most people don't

This is the crux of the issue. If you have $100 million and you can't think of a single worthwhile use for any of it besides making more money, that's either a literally unbelievable lack of imagination, or incredibly cruel. It is so, so easy to do a huge amount of good with that much money. It's not easy to figure out how to do the most amount of good possible, that's probably an unsolvable problem, but it's not necessary.

I understand that investing in the stock market is supporting the economy and increasing liquidity and potentially helping a company and that's all good, but it is laughably easy to think of something better, if you don't need to worry about a financial return.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#427

Post by ummonk »

klyrs wrote: post #217
throwawaygh wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just prohibit members of Congress of owning stock? They are some of the most powerful people in the world. Why is it so much to ask that a Senator or especially Representative serving in the most powerful legislative body in the world just take a cash position for 2-6 years?

I fully agree, and I'd like to extend it to their families as well. But... you ask "why not" and the simple reason is that only they could enact such a law. And even when the laws are in place -- Trump ran roughshod over the foreign emoluments clause, and there were zero consequences. Why would the richest and most powerful Democrats set such a precedent, only to have it turned around when they're in power and stand…

Are you advocating that if a relative of mine runs for office and is elected (whether I supported their candidacy or not), I should be prohibited from owning stock?

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#429

Post by jmoss20 »

pc86 wrote: post #380
throwaway5752 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, I am very serious about preventing conflicts of interest and insider trading. But Microsoft is a terrible example, they are extremely diversified. The contract was announced 3/31 and it's obvious that it had no particular impact on its share price since that date when looking at its peers: https://www.google.com/finance/quote/MSFT:NASDAQ?comparison=...

It went from approximately $235 to $250, which is about 6%. On calls, especially short-dated ones, that can easily be a 40-50% gain. I've got a number of different MSFT LEAPS in my portfolio and they all went up 15%+ on that news.

Relative to their peers though: Alphabet went up almost 8% the same day, clearly not due to Microsoft's VR contract.
Post reply on HN