Someone once told me that a stipulation for public service should involve converting all your holdings into index funds only. Thought that was an interesting proposal.
Fed to ban policymakers from owning individual stocks
21–30 of 232 posts
Re: Fed to ban policymakers from owning individual stocks
#22The relatively low salaries compared to the huge amounts of power is almost begging for insider trading, influence peddling, etc. > The salary of a Congress member varies based on the job title of the congressman or senator. Most senators, representatives, delegates and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico make a salary of $174,000 per year. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/congressman-... Then a…
Honestly, we should give the Federal Reserve performance-based pay. Elon Musk has literally been paid billions for Tesla's phenomenal stock outperformance, why shouldn't we pay the Fed Chairs tens of millions for sustained real GDP growth above 4% balanced with low wealth inequality, low inflation, and low unemployment? They have the most important job in America and they should be paid like it if they do well
This breaks down when multi-term policy decisions need to be made. This would only push them to kick the can down the road
Re: Fed to ban policymakers from owning individual stocks
#23The relatively low salaries compared to the huge amounts of power is almost begging for insider trading, influence peddling, etc. > The salary of a Congress member varies based on the job title of the congressman or senator. Most senators, representatives, delegates and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico make a salary of $174,000 per year. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/congressman-... Then a…
This is the case all over the Western world. Federal Government politician salaries need to be 10x higher.
10x higher in combination with term limits. This would actually be a great incentive for them to actually vote for it.
Re: Fed to ban policymakers from owning individual stocks
#24Someone once told me that a stipulation for public service should involve converting all your holdings into index funds only. Thought that was an interesting proposal.
Not sure that's necessarily fair. If you're 75, you probably don't want your retirement nest egg in 100% stocks. There isn't a policy congress could institute that guarantees stocks will retain their value in a 4 year window.
Re: Fed to ban policymakers from owning individual stocks
#25How about their relatives and more important the head of their trusts who they can just instruct or pass information to under the table. This is a great first step but I'd encourage looking behind the headline. Also the last time there was any rule about congress insider trading they just waited until nobody was looking anymore and revoked it.
Insider trading is already a crime and with all the ways to work around that law it’s still seen as a risky enterprise, so it seems to work.
But more importantly: lawmakers are judged by voters. If media reports that a lawmaker tried to dodge laws or even ethics frameworks then voters should deliver the punishment even if a court can’t.
Re: Fed to ban policymakers from owning individual stocks
#26The relatively low salaries compared to the huge amounts of power is almost begging for insider trading, influence peddling, etc. > The salary of a Congress member varies based on the job title of the congressman or senator. Most senators, representatives, delegates and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico make a salary of $174,000 per year. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/congressman-... Then a…
Honestly, we should give the Federal Reserve performance-based pay. Elon Musk has literally been paid billions for Tesla's phenomenal stock outperformance, why shouldn't we pay the Fed Chairs tens of millions for sustained real GDP growth above 4% balanced with low wealth inequality, low inflation, and low unemployment? They have the most important job in America and they should be paid like it if they do well
It would just incentivise short-term policymaking.
Re: Fed to ban policymakers from owning individual stocks
#27Someone once told me that a stipulation for public service should involve converting all your holdings into index funds only. Thought that was an interesting proposal.
Not sure that's necessarily fair. If you're 75, you probably don't want your retirement nest egg in 100% stocks. There isn't a policy congress could institute that guarantees stocks will retain their value in a 4 year window.
Index funds can hold other assets than equities, including bonds.
Re: Fed to ban policymakers from owning individual stocks
#28Someone once told me that a stipulation for public service should involve converting all your holdings into index funds only. Thought that was an interesting proposal.
Not sure that's necessarily fair. If you're 75, you probably don't want your retirement nest egg in 100% stocks. There isn't a policy congress could institute that guarantees stocks will retain their value in a 4 year window.
There are bond index funds too.
Re: Fed to ban policymakers from owning individual stocks
#29Someone once told me that a stipulation for public service should involve converting all your holdings into index funds only. Thought that was an interesting proposal.
Not sure that's necessarily fair. If you're 75, you probably don't want your retirement nest egg in 100% stocks. There isn't a policy congress could institute that guarantees stocks will retain their value in a 4 year window.
You could add the option of federal bonds then
Re: Fed to ban policymakers from owning individual stocks
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, we should give the Federal Reserve performance-based pay. Elon Musk has literally been paid billions for Tesla's phenomenal stock outperformance, why shouldn't we pay the Fed Chairs tens of millions for sustained real GDP growth above 4% balanced with low wealth inequality, low inflation, and low unemployment? They have the most important job in America and they should be paid like it if they do well
This breaks down when multi-term policy decisions need to be made. This would only push them to kick the can down the road
What if they are paid based on performance in 10 years, after they are out?