Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock
1–10 of 238 posts
Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock
#2All show and no go.
Like most such "reforms", it is intended for naive public consumption while also being easily circumvented.
Setup a trust or corporation run by a family member and continue with business a usual.
Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock
#3I feel like there is very likely some precedents for this (or at least some close examples) that other countries have implemented similar to this, I wonder if any of these folks have looked into it. Wish US elected officials would look at how ideas fared in other places more often. "Pull their heads out of their asses" would be the less cordial phrasing there.
Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock
#4In practice, how would this work? A requirement that they only use index funds? But then wouldn't that bias them to support the companies that are the major movers in that index? Indexes are often heavily weighted to a small subset after all.
TBH, it seems like an idea that sounds good on the surface but has practical issues in implementation that would make it irrelevant
Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock
#5All show and no go. Like most such "reforms", it is intended for naive public consumption while also being easily circumvented. Setup a trust or corporation run by a family member and continue with business a usual.
As if it would even reach a vote. (Some) Senators (plan) to _propose_ ban ...
Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock
#6All show and no go. Like most such "reforms", it is intended for naive public consumption while also being easily circumvented. Setup a trust or corporation run by a family member and continue with business a usual.
I dunno. There's a reasonable chance that the SEC might have encountered that sort of activity some other times in its history.
Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock
#7All show and no go. Like most such "reforms", it is intended for naive public consumption while also being easily circumvented. Setup a trust or corporation run by a family member and continue with business a usual.
This isn't a reason to not support the current effort. Democracy is an iterative process, not a magic wand that you wave to instantly teleport to a flawless system.
This bill is step one. When (not if) it gets circumvented, that's when the next law addressing that problem can be passed.
Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock
#8There is 0% reason Nancy Pelosi should be allowed to be one of the best traders in history, it’s nothing but corruption.
Either lawmakers should not be allowed to own stock, or insider trading shouldn’t be a crime, though the latter option is a lot more abusable.
Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock
#9In practice, how would this work? A requirement that they only use index funds? But then wouldn't that bias them to support the companies that are the major movers in that index? Indexes are often heavily weighted to a small subset after all. TBH, it seems like an idea that sounds good on the surface but has practical issues in implementation that would make it irrelevant
More reasonable would be a ban on trading, if not ownership. But then again, lawmakers would just advocate positions in favour of their static portfolio.
It does seem better than the status quo of ‘extremely lucky’ returns though.
Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock
#10In practice, how would this work? A requirement that they only use index funds? But then wouldn't that bias them to support the companies that are the major movers in that index? Indexes are often heavily weighted to a small subset after all. TBH, it seems like an idea that sounds good on the surface but has practical issues in implementation that would make it irrelevant
This is a ridiculous take. Imperfect is better than bad. Right now you have the Speaker of the House's husband buying $5million worth of Alphabet call options. That's not a good system.