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

Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 238 posts

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#11

Post by thedangler »

Have you seen how much wealth a lot of congress have gained over their careers. There is no way someone can look at those numbers and come to the conclusion that they did become multi millionaires without inside information.

It should be banned out right or every position they take is public knowledge within 1 trading day or less.

"Representative Nancy Pelosi has made up to $12.5M off of Microsoft stock so far this year. This is almost 100 times her salary as a member of Congress. "

I love this graph

https://twitter.com/QuiverQuant/status/1680973761560846338

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#12

Post by koolba »

capital_guy wrote: post #10
_ea1k wrote: post #4

In 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.

> Right now you have the Speaker of the House's husband buying $5million worth of Alphabet call options.

That’s patently false. Nancy Pelosi is no longer Speaker of the House.

The former Speaker of the House’s husband was the one doing all that.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#13

Post by lotsofpulp »

mikrl wrote: post #9
_ea1k wrote: post #4

In 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.

Legislators are already under the imperative to backstop public equity markets (and hence all the biggest companies) because the most active voters also have a significant amount of their wealth in the public equity markets.

And also all the state and local governments are heavily depending on equities to deliver major gains to fulfill their deferred compensation for government employees (otherwise they have to increase taxes to make up for lack of any performance), so the more state and local tax you pay or are able to pay, the more invested you are in backstopping the markets also.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#14

Post by _lb0d »

My wife works in the audit department of a bank. I'm heavily regulated by the SEC on what stocks, ETFs, mutual funds I can buy/sell. An internal group monitors my buying/selling and makes approval/denial before I can do so.

I have to hold an ETF for 1 month before I can sell it--not that I should be swing trading ETFs, but still. It's very frustrating at times, especially when I'm relegated to using just her bank's trading platform, too.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#15

Post by psychlops »

thedangler wrote: post #11

Have you seen how much wealth a lot of congress have gained over their careers. There is no way someone can look at those numbers and come to the conclusion that they did become multi millionaires without inside information. It should be banned out right or every position they take is public knowledge within 1 trading day or less. "Representative Nancy Pelosi has made up to $12.5M off of Microsoft stock so far this y…

Inside trading is legal for them so isn't really a bad word. I see no reason why they can't trade stocks as long as they are required to publicly disclose their trades a week before the purchase is made, not after.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#16

Post by exabrial »

thedangler wrote: post #11

Have you seen how much wealth a lot of congress have gained over their careers. There is no way someone can look at those numbers and come to the conclusion that they did become multi millionaires without inside information. It should be banned out right or every position they take is public knowledge within 1 trading day or less. "Representative Nancy Pelosi has made up to $12.5M off of Microsoft stock so far this y…

> It should be banned out right or every position they take is public knowledge within 1 trading day or less.

Other way around, every position they _plan_ to take is public knowledge 24 hours in advance.

EDIT: ==== Other comment says a week, I'm good with that

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#17

Post by ldoughty »

_ea1k wrote: post #4

In 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

Blind trust would be the most logical solution.

You can put $X into the trust, but you never know which companies that money is invested in. When you ask for $Y to be paid out, the manager of the fund sells what they see fit to fulfill the request without the client's involvement/input

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#19

Post by bell-cot »

anonym29 wrote: post #7
jqpabc123 wrote: post #2

All 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.

> ...iterative process... ...When (not if it gets circumvented), that's when...

If the politicians manage the process correctly, they can forever be passing "reform bills" which sound good...but have enough loopholes so that nothing resembling actual reform ever happens.

Rule of Thumb: If somebody claims they want to build a transportation system, then starts with a square wheel and talks about improving it as the next step - then either [1] they're teaching, and it's only a pedagogical exercise, or [2] they are lying about wanting to build a transportation system.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#20

Post by carimura »

thedangler wrote: post #11

Have you seen how much wealth a lot of congress have gained over their careers. There is no way someone can look at those numbers and come to the conclusion that they did become multi millionaires without inside information. It should be banned out right or every position they take is public knowledge within 1 trading day or less. "Representative Nancy Pelosi has made up to $12.5M off of Microsoft stock so far this y…

I'm certainly not advocating for our ruling class but also consider that the cost to run and win a senate seat is something like $15M and a house seat over $2M (and that was data from a few years ago and only took averages, not the top races which were dramatically higher).

And they are full time jobs that require an enormous amount of personal ambition (which is usually tied to wealth) so one can argue even being in congress prices out anyone NOT a "multi-millionaire".

Post reply on HN