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

121–130 of 238 posts

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

#121

Post by cscurmudgeon »

ed_balls wrote: post #99
ckardat123 wrote: post #39

I started building out tools to track congressional stock trading in 2020. Since then, I believe there have been 9 other proposals similar to this one. None of them have been even called to a vote. It seem like Congress is pretty unwilling to regulate its own trading. Until they are, feel free to track the trading here: https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/

TBH will the regulation change much? If congressmen won't be allow to own stock, they will use proxy (wife, siblings, parents, in-laws).

Aka pulling a John Kerry

https://wibc.com/154888/climate-czar-john-kerry-throws-wife-....

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

#122

Post by BenFranklin100 »

neilv wrote: post #50

I would love for all lawmakers to be limited to market index investing. Say, asset allocation (other than their home and a Washington pied a terre) of 50% US stocks index, 20% non-US stocks index, 30% US bonds index. No stock-picking. No sector-picking. No real estate other than through the indexes. No private company ownership. No trusts. No circumvention. Alignment with ordinary people's retirement funds seems grea…

This is a good suggestion. Outright banning ownership of stock might limit the number of people who choose to run for office. This is a fair compromise.

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

#123

Post by massysett »

mschuster91 wrote: post #98
galleywest200 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Last I heard, cannabis use is still relevant to this, even if you live in a state where it's legal. The process of doing away with this entirely started last year: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-agencies-could-hire-for...

Makes sense now that it's legal and foreign/criminal actors can't extort people any more for being gay or smoking pot.

It is not legal. It is a violation of federal law.

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

#124

Post by tpxl »

roflyear wrote: post #72
ccppurcell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about they do their jobs, and put off making money in other ways till after their term ends. Maybe they can buy government bonds.

Honestly, congress salaries (not considering insider trading!!!) are really low. They're lower than many software dev salaries, and they generally have to have two homes (someplace to sleep in DC at least + their home in their district). I think if we raised salaries your sentiment could work, but good luck with that.

I'm sorry, 170k$ is a low salary?

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

#125

Post by kevinventullo »

mschuster91 wrote: post #98
galleywest200 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Last I heard, cannabis use is still relevant to this, even if you live in a state where it's legal. The process of doing away with this entirely started last year: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-agencies-could-hire-for...

Makes sense now that it's legal and foreign/criminal actors can't extort people any more for being gay or smoking pot.

Well, a closeted person in a conservative part of the country might still be vulnerable to extortion. Makes me wonder if being openly out actually helps with getting security clearance.

I feel like there’s a comedy sketch in here…

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

#126

Post by mcpackieh »

tivert wrote: post #106
mschuster91 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, the cops are actually doing at least something to weed out the bad apples now? Sarcasm aside: interesting how far they go for a simple copper on the street now. Here in Germany, that level of background checks (Sicherheitsüberprüfung Ü2/Ü3) is only done for higher level (i.e. leadership) cops and IT staff. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheits%C3%BCberpr%C3%BCfu...

>> To less of a degree, when applying for law enforcement jobs, family members and sometimes friends have to surrender a lot of personal data. I had to [hand] over my SSN along with pretty much all my PII and do interviews on behalf family members when they applied to be cops. I tried to say no, but at the end of the day they're holding their jobs hostage until I comply. Hate it. > What, the cops are actually doing a…

> preventing infiltration by organized crime

Sounds like they're trying to weed out some of the bad apples then, aren't they? Would you rather they not be doing this? It doesn't address all the ways in which a cop might be bad, but you shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.

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

#127

Post by rsynnott »

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.

> Setup a trust or corporation run by a family member

Unless you can control their contact with that family member, that sounds like it would accomplish approximately nothing.

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

#128

Post by neilv »

jefftk wrote: post #111
neilv wrote: post #50

I would love for all lawmakers to be limited to market index investing. Say, asset allocation (other than their home and a Washington pied a terre) of 50% US stocks index, 20% non-US stocks index, 30% US bonds index. No stock-picking. No sector-picking. No real estate other than through the indexes. No private company ownership. No trusts. No circumvention. Alignment with ordinary people's retirement funds seems grea…

Even broad market trends are something they could have inside information on, if they have advance notice of major legislative efforts success.

Fixed asset allocation aligned with ordinary American, and no moving back and forth from cash. (Just cash for modest bill-paying, emergency fund, home, big child-raising expenses like college tuition.)

They're generally incentived to keep all 3 indexes up.

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

#129

Post by csomar »

_lb0d wrote: post #14

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 t…

Don't worry, to make it fairer Congress will make a law to ban trading for the rest of the citizenry. It won't affect the market too much though as they'll be the only guys trading and owning stocks.

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

#130

Post by carabiner »

rwmj wrote: post #44
ckardat123 wrote: post #39

I started building out tools to track congressional stock trading in 2020. Since then, I believe there have been 9 other proposals similar to this one. None of them have been even called to a vote. It seem like Congress is pretty unwilling to regulate its own trading. Until they are, feel free to track the trading here: https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/

Does a "Congress tracker fund" make money? What with all the rumoured insider trading ...

AOC claimed the insider trading is an open secret in Congress because:

* Congress members don't get paid much and like money.

* They are often old with healthcare issues. Their govt health plans are not great.

* They maintain two residences, one in DC and one in their home state. AOC rents an apartment in NYC that she never lives in and one in DC. This is a huge expense.

Closing this privilege might have other unintended effects... Only the very wealthy can afford to be in Congress.

Post reply on HN