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

181–190 of 238 posts

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

#181

Post by pc86 »

nashashmi wrote: post #135
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/

The rules on Congressman trading should be coming from their districts and states that they represent. it could possibly hurt the quality of congressmen and senators that run for election if this rule is implemented at a federal level.

How so? One, there are no district-specific rules for members of Congress. But even assuming states are legally able to restrict federal officials' trading, why is it better to have some states regulate it and some states not compared to a consistent federal rule one way or the other? "Good people won't run for Senate if we don't let them trade stocks on the information they get" doesn't really make that much sense to me.

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

#182

Post by jzoch »

legitster wrote: post #179

I think a complete ban on owning individual stocks would be a bit overkill. Perhaps, controversially, I believe members of the government should own some stock - I want them personally invested in the economic wellbeing of the country. I also don't want to limit the candidate pool artificially to just professional politicians. But the fix here seems pretty easy. If you are an executive at a publicly traded corporatio…

Let them own index funds only. Individual stock holding is not an investment in the economic well-being of the country

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

#183

Post by pc86 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #157
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/

For me, I'm not sure why there is a "Ms. Nancy Pelosi," and a "Nancy Pelosi," that both have trade activity. (Nancy Pelosi is interesting. She entered Congress worth about ~3-4 million. Now she is worth $100 million, give or take $20 million depending on the estimate. Interesting. I'm not saying it's Insider Trading, but the probability...)

Pelosi is literally the poster-child for Congressional insider trading.

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

#184

Post by mcpackieh »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #163
carabiner wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 uninte…

These are different problems, right? > Congress members don't get paid much and like money. They're paid $174,000 per year. [1] That's 3–4x the median US salary. I know it's not, like, lucrative , but if they wanted a lucrative salary they should have gotten a different job! > They are often old with healthcare issues. Their govt health plans are not great. Fix the government health plan. Or better yet, make it a pub…

> They're paid $174,000 per year. [1] That's 3–4x the median US salary. I know it's not, like, lucrative, but if they wanted a lucrative salary they should have gotten a different job!

They could also vote themselves a higher salary, but I guess they realize that would be very unpopular with the general public who, for the most part, get paid far less than politicians. The complaint essentially boils down to spoiled brats whining about wanting to be part of the economic elite. For most of the public, this complaint falls on deaf ears, particularly when it's coming from people who already have a great deal of power and are insulated from the realities of life experienced by most of the people they're ostensibly meant to be representing.

"Boo hoo, I already earn 3-4x more than most people in my state and belong to an elite class of policy makers but I'm so impoverished and oppressed because the billionaires have bigger houses than me :("

Honestly more insufferable than Marie Antoinette.

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

#186

Post by pc86 »

neilv wrote: post #128
jefftk wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Going from "no individual stock picking" to "we feel you have too much cash, you have to buy index funds!" is quite the leap.

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

#187

Post by mcpackieh »

anonym29 wrote: post #30
bell-cot wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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 ne…

Inefficient action being taken is still better than absolutely zero action being taken in addressing a problem. Think, for instance, about how many more people might become aware of / interested in the problem, who were previously unaware or uninterested in insider stock trading by members of congress, should a historic bill be passed to initialize the process of stopping the problem.

"Raising awareness" is for slacktivists, not legislators. They should propose good well thought-out laws or sit the hell down. Presenting half-baked nonsense to "raise awareness" only shows that they aren't good at their job, or worse, have an ulterior motive.

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

#188

Post by tzs »

andsoitis wrote: post #31
exabrial wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> every position they _plan_ to take is public knowledge 24 hours in advance. If you know in advance what position someone is going to take , then, logically they have already taken the position (otherwise, how would you know with certainty what position they're going to take?. This isn't mere wordplay; the practical consequence is that even if you knew in advance how they would vote on a particular decision (maybe y…

The above comments are talking about positions in stocks, not positions on issues.

In finance a position is having ownership of something. For example right now I do not own any Apple stock so it might be said I do not have a position in Apple. If I were to buy Apple stock that would be taking a position.

What then is being suggested above is that Congress members and Executive members have to make public trades they are going to do 24 hours before making those trades.

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

#189

Post by mensetmanusman »

datavirtue wrote: post #136
vinceguidry wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would this solve the problem? They're still incentivized to make decisions on behalf of the nation in their own financial interests. The conflict of interest in the financial industry is with the companies they work with and for. For lawmakers it's with the whole country. They should absolutely not be allowed to benefit personally from legislating.

I wish we just called people up like we do for jury duty.

That would be amazing. Maybe have some minimum requirement afterwards with knowledge though.

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

#190

Post by kelseyfrog »

legitster wrote: post #179

I think a complete ban on owning individual stocks would be a bit overkill. Perhaps, controversially, I believe members of the government should own some stock - I want them personally invested in the economic wellbeing of the country. I also don't want to limit the candidate pool artificially to just professional politicians. But the fix here seems pretty easy. If you are an executive at a publicly traded corporatio…

The other option is complete real-time transparency. Eliminate the alpha on congressional trades. A de-anonymized book view of all congressional orders and trades.
Post reply on HN