101–110 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The Pelosis' trades are public knowledge. Pelosi and her husband have outperformed the market by being tech-optimistic Californians. One of their most lucrative investments was investing in Nvidia after ChatGPT was released triggering the AI boom. Did that require any particular political "insider knowledge"? No.
While I have no doubt that insider trading happens quite regularly, I would not jump to that conclusion here. IIRC the previous day, big Wall street names were advocating for a pause in tariffs . So a lot of people placed bets accordingly. Also staking 2.5M is "small change" for true insiders.
> Also staking 2.5M is "small change" for true insiders. Why? A secretary or janitor or a intern could also be an insider. Or are they No True Scotsmen?
I thought the article itself and comments here presume bad faith on behalf of the highest ranking officials.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alas, the military answers to the president. Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Not that the constitution matters ...
Military answers to whomever it thinks it's best to get paid. If relationship between government and the people fails so hard that collection of taxes to fund the military is threatened then the military sides either with the people and deposes the government or with the government and suppresses the unrest.
This process was exactly what could be observed in Portugal in the beginning of the 2010 decade.
The opposition was not able to buy the military, and the government was returned to power by by promising raise in payment.
> We don’t know who placed the trades. We don’t know what they knew. Actually, “we”, collectively, do know, because the SEC maintains an “XKEYSCORE for equities” called CAT. If there was interest, the government could know exactly who placed these trades. But the call (options) are coming from inside the house.
A relevant aside: surely insider trading is happening all the time? There are so many daily market-shifting events involving so many privy parties that it seems inevitable to happen every few minutes (not defending the actions in the article). How many physicians have been able to get rich from learning a CEO will be out of commission? In that case, I'm not even sure whether it would be considered insider trading. Ho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The Pelosis' trades are public knowledge. Pelosi and her husband have outperformed the market by being tech-optimistic Californians. One of their most lucrative investments was investing in Nvidia after ChatGPT was released triggering the AI boom. Did that require any particular political "insider knowledge"? No.
Wow, a classic example of Brandolini's Law! [1] Two words of bullshit required a paragraph to refute it. Perfect.
Just don't bother. They never argue in good faith. You'll just give yourself an aneurysm trying to keep up with their firehose of falsehoods.
They know and we know that even if their right wing fever dreams about Pelosi were true (which they aren't), it's obvious that the scale and criminality of what Trump did this week doesn't even begin to compare.
It doesn't matter to them. They only want to obfuscate, deflect and ideally enrage. That's what they do.
A relevant aside: surely insider trading is happening all the time? There are so many daily market-shifting events involving so many privy parties that it seems inevitable to happen every few minutes (not defending the actions in the article). How many physicians have been able to get rich from learning a CEO will be out of commission? In that case, I'm not even sure whether it would be considered insider trading. Ho…
>How many physicians have been able to get rich from learning a CEO will be out of commission? Do you actually have an answer to that? Or are you just throwing out an unanswerable question as some form of “gotcha”? Now I’m actually curious. There aren’t _that_ many publicly traded companies; only about 4,000 according to Google. A little over 9,000 IPOs since 1980 [0]. The number of companies where the CEO being “out…
You can switch up the doctor and CEO patient for anything else. Bankers, lenders, family friends, former professors ... An unbounded number of humans that can come into contact with useful info to trade on. What do we think are the magical constraints that prevent them from doing so? Corporate etiquette?
The ROI will obviously be a function of what information is passed. But I think that I'm more interested in understanding how often it happens rather than that any one case is "low ROI". It is interesting to consider whether it's the ROI threshold that should philosophically make/not make something insider trading.
> We don’t know who placed the trades. We don’t know what they knew. Actually, “we”, collectively, do know, because the SEC maintains an “XKEYSCORE for equities” called CAT. If there was interest, the government could know exactly who placed these trades. But the call (options) are coming from inside the house.
Is this really SEC's bailiwick? Aren't options commodities (and so regulated by CFTC)?
They're a derivative, so options of equities are equities and I guess options of commodities are commodities