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

Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 22 posts

Re: Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress

#11

Post by SteveNuts »

sschueller wrote: post #2

No surprise there as she is one of the ones that has made a lot of money on trades. Especially her husband who seem to have a sixth sense on when to trade... Maybe an alright ban isn't "fair" but then the SEC should have the power to look very closely at possible insider trading. This also include insights into closed hearings that produced information that was traded on. However, a ban would be so much easier, yet w…

Stupid question, but is it still considered insider trading if the information gleaned is not directly from a company insider?

I mean, if a senator gets wind of upcoming legislation that may affect a specific company or sector, and they act on that, it's not insider information coming from someone within the affected company, so is that still considered insider?

Re: Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress

#12

Post by Dayshine »

justinsaccount wrote: post #9
parineum wrote: post #4

> "The speaker does not own any stocks," said Hammill. "As you can see from the required disclosures, with which the speaker fully cooperates, these transactions are marked 'SP' for spouse. The Speaker has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions." lol

So? Are you implying then that not only does there need to be a ban, it also needs to apply to immediate family members? Where does it stop? in-laws? cousins? Neighbors? How is that supposed to be enforced?

I was under the impression that staff at banks that do trading already have a very stable and accepted system for this. And are very good at enforcing it.

Re: Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress

#13

Post by nescioquid »

parineum wrote: post #4

> "The speaker does not own any stocks," said Hammill. "As you can see from the required disclosures, with which the speaker fully cooperates, these transactions are marked 'SP' for spouse. The Speaker has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions." lol

Indeed. With a so-called "chinese wall" that only happens to work in one direction (husband has access to info from his wife, but he is careful not to tell her about his/their trading), this might not be a fib, but would certainly be a shining example of equivocation and corruption.

Re: Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress

#14

Post by olyjohn »

sschueller wrote: post #2

No surprise there as she is one of the ones that has made a lot of money on trades. Especially her husband who seem to have a sixth sense on when to trade... Maybe an alright ban isn't "fair" but then the SEC should have the power to look very closely at possible insider trading. This also include insights into closed hearings that produced information that was traded on. However, a ban would be so much easier, yet w…

Every job comes with it's drawbacks. It's perfectly fair that they should not be able to profit off of their decisions that are supposed to be made for the people they represent.

You know the money is influencing their politics. That much should be taken away as much as possible.

What's not fair is that the rest of us don't get the same information as them, and can't profit the same way they do.

Re: Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress

#15

Post by belter »

justinsaccount wrote: post #9
parineum wrote: post #4

> "The speaker does not own any stocks," said Hammill. "As you can see from the required disclosures, with which the speaker fully cooperates, these transactions are marked 'SP' for spouse. The Speaker has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions." lol

So? Are you implying then that not only does there need to be a ban, it also needs to apply to immediate family members? Where does it stop? in-laws? cousins? Neighbors? How is that supposed to be enforced?

Its not unclear. Sometimes difficult to enforce but borders are easy to define:

"In 1984, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Dirks v. Securities and Exchange Commission[25] that tippees (receivers of second-hand information) are liable if they had reason to believe that the tipper had breached a fiduciary duty in disclosing confidential information. "

"Insider trading" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading

Re: Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress

#16

Post by vlod »

SteveNuts wrote: post #11
sschueller wrote: post #2

No surprise there as she is one of the ones that has made a lot of money on trades. Especially her husband who seem to have a sixth sense on when to trade... Maybe an alright ban isn't "fair" but then the SEC should have the power to look very closely at possible insider trading. This also include insights into closed hearings that produced information that was traded on. However, a ban would be so much easier, yet w…

Stupid question, but is it still considered insider trading if the information gleaned is not directly from a company insider? I mean, if a senator gets wind of upcoming legislation that may affect a specific company or sector, and they act on that, it's not insider information coming from someone within the affected company, so is that still considered insider?

I'm fairly certain it is. The way to think about it, do you have knowledge which isn't in the public domain which would give you an unfair trading advantage.

Here's some examples:

- In a closed door US senate committee, they are planning to stop all government vehicles from using fossil fuels. Stock of oil companies will mostly move.

- In a closed door US senate committee, they have decided to buy $50B of a vaccine from pharma provider FOO. Stock of FOO will likely move.

Re: Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress

#17

Post by belter »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #6

This is pure politics. Why is this on HN? EDIT: I'm clearly not dang, but from the rules: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." Politics + stocks != Hacker News.

Because a proper enrichment strategy would be copy her trades ( oops sorry ...of her husband...)?. Based on inside information not available to common investor (oops sorry...I meant to say based on highly skilled investment expertise and sheer luck.).

Re: Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress

#18

Post by troydavis »

vlod wrote: post #16
SteveNuts wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stupid question, but is it still considered insider trading if the information gleaned is not directly from a company insider? I mean, if a senator gets wind of upcoming legislation that may affect a specific company or sector, and they act on that, it's not insider information coming from someone within the affected company, so is that still considered insider?

I'm fairly certain it is. The way to think about it, do you have knowledge which isn't in the public domain which would give you an unfair trading advantage. Here's some examples: - In a closed door US senate committee, they are planning to stop all government vehicles from using fossil fuels. Stock of oil companies will mostly move. - In a closed door US senate committee, they have decided to buy $50B of a vaccine f…

> The way to think about it, do you have knowledge which isn't in the public domain which would give you an unfair trading advantage.

Matt Levine does a good job of explaining why that’s not the way to think about it: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-04-01/anothe...

As he’s stated many times, it’s about theft, not fairness. (Of course, there may be an argument that these examples are theft or a breach of trust or confidence.)

Re: Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress

#19

Post by [deleted] »

Dayshine wrote: post #12
justinsaccount wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Are you implying then that not only does there need to be a ban, it also needs to apply to immediate family members? Where does it stop? in-laws? cousins? Neighbors? How is that supposed to be enforced?

I was under the impression that staff at banks that do trading already have a very stable and accepted system for this. And are very good at enforcing it.

[deleted]

Re: Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress

#20

Post by retox »

vthallam wrote: post #5
bingohbangoh wrote: post #3

Anybody figure out why the twitter account that was tracking her trades got banned?

just a theory, but may be the new Twitter policy that you can't use other people's images without their permission? The account has Pelosi's picture, seems like a insta ban under that rule.

There is (was?) a carve out for public figures in that policy
Post reply on HN