181–190 of 192 posts
Instead of fixating that Pelosi made more than others I think right question is, why someone who actually can impact stock options and also has information not available to the public is allowed to trade?
Anyone with enough power and influence can impact stock options, and everyone has some information not available to the public. For example, Kanye West could buy calls on Uggs, then go out to lunch wearing some Uggs, then sell the calls after it hits the tabloids. Laws applying only to politicians would not stop anyone else from influencing stocks, and would only restrict the types of people choosing to become politi…
Unfortunately there is bleed through between these, and no good way to distinguish the two except ok a case by case basis, which seems to me like a credible argument for forbidding all trading.
I am shocked that politicians are even allowed to trade options, I feel like shorting stocks and option trading should be off the table once you are elected to office.
Her husband is making these trades and he’s a longtime active investor and VC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>would subsidize the electric vehicle sector to the tune of $174 billion The U.S. infrastructure deal was unanimously supported by all members of the house, not just the speaker. This type of uncertainty/doubt argument can go both ways. Her spouse lost money on that specific option call, so that could also be proof she didn't use her influence.
> The U.S. infrastructure deal was unanimously supported No it wasn't. By all members with a (D) after the name who she leads , perhaps, and some others, but not all. > that could also be proof she didn't use her influence I don't find this a compelling enough argument that it would likely restore the public's lost trust in these institutions.
Which is precisely the point of how illogical it is.
Even if you lose money, insider trading is still insider trading. Congress + senators 100% receive insider information. Even if its not near-term merger announcements or big federal contracts - they still have an extremely advantaged position and access to information that the general public doesn't have.
Its ridiculous that they can trade individual stocks, yet alone options.
They should be restricted from buying individual stocks, and should only be allowed to buy mutual funds and ETFs at a minimum. Pretty much any employee on Wall Street (even if "back-office") has similar restrictions.
I don't even know why this is a question - the optics of short-term levered bets from elected officials (or family of) is terrible. Completely ruins any resemblance of "public service."
Even with this, it might not be enough. Elected officials could still buy the TQQQ ETF (3x leverage on NASDAQ) prior to a stimulus bill passing. It would be too onerous to not allow any stock exposure, but maybe they should be required to disclose trades in real-time vs. at the end of every quarter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here you go. Happened in 2013 under Obama: But on Monday, when the president signed a bill reversing big pieces of the law, the emailed announcement was one sentence long. There was no fanfare last week either, when the Senate and then the House passed the bill in largely empty chambers using a fast-track procedure known as unanimous consent. https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/17749...
why make it partisan by mentioning obama like he had anything to do with it as this was passed unanimously by both the senate and the house. just like when someone says "bill clinton repealed glass stegal" no he signed it when it was passed through by veto proof margins with only 2 people dissenting in the senate... he just happened to be the president at the time.
As it stands their signature signifies that they agree with the legislations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because he could veto it.
you understand vetos are something congress can override right?
“Override the veto and be damed. But my name will not be on the bill.” Thats what they should have said.
America is a plutocracy. Congress people (or their family) making money from their influence is about American as apple pie and pickup trucks. It takes money to get elected and stay elected, so rich people get elected. While they take advantage of their political power while elected to make money, they also make money after being elected as well, through speaking and other means. The whole point of this process is to…
The article never says this, but her husband, Paul, is a longtime investor / VC [1]. There’s obviously still a huge opportunity for leakage of information that Nancy Pelosi receives, but the trades don’t actually look suspicious nor requiring non-public information. There was some reporting on this issue more broadly when Senator Burr seemed to place trades directly due to coronavirus information, which included Pelo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the grands scheme of things.. it's extremely wealthy. The top 1% make 500k The top .01 make 18 million. 260 millions put Rick in a world of his own. Only 16,000 families make at least 7 mlion a year.
You seem to be confusing make per year, and total net worth, unless you are suggesting that at 260 million net worth he would have had to make at least 10 million a year or some such.