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

Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

unusualwhales.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 493 posts

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#411

Post by jacques_chester »

frankfrankfrank wrote: post #236
slowmovintarget wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A significant percentage of random average people have no practical understanding of economics, and no ability to think of consequences to policy. Granted, neither do a significant percentage of the currently serving congress if current policy is anything to go by.

Regardless of whether one may like the initial selection criteria or not, what you describe is precisely why the country (USA) was supposed to be led by land owning free white men. The assumption being that people that fit that criteria, plausibly possessed a requisite initial selection criteria set of skills and knowledge that would constitute the pool of best qualified people to run a government in the common inter…

The self-same perfect and wise and gosh-darn handsome founders included an amendment mechanism. You might like to take your complaint up with them.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#412

Post by godelski »

dan-robertson wrote: post #349
godelski wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because investments are still a great way to hold your savings. The problem here isn't that they have investments (e.g. a 401k), it is that they are acting on insider information. Which is illegal to everyone else. At _minimum_ they should be held to the same standards. Though I think most people agree that they should be held to _higher_ standards, which gives suggestions like a blind trust. And obviously strict rul…

It’s not insider information. You might consider it material non-public information, which you can’t trade on in Europe, but in the US insider trading has a much more narrow definition: roughly it has to come from the insiders of the company. If your friend at Microsoft tells you that they won some massive contract, you can’t trade on it. If you overhear that news in a café, you can. If your friend at the government…

Thanks! I actually appreciate the nuanced correction. I used insider trading as the term not specifically because the information was non-public but that it feels like they have inside knowledge since they are able to directly affect the markets. Maybe there is a better term for this? I don't think this still falls under what you said.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#413

Post by jacques_chester »

apis_nearctica wrote: post #402
slashdev wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have a fundamental misapprehension of capitalism. If you invest your capital, it's not being hoarded in a money bank like Scrooge McDuck. It's being put to use by the companies and institutions you invest in to provide products and services. Now I'm all for donating to charity, and it's a much better option than leaving massive wealth to your offspring, in my opinion. But investing your money is totally r…

If I buy some MSFT shares on the market, is my money being put to use by Microsoft? I see this kind of sentiment all the time but it seems to rely on a VC model of investment where you’re buying shares from the company/founders. I am dumb about this stuff so please someone correct me.

It's true for shares at issuing. After that, typically, the company sees no funds from shares changing hands. Folks buy shares because they want dividends or capital appreciation. A few to show up at AGMs. But after the shares change hands once, the idea that the Noble Capitalist Heroes Of Galt's Gulch make the world turn by purchasing shares is false.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#414

Post by hnick »

apis_nearctica wrote: post #402
slashdev wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have a fundamental misapprehension of capitalism. If you invest your capital, it's not being hoarded in a money bank like Scrooge McDuck. It's being put to use by the companies and institutions you invest in to provide products and services. Now I'm all for donating to charity, and it's a much better option than leaving massive wealth to your offspring, in my opinion. But investing your money is totally r…

If I buy some MSFT shares on the market, is my money being put to use by Microsoft? I see this kind of sentiment all the time but it seems to rely on a VC model of investment where you’re buying shares from the company/founders. I am dumb about this stuff so please someone correct me.

Only in an IPO or other public issue really.

What happens is your money goes to whoever owned the shares and they use it somehow. That same money could theoretically be used to buy shares infinitely, except for fees, and the company would see none of it.

The effect on the company though is demand will drive the price up. Shareholders like higher prices so tend to reward CEOs who get them. This (hopefully) leads to an efficient company where they try their best so shares go up in value due to present or expected future performance which is good for the economy on the whole compared to having a bunch of inefficient companies.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#415

Post by busymom0 »

akudha wrote: post #153
sakopov wrote: post #15

> For example, Pelosi in Dec 22 was against more stimulus. Her husband buys deep ITM TSLA and AAPL calls that day. December 23rd, she is suddenly for stimulus again, with those same companies ralling 5%, giving her an instant +30 return. > Congressman Gottheimer is absolutely an incredible options trader. He’s been selling calls at peaks on $MSFT all 2021, & seemingly buying back the contracts on dips. This in blocks…

Isn't Pelosi worth like 100 million or something? How much money is enough for these people? :( How quickly are these trades made public? Maybe we should just copy the congress people's trades and make some profit ourselves :P

Last I checked couple years ago, she was worth $140 million. She's worth even more now.

I am not against non politician people having tons of money. I am against politicians getting rich using insider trading. And the same politicians also accusing their political opponents of doing the very thing they are doing themselves - even more. Hypocrisy and double standards is what makes me disgusted.

There's not a single profession I can think of where someone would gladly be working when they are 80 years old. House and Senate needs term limits. 8 years max. No one should be allowed to become a life long politician and get rich off of it.

But unfortunately, what we want is different from what we get. There's no way these politicians will pass bills to limit their own terms. These people convince the ordinary people that they are all moral and care about them. But meanwhile they are getting rich off of public's trust in them.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#416

Post by burkaman »

slashdev wrote: post #381
burkaman wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not rational once you have enough money for you and those you care about to be infinitely comfortable for the rest of your lives. Say you have $100,000 in the bank, and you want to spend $10,000. What's the best use of that money? For a normal self-interested person, a rational use would be to invest in whatever will give the largest return, in order to have enough money for living expenses, retirement, childre…

You seem to have a fundamental misapprehension of capitalism. If you invest your capital, it's not being hoarded in a money bank like Scrooge McDuck. It's being put to use by the companies and institutions you invest in to provide products and services. Now I'm all for donating to charity, and it's a much better option than leaving massive wealth to your offspring, in my opinion. But investing your money is totally r…

I agree with everything you say. My argument is not that investment is bad, but that as your wealth increases, your interest in getting even richer should decrease, and your interest in getting non-financial returns should increase.

If you have $100 million dollars, and you're investing in the stock market purely because that's the way to get the highest financial return, that is not rational, unless money is literally the only thing you care about. Presumably there's something else you care about, like the environment, or some political movement, or eradicating malaria, in which case investing all of your money in making more money is not the best choice. You probably still want to invest some of it, to maintain your lifestyle and maintain enough cash to use for the stuff you really care about.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#417

Post by busymom0 »

_underfl0w_ wrote: post #275
infinite8s wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress excluded itself from insider-trading laws. Convenient, eh?

Can anyone cite a source for this? I don't doubt the legitimacy, but would like to know more about it.

It was repealed silently and unimanously in 2013:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZINKG-gPT0

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#418

Post by busymom0 »

ABeeSea wrote: post #410
calylex wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you retarded? That tweet was made on 12/22 at 6:30PM which is basically the same as 12/23 the date the article claims Pelosi switched her vote. Here is more reference for her "no" position prior to that date https://www.google.com/search?q=stimulus+pelosi+reject&safe=...

Do you have a specific article with a first hand source saying she was against stimulus? Because her continued and unwavering support for the HEROES act suggest she was always pro-stimulus. The top article in your Google search (lol) link is the Sun. A British tabloid with the same owner as Fox News. Also calling me “r****” is definitely against HN civility rules.

> with the same owner

You know the entire establishment media is owned by a select few people right?

She was very clearly against stimulus before election because she didn't want to give a win to her political opponent.

We can say whatever we want about her political opponent but he had made it very clear on Twitter that he would instantly sign a stimulus only bill without pork if it's brought to him. Pelosi on the other hand played politics and blamed it on her political opponent as she didn't want cheques with his name going out before elections.

Here's her interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer criticized by the left:

https://youtu.be/vV2mBhQR3r4

Here's a left leaning source:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-says-no-cov...

Here's a right leaning source:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/pelosi-trump-coronaviru...

> House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped into the White House's latest $1.8 trillion coronavirus relief offer during a combative interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, accusing President Trump of only wanting to send out a second round of stimulus checks to juice the economy and boost his election odds.

> The Trump administration's proposal -- its largest yet -- drew criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, dimming the odds of another round of emergency aid before the Nov. 3 election. It was expected to include a second round of direct payments of up to $1,200 for adults and $1,000 for children; expanded unemployment benefits at $400 per week and additional funding for state and local governments.

> Blitzer pressed Pelosi about her decision to reject the deal, even as some Democrats, including former presidential candidate Andrew Yang and California Rep. Ro Khanna, urged her to accept the offer. (Khanna tweeted that Pelosi should "make a deal & put the ball in McConnell court").

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#419

Post by thelean12 »

ModernMech wrote: post #253
thelean12 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she only made the 250k, she'd be spending like 12.5% of her yearly take home pay on a fridge. That seems like a little much. ($250k is like $160k take home with her home town taxes. 20/160 = 0.125)

For something designed to last multiple years, why not? I can look in my garage and kitchen at things I've spent 12.5% of my take home on that I expected to last a decade, including my refrigerator. I do not like Nancy Pelosi, but this criticism always seemed like quite a stretch to me.

Are any of the things in your garage 10-20x the average cost of that thing? That fridge is like the Lamborghini of fridges.

I'm not saying buying something that is 12.5% of your take home income is unreasonable. After all, I own a car. I'm saying that buying a fridge at 12.5% of your take home income is unreasonable.

Re: Unusual Stock Trading by Whales in US Congress

#420

Post by slashdev »

solipsism wrote: post #398
slashdev wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have a fundamental misapprehension of capitalism. If you invest your capital, it's not being hoarded in a money bank like Scrooge McDuck. It's being put to use by the companies and institutions you invest in to provide products and services. Now I'm all for donating to charity, and it's a much better option than leaving massive wealth to your offspring, in my opinion. But investing your money is totally r…

It's being put to use by the companies and institutions you invest in to provide products and services. Why is that better than these companies living off their profits, and their loans? You talk about it and if it's a given. It's not.

You've got a fringe position there. If you want to defend it, be my guest. I believe it's pretty obviously a given. You're basically picking a fight with capitalism which, while far from perfect, it's the best system we've tried to date.
Post reply on HN