Pelosi and a lifetime of trading • Hacker News Board

Re: Pelosi and a lifetime of trading

#51

Post by shadowgovt » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 4:52 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #23

tharne wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often wondered about this. It's mind boggling that this is allowed. A congressman can short oil stocks and the very next day propose a large tax on oil producers then promptly cash out, and be completely within the bounds of the law.

I don't think it's mindboggling at all. It makes perfect sense that lawmakers would not make laws that negatively affect lawmakers. I also think that the amount of nonpublic information that congresscritters have access to is substantially overblown. The fact that they can pass laws affecting the industries is a bigger lever, in my view.

... but it's a pretty big lever. And they don't even have to pass the laws; a person in position of authority can shock a market with a credible threat to take an action.

Such a tool was actually used to disrupt a rice panic once. Without releasing any surplus, an announced joint intent to release surplus drove speculators out of the market. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/04/142016962/the-...

Re: Pelosi and a lifetime of trading

#52

Post by swalsh » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 4:52 PM UTC

Is there an ETF where I can invest in the same things politicians are investing in?

Re: Pelosi and a lifetime of trading

#53

Post by handrous » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 4:52 PM UTC

underseacables wrote: post #7

Congress has some of the richest people in America. I’ve always been intrigued by that.

The country was founded by people who thought taxation without representation was worth fighting a war over, but also thought it completely obvious that they didn't mean representation for poor people (imagine! Poor people with a say in government!), so denied them the franchise. And of course there was the whole thing where it was legal for some folks to own other folks.

But taxation (of rich people) without representation (for rich people)? Oh, intolerable! Better go to war over that injustice. Pay some poor people to kill each other over it (then forget to pay the bill, naturally).

250ish years later and rich people only de facto run the government, rather than de jure. Progress, I suppose.

Re: Pelosi and a lifetime of trading

#54

Post by metabagel » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

This is mostly her husband's trading, which probably constitutes somewhat of a loophole in the legislation controlling stock purchases by members of congress. Still, the transactions were reported as required, and trading based on insider knowledge is illegal, so he would be subject to prosecution if that's what he was doing.

The optics are bad, for sure.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-10/pelosi-hu...

Re: Pelosi and a lifetime of trading

#55

Post by trident5000 » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

bassman9000 wrote: post #18

takeda wrote: post #2

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?

She's the Speaker of the House. The House that passes legislation that allows to do it. You have to start somewhere.

No idea why you're getting downvoted when this is literally what they did. They had laws and then quickly bypassed it.

Re: Pelosi and a lifetime of trading

#56

Post by sokoloff » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

underseacables wrote: post #30

atatatat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Intrigued"? You mean suspicious?

Yes, deeply suspicious, I was trying to split the difference and not get political. I think it’s terrible. Members of Congress should not be allowed to own, trade, or have anything to do with the stock market. I always heard a rumor that members of Congress are always richer when they leave than when they entered. That should really piss Americans off, but it doesn’t depending on which party is in power, and which pa…

I do think there's dirty play here, but I think you can't realistically prevent the ownership of equity instruments by politicians. You could demand they be held in blind trusts; you could demand they be able to be long-only on broad-based mutual funds; you could make demands that they announce their trades 3 trading days before enacting them.

I think you can't realistically (and shouldn't) block them from owning equities entirely though.

You don't need to block them having anything to do with the stock market; you just need to eliminate the presence and appearance of dirty play.

Re: Pelosi and a lifetime of trading

#57

Post by eternalban » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

robbrown451 wrote: post #46

Shouldn't HN steer clear of things like this with a political slant? She is a very divisive figure and I don't see how this sort of article makes HN better.

Information is valuable. Crazy idea: have no-comment threads.

Re: Pelosi and a lifetime of trading

#58

Post by tootie » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

pjfin123 wrote: post #24

whoopdedo wrote: post #10

Perhaps someone could create an index fund that tracks trades by members of Congress. Though on second thought it might not be very useful since there can be quite a delay between the transaction and when it's disclosed.

It looks like they outperform the general market and hedge funds, probably not a bad idea: https://www.barrons.com/articles/SB5000142405311190443360457...

That's way more interesting than hearing that Nancy Pelosi had a good quarter. I'd be curious what the mean and median are. I can easily imagine a few key trades netting huge returns that skew the curve.

Re: Pelosi and a lifetime of trading

#59

Post by alistairSH » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

subsubzero wrote: post #21

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.

Re: Pelosi and a lifetime of trading

#60

Post by eganist » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

at-fates-hands wrote: post #25

eganist wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a reference to the specific legal code which includes the amendment? Thanks for coming through on this ask. I'm having a hard time finding it, and it's a point of contention I plan on raising with Virginia legislators if any of them voted in favor.

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...

Thanks, this is helpful.

It's exceptionally unlikely that I'll be able to spur meaningful change, but I'll try to have an update in December. (Posting for accountability)