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

Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 238 posts

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#51

Post by smcin »

ckardat123 wrote: post #39

I started building out tools to track congressional stock trading in 2020. Since then, I believe there have been 9 other proposals similar to this one. None of them have been even called to a vote. It seem like Congress is pretty unwilling to regulate its own trading. Until they are, feel free to track the trading here: https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/

Sen Cynthia Loomis (R-WY) [EDIT: 'Lummis'] doesn't show up on the list (for stocks), is she still the biggest crypto trader?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/congresss-crypto-traders-t...

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#52

Post by jqpabc123 »

anonym29 wrote: post #7
jqpabc123 wrote: post #2

All show and no go. Like most such "reforms", it is intended for naive public consumption while also being easily circumvented. Setup a trust or corporation run by a family member and continue with business a usual.

This isn't a reason to not support the current effort. Democracy is an iterative process, not a magic wand that you wave to instantly teleport to a flawless system. This bill is step one. When (not if) it gets circumvented, that's when the next law addressing that problem can be passed.

This bill is step one.

No, it's not.

It's just the latest in a long line of campaign finance reform --- most of which is ineffective because it was purposely designed from the get-go to be easily circumvented.

The open secret here is that you're counting on an organization (Congress) to police itself.

This makes no more sense than an counting on Congress to avoid raising it's own pay. How has that worked out?

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#53

Post by BurningFrog »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #2

All show and no go. Like most such "reforms", it is intended for naive public consumption while also being easily circumvented. Setup a trust or corporation run by a family member and continue with business a usual.

If so, that's probably true for all insider trading regulations?

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#54

Post by respondo2134 »

anonym29 wrote: post #30
bell-cot wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...iterative process... ...When (not if it gets circumvented), that's when... If the politicians manage the process correctly, they can forever be passing "reform bills" which sound good...but have enough loopholes so that nothing resembling actual reform ever happens. Rule of Thumb: If somebody claims they want to build a transportation system, then starts with a square wheel and talks about improving it as the ne…

Inefficient action being taken is still better than absolutely zero action being taken in addressing a problem. Think, for instance, about how many more people might become aware of / interested in the problem, who were previously unaware or uninterested in insider stock trading by members of congress, should a historic bill be passed to initialize the process of stopping the problem.

This sounds good in principal but is not always true. You have limited resources, including time, public goodwill and attention. If you waste it all on inefficient action you've got nothing left for working on actual solutions.

>> should a historic bill be passed

Passed? They've never brought even a flawed bill like this to a vote, let alone passed one.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#55

Post by BlandDuck »

grog454 wrote: post #43
_lb0d wrote: post #14

My wife works in the audit department of a bank. I'm heavily regulated by the SEC on what stocks, ETFs, mutual funds I can buy/sell. An internal group monitors my buying/selling and makes approval/denial before I can do so. I have to hold an ETF for 1 month before I can sell it--not that I should be swing trading ETFs, but still. It's very frustrating at times, especially when I'm relegated to using just her bank's t…

Why? What kinds of things might you be able to do through your wife that require all this scrutiny?

Trade on insider information.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#56

Post by skizm »

BurningFrog wrote: post #47
_lb0d wrote: post #14

My wife works in the audit department of a bank. I'm heavily regulated by the SEC on what stocks, ETFs, mutual funds I can buy/sell. An internal group monitors my buying/selling and makes approval/denial before I can do so. I have to hold an ETF for 1 month before I can sell it--not that I should be swing trading ETFs, but still. It's very frustrating at times, especially when I'm relegated to using just her bank's t…

I can't think of any other situation when one person getting a job puts legal obligations on their spouse, but I haven't looked into it.

To less of a degree, when applying for law enforcement jobs, family members and sometimes friends have to surrender a lot of personal data. I had to hand over my SSN along with pretty much all my PII and do interviews on behalf family members when they applied to be cops. I tried to say no, but at the end of the day they're holding their jobs hostage until I comply. Hate it.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#57

Post by neuronexmachina »

grog454 wrote: post #43
_lb0d wrote: post #14

My wife works in the audit department of a bank. I'm heavily regulated by the SEC on what stocks, ETFs, mutual funds I can buy/sell. An internal group monitors my buying/selling and makes approval/denial before I can do so. I have to hold an ETF for 1 month before I can sell it--not that I should be swing trading ETFs, but still. It's very frustrating at times, especially when I'm relegated to using just her bank's t…

Why? What kinds of things might you be able to do through your wife that require all this scrutiny?

An example that comes to mind would be overlooking something during an audit in exchange for a kickback.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#58

Post by ksec »

jchanimal wrote: post #25
_lb0d wrote: post #14

My wife works in the audit department of a bank. I'm heavily regulated by the SEC on what stocks, ETFs, mutual funds I can buy/sell. An internal group monitors my buying/selling and makes approval/denial before I can do so. I have to hold an ETF for 1 month before I can sell it--not that I should be swing trading ETFs, but still. It's very frustrating at times, especially when I'm relegated to using just her bank's t…

I think is standard practice at larger firms in the banking industry, it should be for government as well.

Not just in banking industry but many other Finance or Legal industry as well. Pretty much standard practice.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#59

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

grog454 wrote: post #43
_lb0d wrote: post #14

My wife works in the audit department of a bank. I'm heavily regulated by the SEC on what stocks, ETFs, mutual funds I can buy/sell. An internal group monitors my buying/selling and makes approval/denial before I can do so. I have to hold an ETF for 1 month before I can sell it--not that I should be swing trading ETFs, but still. It's very frustrating at times, especially when I'm relegated to using just her bank's t…

Why? What kinds of things might you be able to do through your wife that require all this scrutiny?

Timing buys/sells before during investigations, early access to judgements, pre-IPO info... your basic insider trading.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#60

Post by respondo2134 »

_ea1k wrote: post #4

In practice, how would this work? A requirement that they only use index funds? But then wouldn't that bias them to support the companies that are the major movers in that index? Indexes are often heavily weighted to a small subset after all. TBH, it seems like an idea that sounds good on the surface but has practical issues in implementation that would make it irrelevant

Even if they're buying a lot of a relatively narrow index fund the ability to directly benefit from a specific company would be greatly reduced.
Post reply on HN