[HN Gopher] Pelosi and a lifetime of trading
___________________________________________________________________
Pelosi and a lifetime of trading
Author : aminozuur
Score : 288 points
Date : 2021-07-21 16:19 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (unusualwhales.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (unusualwhales.com)
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| Nancy Pelosi is as dirty as they come. Of course she will use any
| advantage she can to gain wealth and power. Why this is allowed
| is beyond me. Martha Stewart spent time in prison for doing much
| less.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| This has been debunked over and over starting in 2012. Nanci
| Pelosi is not part of a crime family. Stop trying to claim
| otherwise. Snopes debunked this okay like 2 years ago.
|
| https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nancy-pelosi-crime-family/
| zyemuzu wrote:
| Ah yes, the fact checkers have spoken.
| slackfan wrote:
| Snopes "This is not true because we twisted the english
| language into a pretzel to an extent that a Pravda writer would
| be proud", that snopes?
| the_optimist wrote:
| This is not a credible response.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| I'm pretty sure your comment is tongue in cheek but wow this is
| a pretty bad look for snopes:
|
| >Was Nancy Pelosi's brother, Franklin D. Roosevelt D'Alesandro,
| charged with lying during a rape trial? Status: MIXTURE The
| Facts: Nancy Pelosi's brother, Franklin D. Roosevelt
| D'Alesandro, was charged with perjury during a rape trial in
| the 1950s. However, he was eventually acquitted of those
| charges
|
| How is that a mixture? The poster claims he has been charged,
| not convicted, Snopes confirms he was charged but... Ends up
| labelling this as mixed? That's pure damage control from Snopes
| at this point
| DevKoala wrote:
| Thank you fact checkers. Imagine how society would be without
| them? We'd be drowning in wrong-think.
| KETpXDDzR wrote:
| Sounds like smart insider trading. I know some forums only
| accessible via the TOR network that trade insider info. Your
| first post is for verification, the ones after for either selling
| them or trading with others. If you trade your company's
| quarterly numbers with numbers from another company it's nearly
| impossible to proof that you used insider information.
|
| IMHO the whole system needs a reformation. You should only be
| allowed to invest long-term, at least one month, probably years.
| Day trading and option contracts enable illegal insider trading.
| takeda wrote:
| 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?
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| I think that is what they are implying with this information.
| trident5000 wrote:
| Because these people are corrupt and want to make money. Its
| basically as simple as that.
| vmception wrote:
| Because her husband makes the trades lol.
|
| Pretty much none of the political/self-dealing/disqualified
| person financial laws apply to spouses. (This is distinct from
| private sector insider trading laws)
|
| It's super easy, barely an inconvenience!
| curtis3389 wrote:
| Because they are also the person that would write the rule that
| they aren't allowed to trade.
| kcdev wrote:
| The STOCK Act is supposed to prevent this. But the same
| politicians who passed the law and had the media cover it as
| much as possible, then later quietly passed another that the
| law would not be enforced.
| eganist wrote:
| 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.
| at-fates-hands wrote:
| 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/2013/04/16/1774
| 9...
| weaksauce wrote:
| 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.
| vxNsr wrote:
| Because he could veto it.
| weaksauce wrote:
| you understand vetos are something congress can override
| right?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Vetoing the bill would have at least made the passage
| more notable, and likely required there to have been more
| than thirty seconds of debate on the topic. Making them
| override a veto has some value.
| weaksauce wrote:
| again it's not a partisan issue... literally both parties
| are passing these bills almost unanimously. it's a class
| issue i'll give you but not a partisan one.
| vxNsr wrote:
| Vetoing sends a message and as others have said would at
| least force the media to talk about it.
| eyivghh wrote:
| So whats your point? Just because a large majority of
| Congress wants to do something immoral the pres gets to
| wash his hands if he jumps in?
|
| "Override the veto and be damed. But my name will not be
| on the bill." Thats what they should have said.
| eyivghh wrote:
| They could still have refused to sign it. Doing so would
| have saved their honor - congress can force a legislation
| but they cant force the prez to debase himself by adding
| his signature.
|
| As it stands their signature signifies that they agree
| with the legislations.
| amznthrwaway wrote:
| Hacker News is an extremely right-wing website. The
| acceptable views here range from center-right to hard-
| right (both authoritarian and libertarian variants).
|
| It is not allowed to be even moderately fair to the left
| on this site. Nor is it allowable to be anti-racist or
| anti-fascist.
| eganist wrote:
| 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)
| MikeUt wrote:
| Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment
| atatatat wrote:
| These same cunts are shareholders in the media, 'course
| it's not all around.
| tharne wrote:
| 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.
| sneak wrote:
| 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.
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| One feeds the other. Their position of power is the reason
| people tell them so much. Given their returns, either
| members of The Congress are more brilliant than any Wall
| Street fund manager, or they're cheating.
| tharne wrote:
| I guess what surprises me is how nakedly unethical it is.
| I'm not shocked that people in positions of significant
| power would use that power to enrich themselves unfairly. I
| am shocked at how little effort they make to hide it.
| seanp2k2 wrote:
| Because we've seen so many times that there are no
| consequences for this. Some people might get a bit mad,
| but it's not like there are huge protests demanding
| change or cohorts voting out politicians who partake. If
| all politicians across the political spectrum also
| support it, what choice do people have at the polls?
| klipt wrote:
| Isn't "inside knowledge of upcoming new laws" a kind of non
| public information?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| ... 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-...
| tharne wrote:
| I remember Hillary Clinton doing that in 2016 with a
| single sabre-rattling tweet about the pharma industry.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Obama made some suggestions about normalizing relations
| with Iran and all the defense stocks went crazy though
| nothing ever came of it
|
| Politicians suggesting things impacts the market all the
| time.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Both questions are valid.
|
| Not all representatives enrich themselves like this.
| woah wrote:
| 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 politicians,
| reducing the quality of politicians by causing people with
| better options not to bother.
|
| My sense is that this is one of those feel-good things, like
| setting politician salaries to a low level, which doesn't
| actually do anything to improve the quality of government.
| t0mbstone wrote:
| A single celebrity attempting to manipulate the stocks they
| own via public perception is a fundamentally different thing
| than a bunch of politicians using their legal power to
| manipulate the stocks they own for their own personal gain.
| joebob42 wrote:
| I guess this can sort of flow two ways, though. A politician
| might know a law is coming up, and so buy a stock that is
| going to benefit from it: your argument is convincing there.
| But they might also hold a stock, and because of that they
| might feel more strongly one way or the other about a
| particular law: that feels like a problem to me.
|
| 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.
| lupire wrote:
| That's obviously the point of pointing out how "lucky" her
| investments are.
| bassman9000 wrote:
| She's the Speaker of the House. The House that passes
| legislation that allows to do it. You have to start somewhere.
| trident5000 wrote:
| No idea why you're getting downvoted when this is literally
| what they did. They had laws and then quickly bypassed it.
| gorbachev wrote:
| Because when they pass laws prohibiting certain types of
| activities, they almost always exclude themselves.
| sam0x17 wrote:
| Is there a place where you can get info on her/her husband's
| trades in real time? Cuz I kinda want to write a bot now ;)
| kinghajj wrote:
| No, the reporting delay between when trades are made and then
| made public is something like ~1 month, IIRC.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| That would be a great time barrier to remove.
| redleggedfrog wrote:
| 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 make money. Again, American, we like
| money.
|
| So if you don't like all this, you're a socialist and bad person.
| Shame on you for being so un-American. Instead get some money and
| join the party!
| rangoon626 wrote:
| She can be capitalist like you describe, she just shouldn't be
| allowed to serve in public office while she does it.
| gigel82 wrote:
| I suspect this is actually peanuts compared to trades made by the
| politicians' friends (aka proxies) that aren't disclosed
| anywhere.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Being up 56% in a year when the SPX went up 36% is hardly
| "incredible".
| trident5000 wrote:
| You didnt annualize the returns. Its possibly over 1000%.
|
| Gotta love financially illiterate HN. He made over 100% on the
| trade in something like 1 month. 100% * 12 is over 1000%
| mullingitover wrote:
| > Her one year returns for her stocks is 45.59%, and her option
| returns are 66.7%.
|
| I mean, any other year and that'd be extraordinary, but I'm just
| some schmuck who put my 401k mostly in a high growth index fund
| and I got over 70% last year. I wasn't even trying.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| This is honestly the only hope I have that Congress won't mess
| with with Capital Gains taxes... they win too much from it.
| analog31 wrote:
| I wonder if politicians should be required to share their
| portfolios in real time. Then the rest of us could buy index
| funds based on their trading habits.
| calebm wrote:
| PelosiBot
| boulos wrote:
| 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 Pelosi's husband's trades.
|
| Edit to add: I would concur with others that we probably need to
| restrict trading for politicians and their family, the same way
| we do insiders at corporations. Index funds okay, specific stocks
| or perceived competition, no.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Pelosi
| fighterpilot wrote:
| > the trades don't actually look suspicious nor requiring non-
| public information.
|
| The purchase was made 1 month before this story[1] broke, which
| was a significantly market moving announcement.
|
| There's plausible deniability, of course.
|
| [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/biden-plans-to-replace-
| gover...
| KerrickStaley wrote:
| Which purchase?
| boulos wrote:
| Sorry, which trade are you referring to? The Dec 22 TSLA
| options?
|
| Assuming yes, the disclosure report [1] says it was 25 calls
| with a strike price of $500 with expiration of 3/18/22 (so
| another long dated option). Tesla's share price that day was
| ~$650 [2] and the value of the 500 call went up (from ~$200
| to $400) but has come right back down to ~$200 [3]. They have
| not exercised / sold the options (visit [4] and search for
| Pelosi in Filing Year 2021).
|
| [1] https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/public_disc/ptr-
| pdfs/202...
|
| [2] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/history/
|
| [3] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA220318C00500000?p=TSL
| A22...
|
| [4] https://disclosures-
| clerk.house.gov/PublicDisclosure/Financi...
| dcolkitt wrote:
| Most of Pelosi's homerun trades involved bluechip public
| stocks. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a VC to have
| that much edge there. VCs specialize in early stage private
| companies. That's a very different skillset than trading
| options on NASDAQ.
|
| If Paul Pelosi really had that much alpha in quarterly moves in
| ultra-liquid stocks like Microsoft and Disney, he'd almost
| certainly be a hedge fund manager.
| wpasc wrote:
| I don't think it's so much about individual stocks. House
| members and especially house leaders have the ability to
| propose legislation or even talk about potential legislation
| that affects entire industries. Blue chip stock trades ahead
| of major legislation (ie. trading facebook before a major
| revision to section 230) don't matter so much about the blue
| chip nature.
|
| IMO employee insiders have restrictions to trading the stocks
| of their company. I don't think it's overly onerous to have
| congresspeople disallowed from direct control over their or
| their immediate family's portfolios. Does that make it
| difficult to work in congress and have a family member
| working in finance? Sure, but I think that's okay.
| abeppu wrote:
| > Index funds okay, specific stocks or perceived competition,
| no.
|
| I think for people in high office, even controlling when to
| move in or out of index funds is also inappropriate. Congress
| has both information and makes choices which have broad impact
| across the economy.
|
| But to your first point, that this "doesn't actually look
| suspicious", I'll only mention that classic "indicators of
| suspicion" in a criminal context are motive, means and
| opportunity, all of which seem to be present.
|
| But to broaden the conversation, the main implied concern is
| did she profit through use of non-public information. While I
| think that's a worthy concern, I think perhaps the more
| important one is whether the holdings of congress overall tilt
| the policies they enact. This extends beyond stocks (where even
| members who are limited to index funds may be disinclined to,
| e.g. push for limits or rules surrounding buybacks etc), to
| areas like how real estate holdings impact housing policy
| stances.
| jb775 wrote:
| > her husband, Paul, is a longtime investor/VC...but the trades
| don't actually look suspicious
|
| I would argue this is an even bigger red flag. Professional
| traders are much more aware of subtle cause & effects within
| the markets.
|
| i.e. Not-yet public info about reducing tariffs on imported
| wheat would lower raw-material cost for bread companies, then
| would lower the cost for McDonald's hamburger buns, then
| McDonalds makes more profit this quarter...and Pelosi's husband
| buys a bunch of options on McDonalds, then dumps the options
| immediately after the info goes public.
|
| So insider information that seems innocuous to the average
| person could be used and abused like crazy by professionals
| like Pelosi's husband.
| eplanit wrote:
| And I'm sure she'll be completely impartial when it comes to
| legislation/regulation regarding these companies from which she
| and her husband have become so wealthy. To quote Biden, "c'mon
| man".
| [deleted]
| BurningFrog wrote:
| > _the trades don't actually look suspicious nor requiring non-
| public information_
|
| The consistent beating of the odds is what makes it suspicious.
|
| If you roll 12 with two dice, it is not suspicious. If you do
| it 10 times in a row, my trust is gone!
| ProAm wrote:
| Wasn't Pelosi the cause/reason congress isn't allowed to
| insider trade anymore because of that 60 Minutes piece? [1]
|
| [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/video/confronting-pelosi-on-
| insider-...
| legitster wrote:
| Nancy Pelosi's husband is CEO of a investment firm. It shouldn't
| be _that_ surprising that she tops the list for investments.
|
| As others online have pointed out, despite an above average year,
| her portfolio is still underperforming an S&P 500 index fund with
| the dividends reinvested.
|
| Should politicians be forced to put their assets in a blind trust
| while in office? Yeah, probably. But I don't think I will indict
| Pelosi's slightly above average year of investments as evidence
| of anything in particular.
| pgwhalen wrote:
| > her portfolio is still underperforming an S&P 500 index fund
| with the dividends reinvested
|
| Can you expand on this? The article indicates her one year
| returns were considerably higher than the S&P 500 last year.
| mullen wrote:
| One year does not mean anything. If she is beating S&P 500
| over 20 or 30 years, then there is a problem.
| spullara wrote:
| Their returns all time in office are worse.
| moralestapia wrote:
| >Nancy Pelosi's husband is CEO of a investment firm. It
| shouldn't be that surprising that she tops the list for
| investments.
|
| I don't know if you're using this as an argument to favor
| Pelosi, because this, if anything, is only another conflict of
| interest on top of where she's currently at.
|
| The disclosure and use of insider information from public
| companies can get you in big trouble, even if you're married to
| the people involved.
|
| There's a reason why CEOs (and the like) take _HUGE_ caution
| measures when liquidating stock and try to involve family as
| least as possible.
| KETpXDDzR wrote:
| "80% of US Fund Managers Underperform S&P 500 Over 5 years"
|
| http://www.ginsglobal.com/articles/80-of-us-fund-managers-un...
| ixacto wrote:
| And 87% over 15 years fail to beat the s&p500. With a >10yr
| investment horizon 100% in VTSAX is the way to go IMO. Then
| just calculate your budget and start to sell into treasury
| bonds at the 10 year mark based on how much money is needed.
|
| They should probably teach FIRE in high school, but of course
| not you got to keep everyone enslaved to debt and learning
| about ancient history.
| soheil wrote:
| > Nancy Pelosi's husband is CEO of a investment firm. It
| shouldn't be that surprising that she tops the list for
| investments.
|
| Does that mean majority of CEOs of investment firms "top[ped]
| the list for investments" during that time?
| nemothekid wrote:
| Yes, for 2020, almost every investment firm had amazing
| returns.
| harywilke wrote:
| No, but it should be obvious that it is a relevant data point
| to consider. If the article was about number of pool
| installations by congress members, and you left out that the
| husband of one of the members owned a pool installation
| company and you are going by numbers of pools installed by
| their families, not just the congress members themselves, it
| would be a pretty big omission.
| btilly wrote:
| That she invests a lot, nothing weird there.
|
| That her investments do so well? That's another story.
| lefrenchy wrote:
| Regardless of returns, buying TSLA leap options is a terrible
| look and breaks down trust in institutions. How am I supposed
| to look at that and just trust that she isn't influencing
| policy with her options trades in mind?
|
| It's not even about evidence of illegal actions, she's a public
| official and part of her job is to build trust with the public.
| legitster wrote:
| Again, I don't disagree with you on this. I think public
| officials should put their assets in a blind trust, and many
| of them already do.
| minsc__and__boo wrote:
| >buying TSLA leap options is a terrible look and breaks down
| trust in institutions
|
| What is unusual about her spouse buying TSLA options? I'd say
| that the TSLA CEO has been more influential over the TSLA
| price than any new legislation.
| mox1 wrote:
| What about public spending on electrical charging
| infrastructure?
|
| What about reduced regulation of the franchise car
| dealership model at the federal level?
|
| Those might have a 'lil bit of an effect.
| lefrenchy wrote:
| She is one of the most powerful legislators in the country.
| If she lobbying and pushed for EV credits for instance, it
| could greatly affect the price of the stock. If she were to
| put up roadblocks to block inquiries into Tesla safety
| concerns or issues of the sort, it could prevent massive
| price changes in the stock.
|
| Just because Elon Musk has more power over the stock does
| not exonerate her from buying potentially massively
| lucrative options on a stock that she has power to affect.
| My understanding is she is not under the same restrictions
| as a CEO would be when trading that ticker, and she also
| has entirely different incentives than CEO's do. CEO's have
| the incentive to make the company perform well because
| their compensation is tied to the share price. Nancy Pelosi
| in this case has the incentive to rule favorably for Tesla
| because her options will benefit from it. Those incentives
| are very very different.
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| She's the Speaker of the House. Outstanding legislation
| proposed by the President of the United States (a member of
| her political party) would subsidize the electric vehicle
| sector to the tune of $174 billion.
|
| If you don't think this gives rise to the appearance of
| impropriety, then what precisely does?
| minsc__and__boo wrote:
| >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.
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| > 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.
| minsc__and__boo wrote:
| >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.
| dogorman wrote:
| > _breaks down trust in institutions._
|
| This is why avoiding the _appearance_ of impropriety is
| almost as important as avoiding impropriety itself. When you
| do things that people might reasonably mistake for unethical,
| it contributes to the perception that such unethical behavior
| is commonplace. That, in turn, might inspire others to
| actually behave unethically, or alternatively to despair that
| they live in such a society. Either is socially harmful.
| shusaku wrote:
| Apparently they should be put in a blind trust for their own
| financial well being!
| stingraycharles wrote:
| Do other CEOs of investment firms have similar returns?
| vidoc wrote:
| Many years ago, 60 minutes interviewed her about these kind of
| dealings:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReZ7DdT5ZoI
| robbrown451 wrote:
| 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.
| eternalban wrote:
| Information is valuable. Crazy idea: have no-comment threads.
| chrisan wrote:
| This could be viewed as activism against all parties
|
| > In the House and the Senate reports Mr. Whale showed that
| both parties, no matter their allegiance, seem to be trading
| and often legislating to benefit their own positions.
| dcassett wrote:
| The political climate has piqued my interest in the workings of
| the US government. I appreciate helpful HN commenters that
| provide information that I don't have time to research.
| brodouevencode wrote:
| That ship sailed a long time ago.
| cgb223 wrote:
| In the same way that CEOs trades are planned months in advance
| and happen regardless of the market, we should make Congress
| people should have to do the same
| jb775 wrote:
| Elected & appointed govt workers and their immediate families
| shouldn't be permitted to buy/sell any stock while in office or 5
| years following.
|
| And they shouldn't be allowed to take jobs/money (including
| "speaking fees", a.k.a. bribes) from publicly owned corporations
| for 15 years after leaving public office.
| TrispusAttucks wrote:
| Writing regulation policy is one hell of a way to perform insider
| trading. Why is this legal?
|
| "Most of Pelosi's gains are quite interesting, given the timing
| of her plays. For example, she was able to get into TSLA, DIS
| around stimulus news, NVDA before American Semiconductor funding
| was announced, among a long list of interesting picks. Mr. Whale
| leaves it to the reader to check her transactions and the news
| around her purchases (all available for free on the platform).
| She also timed the NFLX buys on June 18th perfectly. It was
| released on July 14th that NFLX is entering the videogame space,
| causing the stock to rally significantly."
| underseacables wrote:
| Congress has some of the richest people in America. I've always
| been intrigued by that.
| handrous wrote:
| 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.
| atakeuu wrote:
| If given the choice I'd rather pay zero income tax than vote,
| which is how it was 250 years ago, given the number of people
| that don't vote I'm probably a majority.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Is it your assertion that the poor did not consume tea in
| late 1700's America? I always assumed the Sons of Liberty had
| both wealthy and more middle class members.
| handrous wrote:
| > Is it your assertion that the poor did not consume tea in
| late 1700's America?
|
| The Tea Act was (among other things) intended to, and
| probably did, _lower_ the price of tea in America. It hurt
| smugglers and tea importers.
|
| > I always assumed the Sons of Liberty had both wealthy and
| more middle class members.
|
| Any non-landowners who participated (were there many?) got
| had, then, since they couldn't vote under the original
| constitution and state laws at the time. They also didn't
| get a say in the drafting of the constitution or in
| ratifying it (I mean, obviously, who wants them stinking up
| the place?)
|
| "But they got representation--just not the right to vote,
| or to run for many offices" Sure, but that's awfully close
| to an argument from the other side of the Atlantic, that
| rich British citizens in America didn't find convincing
| when it was applied to _them_ :
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation
|
| [EDIT] All I'm saying is, we're a country the _founding
| principle_ of which is basically "it's not who your
| parents are that make you worthwhile--it's having money".
| That was the _fundamental_ disagreement between the
| Colonies (that is: the people who drove us to war, and who
| formed the government afterward) and Britain. Given our
| veneration of that founding, it 's unsurprising that a
| country still operating under a constitution drafted by
| slavers and drug smugglers would tend, perhaps even more
| than other places, to be run by particularly scummy rich
| people with little shame about the shady ways they make
| their money.
| syshum wrote:
| Yes but they are the virtuous rich..
|
| The evil rich are in the private sector...
|
| We have to remember that at all times
|
| /s
| atatatat wrote:
| "Intrigued"? You mean suspicious?
| underseacables wrote:
| 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 party that person subscribes to.
|
| Edit: Grammar and Spelling
| trident5000 wrote:
| I have no issue with them owning a handful of broad ETF's
| like the SPY. Other than that they shouldnt be placing bets
| on specific parts of the economy they clearly have
| influence over.
| sokoloff wrote:
| 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.
| swalsh wrote:
| I disagree entirely. Markets are more effecient when these
| high information actors are allowed to interact with it.
| That said, it should be far more transparent.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I think they should be able to own an investment portfolio,
| but while they are in office (and perhaps after, if they
| engage in lobbying) it should be in a blind trust.
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| How do blind trusts operate? Surely you don't put in 4K
| of APPL shares and a couple of years later get back
| carrot futures or some thing.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I don't know details but in general the portfolio would
| be managed by a trustee, probably with a certain goal
| specified in advance (preservation of capital, growth,
| blended, etc.) the key is that the owner of the assets
| has no control over or knowledge of the specific
| investments once the trust is formed.
|
| I don't know if a rollover into a blind trust has to
| involve a complete liquidation to cash to start off. That
| would make sense, since then there could be no
| assumptions about which securities the trust held.
| treis wrote:
| Google tells me that Rick Scott from Florida is the richest at
| a net worth of $260 million. Which, in the grand scheme of
| things, isn't all that wealthy.
| ipaddr wrote:
| 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.
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| 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.
| calebm wrote:
| The best way to predict the future is to make it.
| grillvogel wrote:
| Interesting that DelBene is also so high on the list but not
| really mentioned at all
|
| "Her husband, Kurt DelBene, is Chief Digital Officer and EVP of
| Corporate Strategy, Core Services Engineering and Operations at
| Microsoft Corporation,[33] and led the effort to fix the
| Healthcare.gov website at the request of President Barack
| Obama.[34]"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzan_DelBene#Personal_life
| sceew wrote:
| Not sure why the % returns really matter here.
|
| 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.
| swalsh wrote:
| Is there an ETF where I can invest in the same things politicians
| are investing in?
| soheil wrote:
| No because if there was and it did outperform the market, the
| returns would quickly evaporate as more and more people rushed
| in to invest in that ETF.
| somebodythere wrote:
| And yet strategy ETFs still exist
| renewiltord wrote:
| She does as well as Rentech's Medallion fund. Looks like Warren
| Buffett has a competitor.
|
| Reminds me of Hillary Clinton's remarkable skill trading cattle
| futures. I suppose great politicians must also be great at
| reading the market. Incredible talent.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Warren Buffet has not had much luck since the Goldman Sachs
| investment in 2008. If anything, he's had a few investments
| flop (IBM, Kraft Heinz) and missed out on a ton of growth from
| not being in tech. I assume BRK is keeping up with the market
| due to its significant AAPL holdings.
| renewiltord wrote:
| So much for value investing, eh? Looks like tech stocks are
| where it's at.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Tech stocks delivering stellar profits and profit margins,
| increasing quarter after quarter for years, is value
| investing to me.
| renewiltord wrote:
| But not to the BRK boys, who underweight tech.
| [deleted]
| udev wrote:
| Isn't this just saying that Pelosi has a good financial advisor?
| vmception wrote:
| aka Nancy Pelosi is a good financial advisor to Paul Pelosi
| lupire wrote:
| Of course. Classified intelligence reports and draft
| legislation negotiations are a great advisor.
| tootie wrote:
| It looks like she bought apple, amazon and nvidia. Not
| exactly obscure bets.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| It's the timing, not that they are popular stocks.
| swalsh wrote:
| She also doesn't seem to be in a hurry to legislate them
| either.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| Boy this contract for Boeing looks like it's gonna go through.
| Better invest!
|
| Uh oh looks like Lockheed isn't getting any this year. Better
| divest!
| samstave wrote:
| Pelosi et al
|
| are fucking criminals. They should be in prison...
|
| I dont think its my responsibility to tell you why, and how... If
| you have not been paying attention to the corruption that is all
| abound between tech and politics, or even if you havent even had
| a glimpse/perception of it or a gut feeling for it, then nobody
| can help you on that path.
|
| She is scum, there are so many that are scum.
|
| She needs to have AGE limits and EARNING limits applied to her
| seat in congress....
|
| Get the fuck out.
|
| She attempted to place her god-son (Newsome) as the next
| presidential candidate and he fucked up so badly in CA that they
| went with her next best minion, the prison person: Kamala
| Harris....
|
| You remember her? The Coked out girlfrien of Willy Brown? The one
| who created a secret Masonic Police in the state of california,
| the one who wanted to jail parents if their kids missed school.
| The one who wanted to keep people in for profit prisons beyond
| their release dates so the prisons got more tax payer money?
|
| Yeah - I am not doing the research for you... go look it up if
| youre ignorant to what pieces of shit these people are....
| metabagel wrote:
| 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...
| ipaddr wrote:
| "he would be subject to prosecution if that's what he was
| doing"
|
| You would, so would I but history has shown he won't have to
| worry about that.
| DevKoala wrote:
| Studying Pelosi's portfolio is one of the key strategies every
| trader should know by now.
|
| I have made a lot of money following her trades, particularly
| when she jumped in on Crowdstrike right before the government
| security hacks.
|
| This lady can tell the future. /s
| whoopdedo wrote:
| 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.
| pjfin123 wrote:
| It looks like they outperform the general market and hedge
| funds, probably not a bad idea:
| https://www.barrons.com/articles/SB5000142405311190443360457...
| tootie wrote:
| 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.
| chaostheory wrote:
| It's not a fund, but hopefully they're still up and running.
| https://govtrades.org/
| abeppu wrote:
| Far beyond limiting what members of congress or other high office
| holders can invest in while in office, I think the ideal should
| be that public office holders must play a Rawlsian gamble: when
| they leave office, we select a random citizen, and their level of
| wealth is wiped to match that citizen. Excess goes to a fund for
| public campaign financing.
|
| Not only should politicians not be incentivized to select
| policies which benefit them specifically, but they should be
| incentivized to select policies which materially benefit the
| population overall.
| bagacrap wrote:
| "This is pretty incredible, for an average return of her stocks
| and options is 56.15%. The S&P, with its raucous best performing
| year, is only up 36% from last June"
|
| Strange to compare against sp500 when her holdings are more
| aligned with NASDAQ, up ~50% from last June.
| wil421 wrote:
| Hey man they are trying to make news and get clicks. Doing a
| favorable comparison isn't going to get traffic.
| jedimind wrote:
| The most common symbol of comparison is the s&p500, you'll
| usually find it as first suggested symbol among the most
| popular charting software (tradingview for instance)
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| I'd be fine with politicians being paid more if it was completely
| illegal (with prison time) for them or their partners to do this.
|
| Seems like the system is built in a way that encourages them to
| insider trade and throw kickbacks around to maximize their wealth
| while in power and after.
| robbmorganf wrote:
| Just an observation: IF we take it as GIVEN that policymakers are
| going to find a way to earn some fixed amount X which is greater
| than their salary (this is a big assumption and probably not
| true, but just for a thought experiment)
|
| THEN maybe making money from stock options is actually better
| than taking money from lobbyists? Lawmakers can make money from
| both hurting and helping companies, so it doesn't create a
| particular incentive to go out and help PARTICULAR companies
| (that said, there is an incentive to create volatility, which
| isn't great). Meanwhile, lobbying tends to advantage some of the
| least ethical companies (e.g. Opiods, fossil fuels) because the
| only incentive is to HELP the company at the expense of
| customers.
|
| To be clear, I don't think it's right for lawmakers to make any
| more by virtue of their position than the salaries set forth by
| the law. I'm just saying that of the several unethical ways they
| can make money, stock options have incentives least misaligned
| with the public good.
| Clubber wrote:
| >I'm just saying that of the several unethical ways they can
| make money, stock options have incentives least misaligned with
| the public good.
|
| You are assuming that said laws are for the public good and not
| the good of lobbyists. I would guess this happens more often
| than not: politicians pass a law that is for lobbyists and
| against the public good, then make money buying stock against
| the reaction of said law.
|
| "Never trust a politician," is probably as old as civilization,
| why do we think ours are any better?
|
| Oh, and when the system finally crumbles from under all the
| rot, guess who suffers and who doesn't. I'll give a hint, the
| people who control the police and criminal justice system won't
| be the ones suffering.
| jdoliner wrote:
| Making money through insider trading is very maligned with the
| public good. One it is essentially using the stock market as a
| mechanism to transfer wealth from unknowing public traders to
| insider traders, if they're making money they're making it off
| of someone. Two, because of this, it creates the existential
| risk of a lose of trust in the public markets which can lead to
| their collapse. It's a real case of who watches the watchmen
| though because insider trading laws were, of course, created by
| congress itself.
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| Why are all of the members of Congress extremely wealthy? Doesn't
| seem particularly representative of the general population.
| Members of the UK Parliament are generally upper-class, but
| they're not all extremely wealthy.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| They aren't all extremely wealthy. The powerful committee
| leaders, majority and minority leaders, etc. generally are
| because they are the ones who choose which issues will make it
| to general debate and vote, so they are the ones who have the
| ability to influence markets.
|
| Some random young representative from the middle of nowhere has
| almost no influence in congress. It takes years and powerful
| backers to develop that. Part of the argument for term limits
| is to prevent people from making a career out of being a
| representative or senator, which is what you need to do
| accumulate power.
| wyldfire wrote:
| Sorry if this is a stupid question - I've only seen options as a
| compensation mechanism. Can you buy options on the open market
| just like shares? If not, how do politicians end up with options?
| computerex wrote:
| Of course, they are a huge market. You can do it with most
| brokers including robinhood.
|
| Not only can you buy options, you can also write the contract
| and sell it on the market.
| akiselev wrote:
| An "option" is a generic name for a contract that gives you the
| _option_ of doing something in the future. The stock options
| employees get as part of their compensation and the options
| stock traders deal in (a financial instrument) are very
| specific forms of those kinds of contracts.
| odiroot wrote:
| This is what "kids" on Robinhood were doing the last year or
| so.
| vmception wrote:
| The "options as a compensation mechanism" are primarily due to
| the tax efficiency of options as a whole.
|
| The options contract market is massive, in the public markets
| they are fungible and actively tradeable. In private equity
| markets they are mostly limited to compensation mechanisms.
| swalsh wrote:
| Options are probably the most common mechanism for a person to
| leverage themselves. An out-of-the-money option will yield far
| more than simply buying a single share. That said, it's a lot
| more risky.
| soheil wrote:
| Yes you can buy options, however, you need a different type of
| brokerage account to trade options. I believe there is a high
| minimum amount, a few hundred thousands, to open an account
| that is able to trade options.
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| You can trade options with just a couple of bucks or on
| margin. You don't need a bunch of cash. I've done it on
| Robinhood and bought some calls for a few hundred bucks.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Yes, you can purchase (and sell) options via many brokerage
| websites. Robinhood became quite popular because it made it
| very easy via an app for the masses.
| rtkwe wrote:
| There's loads of different options. A quick introduction:
|
| https://www.investopedia.com/options-basics-tutorial-4583012
| [deleted]
| kmonad wrote:
| +56% vs the S&P's +36%. This does not look "suspicious", from a
| purely statistical point of view.
| La1n wrote:
| Especially considering this is a multiple testing issue. When
| checking a lot of politicians there is likely going to be
| someone who is doing really well, even if it's just by chance.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons_problem
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| As a single data point I agree, I wonder if there is a long
| term view. Especially something that tracks before office,
| during office, after office.
| dpierce9 wrote:
| They sold Amazon calls going into COVID. A call is a right to buy
| so selling a call means you have an obligation to sell the stock
| to the buyer at the strike price on or before the expiry
| (assuming American option). Can't see the strike price or expiry
| but there is no way they didn't lose money on that trade since
| Amazon was up up up and away every month after that and it would
| have had to be way out of the money not to trigger. In other
| words, not a particularly heads up trade.
| sentinel wrote:
| Disgusting.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| I'll have what she's having.
| boulos wrote:
| Oh and looking more closely, this methodology is super poor
| (though I'm sympathetic to the challenge with the disclosure
| format).
|
| Basically, by assuming that all the trades were the maximum of
| the range (and per trade), it's overweighting the PayPal and
| Crowdstrike performance and downweighting the MSFT and GOOG
| "under performance" (they bought GOOG near the top?).
|
| I don't follow why most of the Feb 20 options aren't being valued
| either. _Those_ were the "scandalous" trades. And they were all
| (IIRC), 1-year out LEAPs or something. Seemed a reasonable thing
| at the time! ("People are panicking, buy now and assume it's back
| to normal in a year").
|
| Has someone done a more careful analysis? (At the very least, I
| strongly doubt that the positions would be the same between the
| crowd strike and MSFT shares, and that the MSFT shares were
| purchased alongside the MSFT options as a hedge).
|
| Edit: And umm, all the options trades are listed _explicitly_ as
| the number of contracts purchased. So people can easily look up
| the VWAP or similar for the purchase date and get a real
| number...
| misiti3780 wrote:
| I wouldnt be against members of congress trading stocks as long
| as the trades were published at the end of every day after market
| close.
| subsubzero wrote:
| 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.
| kinghajj wrote:
| I think there'd be room for covered calls & married puts in a
| politician's portfolio. The "collar" strategy is great for
| preserving one's capital. They should still be managed in blind
| trusts, though.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Her husband is making these trades and he's a longtime active
| investor and VC.
| soheil wrote:
| Did most "longtime active investor and VC[s]" make so much
| money?
| spullara wrote:
| Last year? Hell yes.
| minsc__and__boo wrote:
| Yes? The markets have had ridiculous returns in the
| reporting period and the spousal investments are not
| unusual.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Some do, some don't. Either way, attributing Nancy Pelosi's
| wealth to Something akin to insider trading, when her worth
| is largely derived from her husband's investment firm, is
| torturing the truth just a little bit.
| jtbayly wrote:
| Unless politicians outperform the market in general...
|
| Oops. They do.
| pvarangot wrote:
| Last year? I think in general yes, very much yes.
| marcellus23 wrote:
| ...which is itself a conflict of interest, obviously?
| trident5000 wrote:
| All comments critical of Nancy and the corruption getting
| downvoted in this thread. Democrat party censor contractor in
| full force.
| the_optimist wrote:
| 1) Nancy Pelosi is ethical and an upstanding citizen, a true
| hero-person among ordinary people. 2) There are no prospective
| conflicts of interest in having your significant other trade on
| your behalf. If there were any such conflicts, they're acceptable
| anyway. 3) There's nothing unusual around these trades. Many
| lawmakers underperform the market anyway. Also some people under-
| perform and over-perform. Nothing to see here nor question. 4)
| Legislating around the companies you buy and sell is an
| acceptable, both in governance structure and in economic
| opportunism 5) There is no way to mitigate these conflicts of
| interest anyway, so there is no point in paying attention to
| them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-21 23:02 UTC)