[HN Gopher] As Covid hit, Washington officials traded stocks wit...
___________________________________________________________________
As Covid hit, Washington officials traded stocks with exquisite
timing
Author : prostoalex
Score : 315 points
Date : 2022-10-20 18:21 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| akudha wrote:
| lol. For every person doing it blatantly, there must be more
| people doing it quietly? Like letting a friend of a friend in
| another state/country trade on the info? Are there ways to track
| these trades too?
| tb_technical wrote:
| "We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they
| even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they
| know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we
| certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but
| they are still lying. In our country, the lie has become not just
| moral category, but the pillar industry of this country."
| -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
| adabyron wrote:
| I think the best fix I've heard is that their trades need to be
| digitally announced immediately (within a few minutes of
| execution).
|
| There are currently fines for not reporting that often get
| waived. Even if they did make the fines legit, it becomes very
| difficult to track & indict them for tipping off friends or non-
| family members unless it's a very large amount worth many
| millions.
|
| Though to counter this argument the article mentions a few cases.
| North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr was not mentioned but he is
| still being investigated for what seemed like very obvious
| trading based on knowledge gained & tipping off family members.
|
| Alabama Sen. Tuberville is another good one to watch for trades
| in my opinion. He's very active. Last year he put out some big
| tech puts on MSFT that were very OTM (out of the money) for the
| spring of this year.
|
| Rep. Pelosi is overrated a bit in my opinion but is often the
| joke of these talks. Her husband Paul (a VC) most likely does all
| the trading & he seems to have just benefitted from using calls
| on stocks that are already ITM (in the money) & far dated. He's
| probably not a good person to use if you're working in tech in my
| opinion as your job & personal knowledge probably make you
| overweight in tech risks. Anyone mentioning Pelosi should also
| probably not be considered knowledgeable on this subject since
| she's 99% of the noise on it & very little substance.
|
| - Edit - It should be noted, anyone frequenting investment forums
| probably made a lot of these Covid trades before the dates many
| of these senators did. Not defending the senators but also the
| Covid thing was gaining a lot of traction in January & February.
| Many senators & reps didn't trade on it until March.
| fabatka wrote:
| > I think the best fix I've heard is that their trades need to
| be digitally announced immediately (within a few minutes of
| execution).
|
| Apart from the announcement, I'd add a delay of one day to the
| execution of said trades.
| social_quotient wrote:
| Does the SEC not still have some domain scope here? Why are
| different laws needed for a different class of citizen?
| shaburn wrote:
| The SEC has a budget determined by Congress.
| qclibre22 wrote:
| "Unknown to the public". Not true. People that read the news knew
| something was up and that they couldn't control the spread. Some
| smart money was trimming stock positions before the Senators.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > That same day, while the stock market remained lofty, Dr.
| Auchincloss reported selling $15,001 to $50,000 of a stock mutual
| fund. Days later he sold two more mutual funds and a stock
|
| > Dr. Auchincloss disclosed six sales of mutual funds that day,
| totaling between $111,006 and $315,000 in value.
|
| And
|
| > The rate cuts hadn't immediately calmed investors. Stock
| trading was halted for 15 minutes on the morning of March 16 when
| the S&P 500 fell 7%, triggering a so-called circuit breaker. The
| index staggered to the closing bell, down 12%.
|
| > That same day, Ms. Chao, the transportation secretary, made
| three purchases in stock funds that track the S&P 500 and the
| U.S. stock market broadly, totaling between $600,003 and $1.2
| million, according to her financial disclosures.
|
| Every time I click on one of these articles, I expect to find
| some individual stock trading related to specific companies on
| the receiving end of government action. However, when it ends up
| being vague examples of officials buying and selling broad-market
| or S&P index funds, it's much harder to see where the "insider
| trading" angle comes from. Especially when we have examples of
| officials trading in March, a full month after the viral panic
| had already spread through even public forums like Twitter.
|
| The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I'm not convinced that
| forbidding public officials from buying and selling generic index
| and mutual funds is really that big of a concern, IMO.
|
| Now if someone can find evidence of government officials buying
| something like Moderna stock ahead of the FDA approval, then by
| all means let's prosecute with stiff consequences.
| selectodude wrote:
| If you know about an imminent bill that, say, is going to
| inject fiscal stimulus to the tune of 10 percent of GDP and
| will reverse those stock market declines and then some, that's
| a pretty big reason to trade.
| googlryas wrote:
| Wouldn't you leverage up e.g. with options though, instead of
| just buying stock?
| fnikacevic wrote:
| It's not strictly about actual unethical behavior. It's also
| about not ever creating the appearance of unethical behavior
| which erodes trust in government institutions. It's half of any
| ethics course on the job.
|
| My friend who is a lowly public servant is not allowed to hold
| anything besides index/mutual funds already and has to report
| any trades of those before they happen.
|
| This is for an individual with no tangible insider info.
|
| Elected officials with significant insider info need to be held
| to a much higher standard.
| akira2501 wrote:
| The USPS made this abundantly clear if you worked there in
| the 1990s:
|
| "The appearance of impropriety is just as bad as impropriety
| itself."
| karmelapple wrote:
| Some Congress members didn't even want the STOCK bill of 2012
| to pass, including Senator Burr:
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/03/20/senators-a...
|
| (Other Congresspeople didn't support it, and also appear guilty
| of doing something with privileged knowledge, but I'd like to
| just focus on one person of note)
|
| Senator Burr was accused of behaving badly:
| https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/21/coronavirus-trading...
|
| And as of this year, unsealed FBI docs show he sold a bunch of
| stock: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/06/unsealed-fbi-docs-
| reveal-a-f...
|
| As far as I can tell, it did indeed involve individual stock
| purchases. As the article says:
|
| > According to the FBI, "As a result of Senator Burr's sales on
| February 13, 2020, his portfolio went from approximately 83% in
| equities to approximately 3% in equities."
|
| So... as far as I can tell, this absolutely has happened. And
| although Senator Burr and other officials didn't officially get
| charged, I would very much like to stop this behavior.
|
| When you get elected, you simply give up the ability to own and
| trade certain things, because you just have too much knowledge
| and power. Serving your fellow country people should be the
| bonus reward beyond a salary, not some stock trades.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| There are two kinds of problematic trading by members of
| Congress:
|
| 1. Straight-up insider trading. Buying or selling shares in
| individual stocks based on inside information. This is flagrantly
| illegal [1].
|
| There are bills seeking to go further, banning the trading of
| individual stocks by Congressmen [2]. While we have limited
| evidence of this being a widespread problem, it's a good measure
| for public trust purposes.
|
| But this article is not about that! It's about:
|
| 2. Insider trading on indices. This is also illegal! The FBI
| subpoenaed a sitting Congressman's phone [3] when investigating
| concerns around this. But absent an incriminating text or e-mail,
| it's difficult to convince a jury the sales were made because of
| insider information versus because they felt like selling that
| day.
|
| Fortunately, this is an old problem with an old solution: 10b5-1
| plans [4]. These are not without issue [5]. But given the power
| and insider access a sitting Congressman has relative to most
| public company CEOs, it makes sense to implement. To my
| knowledge, nobody has suggested a 10b5-1 analogue for public
| officials.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
|
| [2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-
| bill/349...
|
| [3]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_tra...
|
| [4] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/03/24/a-guide-to-
| rule-1...
|
| [5] https://www.wsj.com/articles/executive-stock-sales-are-
| under...
| nightski wrote:
| Honestly just making them disclose trades before they make them
| would be a huge step forward. This wait 30 days nonsense is
| ridiculous.
| pstuart wrote:
| This is a bipartisan problem and should hopefully unite us in
| demanding an end to the practice.
|
| A more problematic issue is legalized bribery via campaign
| contributions -- our representation should improve when officials
| are not owned by their patrons.
| robg wrote:
| I was in the executive branch in 2020, there was no mobilization
| until March.
| jallen_dot_dev wrote:
| This article does an annoying thing where it gives you stats
| without proper comparison so you can't tell if the numbers are
| actually out of the ordinary.
|
| > _A deputy to top health official Anthony Fauci reported 10
| sales of mutual funds and stocks totaling between $157,000 and
| $480,000 that month._
|
| Impossible to tell if that's suspicious without knowing how much
| that deputy normally trades.
|
| > _officials at another health agency, Health and Human Services,
| reported 60% more sales of stocks and funds in January than the
| average over the previous 12 months_
|
| A better comparison would be to January 2019 to account for
| seasonality. Maybe people rebalance/reevaluate their investments
| at the start of the year.
|
| > _Then-Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao purchased more than
| $600,000 in two stock funds_
|
| Again, impossible to tell if that is unusual without comparison.
| Apparently she is worth 10s of millions of dollars.
|
| > _Nearly 400 officials across 50 agencies reported owning stocks
| in airline, resort, hotel, restaurant and cruise companies in
| early 2020, the review found._
|
| Okay...?
|
| > _[March] was the most active for trading by officials across
| the federal government, including at HHS_
|
| March was the most active for trading, period. Because the
| markets were melting down. Also, by March the impact was more
| widely known to the public.
|
| There's more stuff below the fold but this is getting tedious.
| [deleted]
| NickC25 wrote:
| Immediate disclosure of all trades (and reasons for the trade)
| needs to be the absolute minimum we have to push for as a
| society. Otherwise, all federal officials and their families
| should be completely banned from owning any kind of publicly
| available equity whatsoever for the entirety of the term.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Wasn't this the biggest wealth transfer in current history?
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| Of course, never let a good crisis go to waste
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Yup. However not just because of insider trading...
|
| Governments around the world mandated that (mostly) small
| businesses have to close and that blue collar work had to halt
| (due to relying on in-person interaction), all while pumping up
| the value of equities and real estate through monetary
| expansion. Then of course the smart money jumps out leaving the
| middle class holding the bag.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| > _Governments around the world mandated that (mostly) small
| businesses have to close_
|
| This was really insidious. Small shops selling [widget] were
| forced to close because the shop was non-essential. But
| walmart selling [the exact same widget] was allowed to keep
| doing business because they _also_ sold groceries and were
| therefore essential.
|
| Could they have forced Walmart to cordon off the non-
| essential aisles while keeping grocery section open? Could
| they have taxed walmart more to support the small businesses
| which were being strangled? Maybe they could have, but of
| course they didn't.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Not to mention, closing so many stores, forcing curfews,
| etc... just packed more people into the same store at the
| same time. Literally the opposite of social distancing.
|
| I used to always shop for groceries at 10pm because the
| store was mostly empty. The officials near me in their
| infinite wisdom decided stores have to close by 6 so they
| were packed all day long...
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| Governments do whatever they want and then find a PR
| friendly way of saying things.
|
| Of course we're not shutting down all the small businesses
| who compete with Walmart's! We're saving your life from the
| flu!
| fleddr wrote:
| The businesses you mention, small shops depending on
| electronic components, continue to suffer. They're last in
| line in the supply chain shortages, and many are
| disappearing.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > Wasn't this the biggest wealth transfer in current history?
|
| What does that even mean? What constitutes a "wealth transfer"
| as a single category?
|
| My guess is "salaries and wages paid" constitutes the largest
| wealth transfer every year.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Paying salaries and wages are not a wealth transfer, but a
| transaction, i.e. I give 8 hours of my day to my employer and
| receive cash in exchange.
|
| In this context the wealth transfer means devaluing wages and
| cash while inflating assets. The wage earning class got
| shafted losing purchasing power while the asset owning class
| made bank. All through the stroke of a pen, basically
| overnight.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > In this context the wealth transfer means devaluing wages
| and cash while inflating assets.
|
| How was this done?
| greatpostman wrote:
| Rules for thee but not for me.
|
| If you're a common worker paying taxes, you're a sucker
| shmatt wrote:
| This is March 2020, When Fauci was on TV claiming 200,000
| Americans will die, even though we didn't see those numbers
| just yet
|
| If you chose not to sell at that time, that's on you, but his
| subordinates believed him according to the article
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Hmmm it's as if those in power aren't looking out for us, but
| only their wallets.
|
| On both the left and the right...
| Uehreka wrote:
| I'm not gonna say that _no_ Democrats do this (because it would
| be clearly untrue, see Nancy Pelosi). But I do think it's
| pretty notable that this year a Democrat Senator proposed a
| bill to rein this in, and got 15 co-sponsors, all of whom were
| Democrats.
|
| As far as I can tell, the bill doesn't seem to have any culture
| war or partisan poison pills, so it seems pretty odd that a big
| chunk of the Democrats are _co-sponsors_ (many more may still
| vote for it if it comes to a vote) and zero Republicans are.
|
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/349...
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| I think this is because Democratic voters are more in tune to
| these issues than Republican voters. Not because Democratic
| politicians are intrinsically more honest, they're just
| responding to voter pressure. Get more Republican voters to
| recognize these issues and you may see more Republican
| politicians responding in kind.
|
| My reason to believe this is Democratic politicians _weren
| 't_ addressing these problems until after Democratic voters
| started to perceive the problem and apply pressure. The point
| being, politicians won't regulate themselves spontaneously;
| their feet need to be held to the fire by voters.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| Conservatives and Libertarian circles consistently make fun
| of Nancy Pelosi's blatant insider trading so I wouldn't be
| so sure. It's basically a meme.
|
| That said, additional legislation is unlikely to fix the
| issue, I'm sure Nancy will find another way to bypass any
| kind of checks coming their way (eg. setting up a company
| wherever in the world and trading through that).
|
| No, legislating this kind of things can just create
| additional work for the accountants of the powerful but it
| will never fix the problem.
|
| The only real change can come from removing power from a
| few hands and decentralise, giving it back to the people.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| I think conservatives see it either as a Nancy Pelosi
| problem, or a general government problem. Either way this
| doesn't apply pressure to their own Republican
| politicians. As a "Nancy problem", the incentive for
| Republican politicians is to let the problem continue
| because Nancy continuing to be contentious is politically
| advantageous for the Republican party. In the case of
| seeing this as a general government problem, their
| ideology says that the solution is less government. From
| this angle, Republican politicians still aren't
| incentivized to address this specific problem.
| nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
| At this point it's pretty much common knowledge that legislators
| engage in insider trading using nonpublic, oftentimes classified
| information and intelligence gathered on the taxpayer dime
| routinely and with no fear of political or legal repercussions.
| They're not particularly motivated to close this loophole either,
| for reasons which should be obvious.
|
| This should be a much bigger issue, IMO. We the People need to
| make them understand this blatant self dealing will not be
| tolerated.
| colordrops wrote:
| We've had legalized bribery with lobbying for a long time now,
| so I'd be surprised if this ever gets addressed.
| celtain wrote:
| >This should be a much bigger issue, IMO. We the People need to
| make them understand this blatant self dealing will not be
| tolerated.
|
| Compared to the impact they can have at their job (positive or
| negative), this just doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
| Obviously I'd prefer if they didn't do it, but I don't see why
| it needs to be a bigger issue.
|
| Insider trading causes two problems:
|
| * Undermines faith in, and thus reduces efficacy of, financial
| markets
|
| * Reduces the overall returns for everyone else a bit
|
| While it becomes a problem when rampant throughout the market,
| I don't think a few hundred members of congress would
| collectively have much impact here.
|
| I'm also a little wary of the kind of person who's willing to
| go into politics and isn't in it for the money. While there are
| a handful of truly dedicated public servants, most people who
| aren't in it for the money are either extreme ideologues or
| power hungry narcissists. I'll take a politician who's mildly
| financially corrupt over someone who wants to abolish either
| taxes or private property, and way over one who wants to become
| a dictator.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| This view assumes they actually do their job for the good of
| the people and also happen to profit off of what they
| privately learn in doing so. Instead of making decisions
| based on what can get them the better payout or preservation
| of their investments.
|
| To make it a programming analogy, to someone who has no clue
| about coding a yearly bonus to each developer based on lines
| of code written sounds like a good way to reward the more
| productive developers. But anyone with a couple days
| experience realizes how trivial that system would be to game.
| whakim wrote:
| I totally agree with the first part of your comment.
|
| I want to add that there's a real possibility that
| legislation to address this (totally legitimate) issue goes
| too far and makes it even harder for non-wealthy people to
| run for public office - I think it's unreasonable for a new
| congressperson who owns a home and a small amount of an S&P
| index fund to have to set up a blind trust for their
| partner's uncle.
| imperfect_blue wrote:
| Insider trading improves the efficacy of financial markets
| actually, since it allows markets to take non-public
| information into account. The bigger problem is that it opens
| up avenues of market manipulation and causes conflicts of
| interest.
|
| It's the same conflict of interests problem here. Are your
| politicians acting for the sake of the public, or do they
| have their own financial interests in mind when putting forth
| a policy? E.g. if they've made financial commitments in
| expectation of a policy that will benefit that investment,
| that can most certainly influence their decision on said
| policy.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Only if you know which insiders to watch. It's just as
| likely to set off irrational panics. I think the efficiency
| argument involves a lot of hindsight bias even though it
| may be made in good faith.
| petsfed wrote:
| I think the real threat is the already dire state of American
| faith in its own governmental system. The issue is not that
| the congress people are in a position to act on insider
| information. It's that they're in a position to make moves,
| then enact policies that make those moves more lucrative.
|
| Consider the extreme: a congress person shorts a stock
| because they know a downturn is coming, then they enact
| policies that prolong the downturn and in turn increase their
| windfall.
| tootie wrote:
| That's not really what's implied in this article though. The
| term "insider trading" means something specific which is being
| inside a company. For Congress or executive branch employees
| that would accessing data that would typically be in an SEC
| filing before it's public. This is also not "self-dealing"
| which means appropriating official funds for your own purposes.
|
| Reading intelligence reports and selling mutual funds isn't the
| same thing. Not just on technicality but because there's no
| room for corruption. Insider corporate information can be
| exploited against people or even engineered to create
| opportunities. COVID was going to happen no matter what. And
| really COVID data wasn't really secret. Congress was having it
| shoved in their faces but the WHO and CDC were ringing bells in
| public disclosures for anyone savvy enough to understand.
|
| It's unsavory but it's not really a threat. At least not most
| of the examples listed in this article. There is likely some
| genuine corruption going on too. The SC just gave Ted Cruz (and
| everyone else) a pass to self-deal from his campaign fund.
| boxed wrote:
| > The term "insider trading" means something specific which
| is being inside a company.
|
| I don't think it does. You can hear overhear information from
| someone in a bar and that is still insider trading. That's
| how I remember my training from working in fintech at least.
| tootie wrote:
| Yes, that's correct you don't need to be an insider
| yourself only having knowingly received information from an
| insider. But either way it refers only to companies. Having
| access to scientific observations is fair game. Legally
| speaking at least.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Democrats spiked the legislation that would make it illegal to
| do it after the elections...and it looks like they will not do
| well enough to pass it in the next term and will undoubtedly
| pass nothing in a lame duck. It's a joke.
| bamboozled wrote:
| While you're at it, lobbying should be completely and utterly
| outlawed, anyone found taking money for political influence
| should be handed a hefty jail term or worse.
|
| It's absolute filth.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| OK, so let's say you strongly believe in the mission of
| CampaignForFooBarForAll. You've raised money for them, you've
| been on the marches, you've done the phone tree. But you want
| to do more.
|
| Someone suggests you head to DC, and start talking to
| congresscritters (or their aides) about the message of
| CampaignForFooBarForAll.
|
| You'd love to do this. But you need to pay the rent, and for
| food, and other regular expenses. Someone in the campaign
| suggests that they could pay for you to do this for 1 month a
| year.
|
| Shall we send you to jail?
|
| Let's suppose that you say "yes".
|
| Now consider Jan Lobbier, who works for BigMega Corp. Jan is
| employed there full time, with various duties. Among them are
| trips and calls to DC to put the company's position in front
| of The People Who Matter. This is not Jan's only job, just a
| part of their job duties. Should Jan go to jail?
|
| What you're suggesting would mean that lobbying could only be
| done by the financially independent (i.e. can lobby because
| they don't need to work), and that seems like a bad idea for
| everyone.
| bilvar wrote:
| soulofmischief wrote:
| How do we make them understand? Practically speaking.
| nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
| Superpac to direct donations to politicians found not to be
| engaging in this behavior? Because electorally there appear
| to be no repercussions at the ballot box, so speaking the
| only language they really understand, that of the almighty
| dollar?
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Vote them out. It's the only way.
| _jal wrote:
| That only works for bad actors in an otherwise good system.
|
| Systemic incentives tend to make idealists into insiders.
| You can blame people for being human if you want, but you
| will keep getting the same results.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That doesn't really work; there's little to link a defeat
| with any one specific issue in most cases, and the
| replacement isn't likely to get in for any one specific
| issue either.
| retzkek wrote:
| Yes, punish them with a cushy private-sector job lobbying
| and/or on some corporate board, that'll teach 'em! This is
| not a game "we, the people" can win, any more than the
| pawns can win a chess tournament.
| indigochill wrote:
| Only to vote in the next round of special beneficiaries of
| this insider knowledge.
| trelane wrote:
| The usual method is to vote them out. But, at least in the
| general election, the desire to vote the bum out is tempered
| by the need to keep _them_ from gaining power.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| That's why you get involved in grassroots politics and
| change the make up of the parties themselves.
| mandmandam wrote:
| I'm not sure you are appreciating the sheer scale of the
| monster that is being fought, its capabilities, or the
| lengths that it goes to in order to keep its dominant
| position.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| I do but replacing the establishment needs to start
| somewhere.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That's been happening and I can't say I'm impressed with
| the results so far. Idealistic reformers are easily
| manipulated by cynical strategists and there's been a
| notable uptick in clown candidacies.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Normally, the correct answer here would be "through votes",
| but what do you do when both sides are doing the exact same
| thing? Voter turn out is getting lower and lower.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Voter turnout where? In the US it's been on a long term
| upward trend, although it arguably trails rather than leads
| events. This upcoming midterm election is expected to set a
| record, possibly matching turnout for presidential election
| years if current trends hold.
| shaburn wrote:
| The worst part about this is the orders of magnitude negative
| effects on the Country as a result. Politicians are cheap and
| they are not paid for no reason.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > They're not particularly motivated to close this loophole
| either, for reasons which should be obvious.
|
| Agreed, but the ban on federal officials owning individual
| stocks is actually gaining momentum and I think has a good
| chance of passing, though what happens in November may change
| that.
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| What would keep them from telling their extended family or
| close friends the insider information?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Stiff prison terms
| nyokodo wrote:
| That's the same problem as any other kind of insider
| trading.
| Arrath wrote:
| With the added bonus of possibly dipping into classified
| information.
| charlieyu1 wrote:
| Inside trading is illegal to begin with. The problem is
| with prosecutions. That's why I don't think more bans will
| do anything.
| Supermancho wrote:
| Having the profits owned by another person adds risk from
| an insider trading scheme. Both risk in terms of
| information leaking and the "friend or family" simply
| having control of the money/goods.
|
| This is as good a start at curbing this behavior, as is
| practical right now.
| busterarm wrote:
| Then we just need term limits and to kill civil asset
| forfeiture
| 23skidoo wrote:
| Let's get rid of qualified immunity and add stronger
| protections against eminent domain while we're at it. Also,
| we need to address corrupt judges, we have very few legal
| mechanisms for that.
| busterarm wrote:
| I would like to drastically claw it back but I think
| there are limited circumstances where that immunity
| should apply.
|
| At the very least, criminal immunity and being required
| to carry large insurance policies for civil damages. Paid
| for out of pocket and underwritten based on their job
| performance/complaints.
| 23skidoo wrote:
| Police are people and people make mistakes, this needs to
| be recognized on some level, but QI as it is now is
| positively un-American. We're supposed to have checks and
| balances and recourse for misdeeds. Nobody should be
| above the law. You literally need circumstances like
| those surrounding George Floyd to hold police accountable
| in this country.
|
| 2A was supposed to be insurance against nonsense like
| this.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| and gerrymandering. And FPTP.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| > Then we just need term limits
|
| The best argument I know against this is that it shifts
| power toward lobbyists and all those awful "deep state"
| people (you know, career civil servants) everyone suddenly
| started being worried about a few years ago, and away from
| elected officials.
| delecti wrote:
| It also means that the _entirety_ of their last term is
| basically consequence-free. Currently a voted-out senator
| is a lame duck for 2 months; a "last term" senator has 6
| unaccountable years to do whatever they want.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Abolishing term limits just encourages politicians to
| start thinking about "What, after?" sooner.
|
| Not sure that's what we want to incentivize.
|
| Cronyism and back door politics within the government are
| far from the worst outcomes, especially compared to
| private industry having more power over government
| officials.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| I'm more in favor of a mandatory retirement age than term
| limits.
|
| Asset forfeiture has definitely got to go.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| We have term limits in several places (including
| California), I think TL proponents should make their case
| based on how that has worked out rather than pleasant
| hypotheticals. One downside I've seen is that it promotes a
| sort of legislative ladder-climbing mentality where
| ambitious legislators are primarily focused on using their
| office as a springboard to the next level of political
| power, and incentivized to propose changes with quite
| short-term payoffs.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| does it include spouses? Also doesn't prevent them from
| getting paid for information via other means. Or being
| promised cushy board positions once they are out of congress
| toss1 wrote:
| Rather than banning officials from owning individual stocks,
| just make all trades transparent in real time along with
| actual beneficial ownership (e.g., if someone owns stocks
| through an LLC, Trust, etc.).
|
| This would nearly instantly eliminate most of the advantage
| of insider trading with far less regulatory overhead and the
| inevitable over- and under-prosecution of crimes. Elon Musk
| or Mark Cuban or some legislator starts buying batches of
| options? Everyone already knows and the market can move on
| it's own.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| won't pass if GOP controls house and/or senate post-Nov
| nosequel wrote:
| Pelosi and her husband are the worst offenders in all of
| the house, it won't pass if the GOP or the Dem's control
| the house, don't kid yourself.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Agreed on Pelosi. But at least you have a pretty vocal
| contingent of House Dems pushing for it who might get
| their way; whereas on the GOP side nothing.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| In this case, though, they were not buying & selling
| individual stocks. So we would need to ban them from owning
| any equities, even shares of S&P 500 index funds.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| That's a much harder case to make.
| insanitybit wrote:
| I don't see why they should be banned from being a part of
| a double blind fund.
| karmelapple wrote:
| Agreed. You become an official? Congrats, you no longer
| have direct control of your investments.
|
| Would that be such a downer for people looking to serve
| in government? Certain special limits seem reasonable to
| apply to government officials that have special knowledge
| or other authority.
| elromulous wrote:
| Double blind? Consider e.g. knowledge the Fed is planning
| on raising interest rates before the public has it. That
| affects the market as a whole, so they could short sp500
| and have a leg up on us regular folks.
|
| The solution is simple. Being in office (or working for
| the federal government, or any level government for that
| matter) is a privilege, not a right. If you want to
| exercise that privilege, then you should have to give up
| the right to directly trade any stock/fund. Your broker
| whom you can't divulge any info to then has the same
| footing as the rest of us.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "(or working for the federal government, or any level
| government for that matter)"
|
| I don't think this is right. My small town government
| isn't going to make any money on trading. Even if we
| contracted with a company big enough to be public, the
| contract would be too small to make any impact. Also,
| most in the military or civilian contractor positions
| have no real insight into the market moving deals. Nor do
| they generally have the capital to really take advantage.
|
| It's the high level officials and bureaucrats that need
| to be restricted, not the rank and file.
| foobarian wrote:
| You could argue the high level officials will find a way
| around any restrictions anyway, so all you will do is
| punish the rank and file no matter what.
| nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
| Certainly hope it passes! Though with a high enough security
| clearance I'd imagine you could make a killing just going
| long/short on index funds, so I don't know how effective this
| would be at curbing the behavior.
|
| What we really need is all assets of elected officials held
| in blind trust, bar none, no exceptions, I think. Though I'm
| no hedge fund wizard and I'm sure there's a loophole to
| exploit there as well.
| huijzer wrote:
| > killing just going long/short on index funds
|
| Going short is always a bad idea. The market can stay
| irrational longer than you can stay solvent. In other
| words, you can win at most 100% while you can lose more
| than 100%, so why make such a bet.
| snapcaster wrote:
| It's not true that you can make at most 100% once you
| take into account leverage. But I agree with your general
| point that shorting is much harder than longing
| foobarian wrote:
| If you knew your spouse is going to announce an interest
| rate hike the next morning, shorting might be a
| relatively safe bet. And it's not like an index fund will
| move more than a few points at a time anyway.
| 8note wrote:
| Raise capital gains taxes on elected officials to 70%?
|
| That way the tax payer can still get the payout
| iwillbenice wrote:
| Regarding the security clearance, while you are not
| technically wrong in theory, in practice things are heavily
| compartmentalized at an individual human level by "need to
| know" practices.
|
| It kind of opened my eyes to how much a maze the IC is
| regarding classifications and data restrictions. We may
| both have TS clearances, but I may have access to wayyyy
| more crazy stuff than you do, based on what I am officially
| working on. However, on paper we may have the same levels
| of "trust" from the system's perspective.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > What we really need is all assets of elected officials
| held in blind trust, bar none, no exceptions.
|
| Yes absolutely. I would also add:
|
| - Mandatory retirement from public office at age 65. We
| have minimum ages for elected office, nothing wrong with a
| maximum age.
|
| - Ban on lobbying for 10 years after leaving office.
| TrueSlacker0 wrote:
| - Mandatory retirement from public office at age 65. We
| have minimum ages for elected office, nothing wrong with
| a maximum age.
|
| Match it to social security age.
| jrd259 wrote:
| Why the age cap? Is there a evidence that elderly are
| statistically more likely to be corrupt than the young?
| Or perhaps you think we (I'm 66) have suffered
| significant cognitive decline?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| To cycle in fresh perspectives, and limit the power that
| can come from decades entrenched in office. People like
| Pelosi or McConnell are so powerful in part because they
| have been in office forever, have a network that is both
| deep and wide, have lots of people who owe them favors,
| etc. If you set a maximum age plus a lobbying ban, that
| enforces an end to that at some point.
|
| I'd be in favor of a two-term limit personally, for many
| of the same reasons. If it's good enough for the
| President it should be good enough for other offices. I
| don't think political office should be a lifetime career.
| It attracts too many power-seeking, controlling
| personality types. We don't need those people around
| forever. Too many people in office have no private sector
| experience at all, yet they are making the rules that the
| rest of us live by.
| pcl wrote:
| I'd argue that Lord Acton was correct when he said that
| power tends to corrupt and that absolute power corrupts
| absolutely. Age limits are an easy (but slow) way to
| defeat the loopholes and issues with term limits, and
| make sure that those exercising power do not end up in
| that position for too long.
|
| Sure, a 65-year-old age limit would exclude some
| candidates who get into politics at a later age, or who
| are uniquely gifted. But there are plenty of examples
| from across the political spectrum of people who should
| perhaps move on to write their memoirs instead of running
| for that _n_ th term.
| sequoia wrote:
| I think there's a few reasonable reasons. I think 65
| might be too low, I'd probably go with 70, but one reason
| is just _to make room for new legislators_ which is good
| both to get new ideas & perspectives in from time to
| time, and also to ensure our government isn't
| _excessively_ skewed towards the perspectives of older
| people. The average age of a senator is 64.3 years[1]-
| the average age!
|
| Average age of US citizens is 38.8 years. I don't think
| this needs to be exactly the same & I think it's good for
| senators to skew older as wisdom accrues with age, but
| this doesn't simply mean "older is better."
|
| Mostly I think it would be good to build the next
| generation of leaders periodically. Senate seats are and
| congress are zero-sum, the next person can't get into
| that seat until someone else gets out, and those "years
| as a legislator" are important to operate effectively.
|
| 1: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46705#:
| ~:text....
| taude wrote:
| Most publicaly traded corporations have age limits for
| their c-suite, probably for good reason. Why shouldn't
| government?
| soulofmischief wrote:
| Sears is a private corporation. They can organize how
| they see fit. The government is an open, public
| institution built by and for the people. Each decision
| regarding who can participate in this government must be
| met with the utmost scrutiny.
| kodyo wrote:
| Older people are less likely to have to face the long
| term consequences of their corruption and depravity.
| robocat wrote:
| Don't target some bigoted stereotype. Target the problem
| of corruption.
|
| You can as easily argue the opposite: older people can be
| more conscientious because they have less to gain and
| less to lose. Who cares more about a payoff: someone who
| already has their gains and fewer years left, or the
| hungrier younger person?
|
| I suspect you have based your "fact" on sampling bias -
| we don't get good visibility metrics on young corrupted
| politicians (not so many young politicians, not so much
| time for them to have been caught making egregious
| errors). Disclaimer: middle-aged engineer type.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| > _Who cares more about a payoff: someone who already has
| their gains and fewer years left, or the hungrier younger
| person?_
|
| How many people in their tweens to 40th have ever filled
| the roles they were talking about? That's the only
| timeframe this argument would make sense to me.
|
| I really can't see their comment as bigoted as you claim.
| There really is a strong selection bias with people
| filling these roles at that age and them behaving like
| that. That's doesn't mean that people in that age braket
| are always corrupt, but people that have been in these
| roles for extended periods of time generally _are_
| corrupt.
| jwarden wrote:
| Agree, in almost all times and cultures I have read about
| or experienced, respecting your elders is a big deal. It
| is only in the last decade where it seems that attitude
| has flipped in popular liberal culture.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| This is a credible take and I would love see more
| discussion about this.
| abeppu wrote:
| The US at the federal level has other mandatory
| retirement ages, where the most similar role affected is
| the Foreign Service, but also pilots, air traffic
| control, and law enforcement. Many states have mandatory
| retirement ages for judges. One can easily argue that the
| risks if a senator undergoes cognitive decline are
| potentially just as serious as if a diplomat or judge has
| the same problem.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| >- Ban on lobbying for 10 years after leaving office.
|
| I'd rather see a lifetime vow of poverty, where
| officeholders were forbidden to derive any income at all
| other than their pensions.
| andersonvom wrote:
| I don't know about age limits, but it wouldn't be a bad
| idea to have term limits (both consecutive and total)
| bena wrote:
| Yes. Let's violate the first amendment, that should be
| fun.
|
| The term "lobbying" is essentially slang.
|
| Lobbying is just the name we give to the act of paying
| someone to petition the government for a redress of
| grievances on someone else's behalf. So to ban someone
| from lobbying for any amount of time is essentially
| banning them from petitioning the government. Which is
| forbidden by the Constitution.
|
| It's a way more complicated issue than "ban lobbying".
| awinder wrote:
| There are all kinds of existent laws and regulations on
| former elected officeholders allowed lobbying activities,
| many of the toothier ones at the state level but there's
| still a 2 year cool off at the federal level for
| congress. They'd run afoul of 1A protections if there was
| indeed an unfettered right to be paid to lobby on the
| behalf of others.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| I wouldn't impose mandatory retirement age on
| congressmen, but think there should be a age limit for
| the presidency and committee chairs. I think this is not
| particularly controversial.
|
| What people hate but I strongly believe in is that we
| should pay people a stipend to run for office. And we
| should pay congressmen and senators more than we do. And
| give them a full years salary when they leave office.
| Seriously guys producing webshit for FANNG companies are
| making more than their congressman.
| briffle wrote:
| Honestly, I would be okay with allowing them to continue to
| own stocks, but all trading activity is published in real
| time. I honestly think that would be more telling than just
| making them not own them.
| wisnoskij wrote:
| I am pretty sure all trading activity is published in real
| time. That is just how the stock market works.
| ProAm wrote:
| > We the People need to make them understand this blatant self
| dealing will not be tolerated.
|
| How? There are no term limits. The richer the get the more
| power the have. It's a self-sustaining circuit.
| jorblumesea wrote:
| The thing is that "we the people" are busy fighting each other
| over every political issue under the sun. Good luck getting the
| American people to agree on literally anything.
|
| This is by design of course. "You don't want the gays using
| your bathrooms!" while they pillage the country.
| gtirloni wrote:
| If HN had a vote budget, I'd use it all on your comment.
|
| Right now my country is having federal elections and
| everything from bathrooms to what people do in their beds in
| private is being discussed, except actual plans for
| education, health and the economy. It's a celebrity shitshow
| and it seems to have infected most countries.
| PubliusMI wrote:
| I think it's hilarious that you felt the need to exaggerate a
| genuine political conflict, transgender people using the wash
| facilities of their claimed sex, into the obvious strawman of
| not wanting homosexuals in bathrooms.
| [deleted]
| 23skidoo wrote:
| [deleted]
| iKevinShah wrote:
| I am not from US but I am pretty sure this is a common practice
| world-wide. Some places worse than others. But I used to work
| in Stock Exchange a few years back as System Administrator. And
| we were recommended to take permissions (which used to get
| approved quickly, within hours) to trade stocks. And all that
| info was available internally. Obviously, this was a "good to
| do" process rather than an absolute compulsion but even that
| small step stopped so many including me to not participate in
| Trading for my time there.
|
| Small steps can ensure transparency and maybe, just maybe, help
| with the problem.
| anon291 wrote:
| look up the history of the 27th amendment.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Can't read the article (paywall)... is it discussing senior
| bureaucrats or legislators?
|
| If Congress, the STOCK act really needs update to have some
| teeth. Right now, they usually get a $200 fine (which is often
| waive) for what is effectively insider trading. Make that fine
| 6 figures and maybe that'll help.
|
| If bureaucrats, I'm not sure why existing insider trading laws
| wouldn't apply? It seems we just need the DoJ/SEC to do their
| job.
| akudha wrote:
| How would a six figure fine help? If I made 125k for a few
| mins of insider trading work, and I get fined 100k, I still
| made 25k profit, right?
| cwkoss wrote:
| Should be a multiple of profit, not a flat amount. Or else,
| it just means the richest representative can still exploit
| it profitably.
| fragmede wrote:
| Fwiw, Kim Kardashian (I know) was fined $1.26 million for
| pushing crypto, despite only getting paid $250k for the
| appearance, which is either a lot or a little depending
| on how you look at it, but fine > payment, so the concept
| isn't foreign to the SEC.
| shagie wrote:
| Free sharing link - https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-
| washington-officials-stoc...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the STOCK act really needs update to have some teeth.
| Right now, they usually get a $200 fine (which is often
| waive) for what is effectively insider trading_
|
| This is not true. There is a fine for not disclosing. For
| actual insider trading, the FBI has subpoenaed sitting
| Senators' phones [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_
| tra...
| whimsicalism wrote:
| How did investigating their bosses go?
| 8note wrote:
| Isn't the president the FBI's boss, not senators?
| alistairSH wrote:
| Yes, but regardless, has any congressperson been charged
| with insider trading in the last decade?
| hedora wrote:
| They should either be forced to schedule trades 6-12 months out
| (during quiet periods where they cannot make public
| statements), or be forced to publicly disclose their trades in
| advance. (So NCNY and MTCH or whatever insider trading ETFs
| exist can let the public arbitrage in front of their insider
| trades).
| tosser99 wrote:
| 'Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it
| never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit
| to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and
| wrong which will be imposed upon them..." FD
| nkingsy wrote:
| Frederick Douglass (I had to look it up)
| [deleted]
| DanG2Point0 wrote:
| warinukraine wrote:
| I've long assumed that self-dealing is the reason why people go
| into politics anyway.
| efsavage wrote:
| Legislators should be allowed to trade, but should be
| considered insiders for any companies affected by legislation
| they vote on (which would effectively be all of them). They
| could use things like 10b5-1.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| A lot more people used to speak about this, from all regions of
| the political grid. It almost seems as if a primary outcome of
| the Obama administration was to coopt the left into supporting
| the bureaucratic establishment at all costs, especially if any
| critique of it could be characterized as populist and icky.
| xxpor wrote:
| That's probably more of a result of education polarization
| really taking off during his time. Who is the bureaucracy?
| White collar workers.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| I would argue that it's more the government and private
| sector partnerships, the revolving doors, etc.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I'd say a lot of today's left got radicalized during the
| Obama administration as it became apparent that Obama valued
| pragmatism and continuity rather than risking political
| dislocation by bringing wars to an abrupt end or major
| restructuring of financial markets. This might have worked
| great with a less ideologically driven opposition.
|
| Unfortunately that radicalized sector has often drifted
| towards a kind of antipolitics because the center-left has
| been comparatively ineffective and unable to respond
| adequately to the startling rightward shift of the GOP. The
| Democrats tend to cling to a rules-based system as the basis
| of a political mandate while the Republicans have had a
| strategy of opportunistically rewriting the rules at the
| first opportunity since at least the Gingrich era. In a way I
| don't blame them, it keeps working for them and a lot of
| their voters just aren't as hung up on intellectual
| consistency/credibility as the Democrats. It's perfectly
| acceptable for political surrogates on the right to state
| openly and explicitly that they DGAF about anything other
| than winning.
| TotoHorner wrote:
| Shaming people for purchasing/selling S&P 500 mutual funds is
| really dumb. Expected better from the WSJ.
|
| But yeah, trading individual stocks is highly suspect and should
| be illegal.
| dereg wrote:
| If you have the knowledge that Congress does, the S&P 500 is
| the only instrument you need to do very well for yourself
| shaburn wrote:
| Incorrect. Rarely, if ever, does any congress person have any
| insight or control into detrimental effects that would cause
| a market wide bear market or correction. If the do, it is
| even more unlikely the certainty of timing would be an
| advantage.
| eloff wrote:
| If you're going short or long the entire index on non public
| information, is that really innocent?
| [deleted]
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Shorting? Maybe not. But I would think we want congress to be
| long on the S&P, even if it _also_ benefits them.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Baked into this assumption is the assumption that the
| markets reflect the well being of the citizens, which is
| not the case, unfortunately.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > which is not the case, unfortunately.
|
| Generally when the markets are doing well are good times
| for more Americans.
|
| Obviously not a 1-to-1 and not necessarily a cause-
| effect.
| eloff wrote:
| Long in the long term, yes. Entering and leaving positions
| for short periods of time based on insider information
| seems sketchy to me.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Eh, so they have a vested interest in the 500 biggest
| companies particularly?
| seventytwo wrote:
| Want to fix it?
|
| You have to set the expectation and vote for the people who want
| to make government work.
|
| You can't expect to somehow curtail corruption by voting a bunch
| of people who want to dismantle the government into the
| government.
| cafard wrote:
| I don't know.
|
| "His January sales amounted to the largest number of transactions
| he had reported for a single month since 2018, according to his
| financial disclosures."
|
| Perhaps we could rephrase this as
|
| "His January sales amounted to more transactions than he had
| reported for any month in the preceding year."
|
| Or, if the that higher month in 2018 was early on, then "in the
| preceding _n_ months ". And for that matter, what was the dollar
| volume?
|
| "On March 13, then-President Donald Trump announced a federal
| partnership with the private sector to increase the nation's
| testing capability for Covid, inviting top executives at 10
| companies, including Target Corp., Walmart Inc., CVS Pharmacy
| Inc. and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc., to the White House for
| the announcement. Roughly 300 federal officials reported owning
| stock in at least one of the 10 companies at the time, their
| financial disclosures show."
|
| OK, but did they buy that stock the week before?
|
| Full disclosure: I own stock in CVS and Boeing, or maybe I don't.
| Like many rational and only moderately prosperous Americans, I
| have investments in mutual funds. I'll save the next statement
| and see how exquisite my timing has been.
| neilv wrote:
| It might simplify anti-corruption compliance for certain
| lawmakers, if investments by Congresspersons and other upper
| officials were required to follow Bogleheads good practice
| conventions:
|
| "You're permitted investment in one primary home, one vacation
| home, a 6-month emergency fund, and everything else in a specific
| asset allocation of index funds (your-age-in-bonds percent US
| total-market bonds index fund, and the rest divided 4/5 total-US-
| stock-market and 1/5 total-international-stock-market index
| funds)."
|
| "This rule will help you to be aligned with citizens' interests
| in their retirement accounts, while suppressing the unfair
| advantage of unprecedented clairvoyant genius market-timing that
| you discovered shortly after gaining office."
| papito wrote:
| The concept of "public service" is being slowly erased. The
| United States is becoming just like any other country, where
| people will do anything to get to power to get to the trough -
| it's the fastest way to get rich.
|
| Obviously has been happening for a long time. but there was some
| discretion to it. Now it's blatant and shameless.
| coffeeblack wrote:
| Your president has been in federal positions of power for 50
| years. Same for the speaker of Congress and many others. Why is
| anybody surprised that this is the outcome?
|
| That's what the "swamp" was all about.
| prewett wrote:
| So you want a bunch of people with no experience running the
| country? How many times in history has that not been a
| disaster?
|
| Merely being in power for a long time does not create a
| "swamp", bad ethics does. Bad ethics is known to be enabled by
| secrecy and inhibited by transparency. The solution needs to
| address the actual cause, not some unverified assumption, so
| more transparency is far likelier to actually reduce
| corruption.
|
| (And the guy who was going to "drain the swamp" was the
| swampiest guy around. Turns out he fights tooth and nail
| against any transparency into his affairs. Huh.)
| Aperocky wrote:
| Should just have trade windows, preferably during recess.
|
| This has been proven to work (and even applies to plebs like me)
| so why not implement it there?
|
| Mr. Senator big brain going to take advantage of the 2 week
| recess to trade - go for it.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Washington Officials to me means officials in the state of
| Washington.
|
| It's compounded by the fact that most people who live in
| Washington, DC won't say they are "from Washington." It's
| exclusively a media phenomena.
|
| Is saying "Federal officials" so hard?
| affinepplan wrote:
| > anyone who lives in Washington, DC won't say they are "from
| Washington."
|
| not true. source: I live there
| whimsicalism wrote:
| You say you "live in Washington" without DC suffixed? If so,
| this is a new trend from transplants - lived there for 20
| years and pretty much never heard that from anyone local.
|
| And such a usage contributes to the confusion, in my opinion.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Your experience matches mine, people who live in or near DC
| say "DC". Sometimes "Washington, DC." Politicians and media
| say simply "Washington" because it sounds more formal or
| powerful.
|
| It's kind of like how everybody in Pennsylvania says "PA"
| in casual conversation. It just rolls off the tongue
| easier.
| esprehn wrote:
| I grew up there and live there currently. Everyone I know
| either says "DC", "the district" or "the city" depending on
| the context. Never heard anyone say "from Washington" who
| didn't mean the state.
| ISL wrote:
| Medical officials selling in March 2020 makes, um, sense? The
| pandemic's potential for destruction was massively clear to
| medical-professionals by mid-February.
|
| It is easy to believe that those making the trades were acting
| primarily on information known widely to the public.
|
| Washington State announced its first deaths in late February [1]
|
| It isn't that hard to put two and two together and expect that at
| least a fraction of skilled medical professionals will react.
|
| I'm a physicist and I was still able to recognize by late
| Feb/early March that we were headed for trouble. Similarly, just
| before the Federal government stepped in with stimulus in late
| March/early-April 2020, as a value-investor, I'd just begun to
| feel that the markets had fallen enough to begin buying equities
| again after a multi-year hiatus.
|
| Trading on both signals (imminent pandemic, increasingly-
| reasonable trailing P/E ratios) will look "exquisite", but
| required nothing but reading the news and making sober
| assessments of both situations.
|
| One may also be able to look at the same trading data and find
| officials who made exquisitely-terrible trades, especially after
| late-March 2020, where volatile markets created outsized losers
| and winners.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Washingto...
| [deleted]
| matt3210 wrote:
| We could all see it happening in china but said "it won't happen
| here!" Lawmakers might have timed well, but they aren't the ONLY
| ones who did.
| eej71 wrote:
| If you want the money to stop flowing into politicians, you have
| to be willing to revoke the power they have over your economic
| liberties.
| boomskats wrote:
| When I saw this headline, I assumed it would be an article
| discussing the military stock trading activity of members of
| Congress in the week or two prior to to Russia's surprise
| unilateral decision to invade Ukraine.
| huevosabio wrote:
| This wouldn't be much surprise though, right? The President had
| been quite vocal of the imminent invasion, it just that a lot
| of people decided not to believe it.
| boomskats wrote:
| I mean, you could say the same thing about COVID. The fact
| that the relevant stock stayed flat & didn't skyrocket until
| the day of the actual invasion suggests that there was some
| surprise.
| Relive3778 wrote:
| https://archive.ph/Zlhkj
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-20 23:02 UTC)