Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress | Hacker News Reader

Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress

businessinsider.com

61 pointshncurious20 comments

No surprise there as she is one of the ones that has made a lot of money on trades. Especially her husband who seem to have a sixth sense on when to trade...

Maybe an alright ban isn't "fair" but then the SEC should have the power to look very closely at possible insider trading. This also include insights into closed hearings that produced information that was traded on.

However, a ban would be so much easier, yet we all know their spouses/friends will do the trades instead.

I guess the only real solution would be term limits making this a temporary thing.

Stupid question, but is it still considered insider trading if the information gleaned is not directly from a company insider?

I mean, if a senator gets wind of upcoming legislation that may affect a specific company or sector, and they act on that, it's not insider information coming from someone within the affected company, so is that still considered insider?

I'm fairly certain it is. The way to think about it, do you have knowledge which isn't in the public domain which would give you an unfair trading advantage.

Here's some examples:

- In a closed door US senate committee, they are planning to stop all government vehicles from using fossil fuels. Stock of oil companies will mostly move.

- In a closed door US senate committee, they have decided to buy $50B of a vaccine from pharma provider FOO. Stock of FOO will likely move.

> The way to think about it, do you have knowledge which isn't in the public domain which would give you an unfair trading advantage.

Matt Levine does a good job of explaining why that’s not the way to think about it: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-04-01/anothe...

As he’s stated many times, it’s about theft, not fairness. (Of course, there may be an argument that these examples are theft or a breach of trust or confidence.)

I'd argue the knowledge of upcoming legislation itself is the insider information. It's not insider as in "inside the company's organization" but it is insider as in "inside the legislation organization". When it's your job to make decisions that can impact entire economic sectors, a lot of what you touch would be considered far more powerful insider information than most things that are considered insider information in a company.

Maybe it doesn't fall under current definitions of insider information (I'm not sure), but maybe it should.

Every job comes with it's drawbacks. It's perfectly fair that they should not be able to profit off of their decisions that are supposed to be made for the people they represent.

You know the money is influencing their politics. That much should be taken away as much as possible.

What's not fair is that the rest of us don't get the same information as them, and can't profit the same way they do.

> "The speaker does not own any stocks," said Hammill. "As you can see from the required disclosures, with which the speaker fully cooperates, these transactions are marked 'SP' for spouse. The Speaker has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions."

lol

So? Are you implying then that not only does there need to be a ban, it also needs to apply to immediate family members? Where does it stop? in-laws? cousins? Neighbors? How is that supposed to be enforced?

I was under the impression that staff at banks that do trading already have a very stable and accepted system for this. And are very good at enforcing it.

Its not unclear. Sometimes difficult to enforce but borders are easy to define:

"In 1984, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Dirks v. Securities and Exchange Commission[25] that tippees (receivers of second-hand information) are liable if they had reason to believe that the tipper had breached a fiduciary duty in disclosing confidential information. "

"Insider trading" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading

Indeed. With a so-called "chinese wall" that only happens to work in one direction (husband has access to info from his wife, but he is careful not to tell her about his/their trading), this might not be a fib, but would certainly be a shining example of equivocation and corruption.

I apologize for responding to myself, but I want to point out that I don't know the specific laws that may govern whatever account under which Pelosi's husband is executing trades. As I understand it, all property between spouses (in Minnesota, at least) is considered implicitly as "joint tenants in common" between spouses, but this may not be the case in California.

If all property in California is considered joint tenants in common between spouses, then this gives the lie (not mere equivocation) to the statement that "...the speaker does not own any stocks".

Can anyone shed light on this matter?

Anybody figure out why the twitter account that was tracking her trades got banned?

just a theory, but may be the new Twitter policy that you can't use other people's images without their permission? The account has Pelosi's picture, seems like a insta ban under that rule.

I’m tempted to be way more cynical about this. It’s hard not to.

interesting hypothesis -- wonder if uploading a cartoon of her face would be sufficient then

There is (was?) a carve out for public figures in that policy

What are the ethics of relying on self-enforced ethics? Isn't it a conflict of interest in having a body be able to vote on the rules they apply to themselves which are different than the rules applied to random members of the public?

This is pure politics. Why is this on HN?

EDIT: I'm clearly not dang, but from the rules:

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."

Politics + stocks != Hacker News.

Because a proper enrichment strategy would be copy her trades ( oops sorry ...of her husband...)?. Based on inside information not available to common investor (oops sorry...I meant to say based on highly skilled investment expertise and sheer luck.).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com