Do you oppose congress critters trading stocks?

[Saylick]

I'll allow index funds. You hitch your wagon to the market as a whole. Not a single stock you can game.

Still doesn't eliminate them liquidating their index fund allocation if they know the whole market is going to tank, e.g. like when Covid happened and some members of the Senate had closed door meetings that gave them advanced warning of the impending shut-down. I still think the proper solution requires that they cannot make any stock transactions, regardless whether it's in an index fund or individual stocks, on short notice. Let Congress hold stocks, but all transactions need to be scheduled in advance; the larger the transaction in dollar amount, the longer in advance it needs to be scheduled.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I oppose them trading while in office. I don't mind them being in mutual funds that are open to public investment (like stuff I could buy), but they have to suck it just like the rest of us when they cause the economy to tank.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Still doesn't eliminate them liquidating their index fund allocation if they know the whole market is going to tank, e.g. like when Covid happened and some members of the Senate had closed door meetings that gave them advanced warning of the impending shut-down. I still think the proper solution requires that they cannot make any stock transactions, regardless whether it's in an index fund or individual stocks, on short notice. Let Congress hold stocks, but all transactions need to be scheduled in advance; the larger the transaction in dollar amount, the longer in advance it needs to be scheduled.

Yeah this would work. And I'd think they would have to announce their intentions so the rest of us could make the same moves. And no takebacks. Once you announce, it is set in stone.

 

[fskimospy]

I think something may be missing here. The question is if they can trade stocks. I am super against that. If the question is if they can invest their money in an index fund that seems great to me.

 

[Saylick]

Yeah this would work. And I'd think they would have to announce their intentions so the rest of us could make the same moves. And no takebacks. Once you announce, it is set in stone.

We, the public, should not need to follow the trading activity of Congress members in order to be successful at investing in the stock market. The whole idea of making them schedule their stock trades way out in advance is to eliminate any potential edge they might receive as a Congress member, thereby making their stock trading decisions no more informed than the typical trader who only has access to publicly available information. The framework for which we regulate stock trading for Congress members will be deemed successful if the odds of you making more money by knowing what Congress is doing with their stock trades is the exact same as as if you did not know what they were doing.

Simply put, if you knew what Congress was doing with their stock trades, made the exact same moves as them, and were more successful than the average trader using this method, all this proves is that Congress members have insider knowledge and were able to capitalize on it (Note: there is a chance that perhaps some Congress members are just good stock traders, but let's be real. If they could be consistently successful trading the stock market without having to be a Congress member, they would not be a Congress member). It does not eliminate the corruption; it only means you are now able to partake in the benefits of it. The goal should be to eliminate the corruption.

 

[pauldun170]

Legislators are already bound by the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ105/PLAW-112publ105.htm
and have to report all trades.

According to the video of the press conference

Pelosi responded to a question about banning congressional lawmakers and their spouses from trading individual stocks while serving in congress.


She isn't responding to a question of trusts or any other concepts
She isn't scoffing or whatever "exiting " word makes this sound like some sort of scandalous press conference.

Reporter brought up a journalists report that some members of congress and staffers had violated the stock act and asked if she supported banning congressional lawmakers and their spouses from trading individual stocks while serving in congress.

She said no to the ban. She said she wasn't familiar with the report and then said that "we should be able to participate in a free market economy"
"No, we have a responsibility to report in\on the stock. I'm not familiar with that review but if people aren't reporting they should be...
because this is a free market, we are a free market economy and we should be able to participate."

Do I think legislators should not have the ability from trading stocks?
There are all sorts of ways that you can deal with the risks of legislators and their spouses acting on insider information while allowing them the ability to trade stocks.
30 day wait periods, pre-clearance, reporting and "actual fines" for violations.


what the fuck is with the source article? didn't anyone actually read that?

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is defending lawmakers' ability to own stocks as some progressives call for the practice to be banned for those who hold elected office. "
Seriously....think that one through.

 

[MixMasterTang]

I dont. They are people like anyone else. Is the potential for abuse there? Of course; however, there are safeguards in place. Congress critters desrve to take risks and reap rewards like the rest of us.

Pelosi agrees with me:

Pelosi Opposes Ban on Lawmakers Trading Stocks as Her Family Makes Millions on the Market (msn.com) [Newsweek]

Your Poll question and Thread title are kind of opposing statements and could confuse some of the people's response. Why did you choose to ask pretty much opposing questions in the poll vs the thread title?

 

[Zorba]

Politicians need to Divest before taking office. If they want to buy Stocks they can leave Political life.

I don't think they need to divest, but they should be in a blind trust or on some sort of automatic plan.

@blackangst1 The wording in the title and poll are opposite each other, you should update the title.

 

[Moonbeam]

So in other words, make illegal things illegal?

What? You said she opposes a law to make something legal illegal, not make illegal what is illegal. I said she should make a law that says that everything that should be illegal IS illegal.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Personally I think all Governors and above should be REQUIRED to put their monies in a real blind trust. Real as in your Son doesn’t manage it. Real as in it is with a major investing firm that has no direct access to you and only sends a profit/loss summary.

 

[ivwshane]

I think a reasonable solution would be that if you are a politician all your buying and selling must go through and congressional oversight type committee ran by an independent group kind of like the GAO. I think the GAO does look into that kind of thing now but I think it’s after the fact and possibly only if it’s brought to their attention.

 

[Meghan54]

Hell, make ‘em all divest into I Bonds while serving. They can tread water while serving.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yes, I oppose it.

 

[Ajay]

I don't oppose, I just think congress critters should jump through some pretty high hoops to invest. It is either a privilege and honor to serve, or it's nothing.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I don't oppose, I just think congress critters should jump through some pretty high hoops to invest. It is either a privilege and honor to serve, or it's nothing.

I think they get plenty of perks, whereas stock trading should not be allowed. Anything they do before becoming ab elected official is fine, but during their time of serving no way. You wanna get back into stock trading fine, but resign.

 

[Ajay]

I think they get plenty of perks, whereas stock trading should not be allowed. Anything they do before becoming ab elected official is fine, but during their time of serving no way. You wanna get back into stock trading fine, but resign.

Fair enough - I can respect that. I would be okay with that. I liked @vi edit's allowance of index funds only. I think having to provide a (30, 60, 90 day) notice of intent to sell would also prevent abuse. The main point to me is preventing impropriety. If congress-critters are financially successful, by legal means, I'm not opposed to that - so long as the bar is very high. Senators, in particular, come from money anyway. Seems to me that most of the wealth built up by those in congress are due to creating successful businesses. Given the vast networks they build over time, they are in a great position to develop and expand business operations, with access to the best advice and getting their way vis-a-vi zoning variances and what not from local political offices given the political clout they have from high office.

Bottom line, I suppose I could go either with either decision, if it every came to that.

I also want term limits, which would prevent these jokers from becoming entrenched in the system with enormous power. Oh, and hang all the lobbyists [not really, but...]

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm willing to accept some of that, but if the congress person forfeits pension and healthcare

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I personally find it absolutely pathetic that they have the ability to profit off of what is expressly illegal for anyone else in the market. I am legally barred from having an opinion and have to parse everything I say but they can take whatever info they have and make millions. And they do. The wealth growth once someone hits congress is astounding.

Force blind trusts and tight restraints around family activity. Hell everything my family does is monitored and reported.

 

[Ajay]

I'm willing to accept some of that, but if the congress person forfeits pension and healthcare

Well, pensions and healthcare (after holding office?) are ridiculous 'gifts' that congress has given themselves. Give them 401ks like the rest of us schmucks, 50% match. I'm pretty sure the max annual limits for 401k contributions will go up 5 times if that would happen.

Ugh, great. I'm getting so pissed off at these bozos. Too early to have a drink.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Well, pensions and healthcare (after holding office?) are ridiculous 'gifts' that congress has given themselves. Give them 401ks like the rest of us schmucks, 50% match. I'm pretty sure the max annual limits for 401k contributions will go up 5 times if that would happen.

Ugh, great. I'm getting so pissed off at these bozos. Too early to have a drink.

Right, that's the crux, they write their own rules. All this shit is a pipe dream

 

[ch33zw1z]

https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/rinen2

Side project 😏

Haven't signed up yet or anything, gonna see what its all about. gently related to this thread

 

[MrSquished]

Saw this on reddit pop up. Definitely relevant here

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/rj02ku

 

[Pipeline 1010]

We, the public, should not need to follow the trading activity of Congress members in order to be successful at investing in the stock market.

I'm not saying we should need to. I'm saying we should be allowed to.

Simply put, if you knew what Congress was doing with their stock trades, made the exact same moves as them, and were more successful than the average trader using this method, all this proves is that Congress members have insider knowledge and were able to capitalize on it

We already know that they have insider knowledge and that they actively trade on it They already passed laws specifically stating that they are allowed to do this. But when EVERYONE trades on that knowledge (including you and I), it changes the market in such a fashion that the insider knowledge becomes useless and sometimes counter productive. If EVERYONE knows that Mr. Moneybags Congressman is going to buy Acme stock in 2 months, they will all buy it before he does. This increases the price of the stock and by the time Moneybags can purchase that stock, his advantage has disappeared because the price already increased in anticipation of whatever good thing Moneybags knew would happen. Besides, his knowledge may become publicly known within a 2 month time period anyways. At this point it becomes irrelevant if they are acting on inside knowledge or not and irrelevant if a prosecutor can gain an insider trading conviction (which they can't/won't).

The goal should be to eliminate the corruption.

Of course. Maybe a straight up "you can't act on insider trading knowledge" law might work. Members of congress are really good at getting around these loosely defined laws. I really liked the idea that they must ANNOUNCE which trade they will make in advance with no ability to take it back. Maybe they are smarter than me and they will figure a way around that, but on paper it sounds good to me.

 

[Bitek]

Politicians need to Divest before taking office. If they want to buy Stocks they can leave Political life.

I'd be ok with mutual and index funds. Individual stocks? No way. Don't like it? Pick another profession.

No way to totally police. Too tempting a target to try and exert influence and corruption upon politicians. Does no good for the country.

 

[Bitek]

Still doesn't eliminate them liquidating their index fund allocation if they know the whole market is going to tank, e.g. like when Covid happened and some members of the Senate had closed door meetings that gave them advanced warning of the impending shut-down. I still think the proper solution requires that they cannot make any stock transactions, regardless whether it's in an index fund or individual stocks, on short notice. Let Congress hold stocks, but all transactions need to be scheduled in advance; the larger the transaction in dollar amount, the longer in advance it needs to be scheduled.

But that's a. Not that common b. Not insider knowledge.

Everyone had access to the information if you were following the news and scientists.

Predicting what will happen exactly and trading off of it is another matter.

Eg. Omicron.

Everyone got the news.. Market is effected... But you tell me exactly what the market will be doing in the next few months.

Very different if they know of an upcoming deal or but out of an individual company.