278
The only people who can stop politicians from being able to participate in the stock market is politicians and well…
Some of the founding fathers were even benefiting from stock and bond trading and selling.
Some of the founding fathers owned slaves. I don't think they'd have much of a problem with this
That’s incorrect. The SEC is responsible for holding Congress accountable to the insider trading laws already in place. Congress is not exempt, nor are they charged with self-policing.
https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2018/08/16/can-members-of-congress-engage-in-insider-trading/
My comment was meaning to say that the only people who can put laws in place to stop politicians from being able to participate in trading stocks are politicians.
Clearly the laws in place do not stop them currently.
I follow, but that’s not correct. The laws are already preventing them from insider trading. The SEC is not holding them accountable. More laws won’t change the lack of enforcement. Pressing the SEC to do their job is the solution.
There is no reason to worry about enforcement of insider trading, after a law is passed to prevent them from holding any stocks at all (except maybe index funds)
Sure, ideally. While we’re waiting for a 2/3 congressional majority, wouldn’t it make sense to focus on getting the SEC to hold them accountable to the laws that are already in place?
For those of you in the US, the are a couple of funds which track politician's holdings and invest/digest with them. NANC is the democrat tracking one and KRUZ is the republican tracking one.
This way, you too can stick your snout in the trough.
They were both started in Feb 2023. So there isn't a long track record to go by.
In the last 12 months.
NANC has gained 40%.
KRUZ has gained 27%.
VTSAX has gained 33.8%. (Vanguard total stock index)
They both have expense ratios of 0.75%.
VTSAX is 0.04%.
So you loose nearly 1% each year in management fees. That's a lot.
Also, we hear about the buys and sells after the fact, not immediately.
So there's a lag on decisions that may be impactful
Interesting, thanks! I'd only ever seen it as amusing (UK based so couldn't buy it anyway), but good to know how it actually stacks up. I wonder if that also means that Nancy herself would have been better to just buy an index tracker and avoid all the negative stories!
Visa has been under intense scrutiny since for at least several months. We wouldn't up and sue Visa out of nowhere so you know Visa was being discussed for awhile. I'm curious how much of this was just paying attention, like with a surprisingly high number of "corrupt insider trades," or if it's actually corrupt.
The investigation was announced publicly a year ago.
And it should be noted that when he sold these shares, the share price was even lower than it is now after the lawsuit was announced and the stock dropped within the last few days.
I wish there was more push back for these ghouls enriching themselves like this.
You might even refer to them as suave villains..... :D
Those ghouls are at it again. Though that implies it is anything other than business as usual.
So he sold them 3 months ago, at a loss, and it was well after the lawsuit was announced?
We need to know who says the trade should be allowed and fire them/vote them out.
Nancy Pelosi’s husband dumped 2,000 Visa (V) shares in July — just weeks before the payments giant was sued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for monopolizing the debit markets.
The timely trade — which documents show was worth at least $500,000 — has once again set the rumor mill running about the former House speaker and her venture capitalist husband’s investing strategies, which have netted them an impressive nine-figure net worth over the years.
As an elected politician at any level you should be allowed a single family home, transportation that allows you to perform your role effectively, your salary as a politician which should be sufficient to allow poor people to take on the role of office as the sole provider for their household to live an upper middle class life style, and remaining investments should be divided in a basic assortment of mutual funds and bond funds. All other sources of income should be illegal. No 2nd jobs, no lobby money, no speaking fees.
I say just ban rich people entirely.
That sort of enshrines rich people as the ones in charge of our government, and they already are in all but name.
I don't want law makers so poor that they need bribes from lobbyists etc. Upper middle class income from their job duties allows politicians to focus solely on their job of representation without them worrying about paying the mortgage and the bills. I'd absolutely want the role of politican to lift people out of poverty too with a good income while they represent their community.
The poor ones would take bribes from lobbyists if that's all they get as politicians.
just weeks before the payments giant was sued by the U.S. Department of Justice
Months before to be more precise. He also sold them a year after the investigation was announced when the share price was lower than it is today, after the lawsuit was filed, so I don't see why this one example is being viewed as being so scandalous.
While 12 weeks is technically weeks I think it's very intellectually dishonest to refer to it as weeks before when months before is more accurate.
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
278 points (91.4% liked)
News
23683 readers
4857 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS