Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress(businessinsider.com) |
Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress(businessinsider.com) |
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.
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.
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?
Maybe it doesn't fall under current definitions of insider information (I'm not sure), but maybe it should.
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.
lol
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?
"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
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.
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.)