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.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!
Also, we hear about the buys and sells after the fact, not immediately.
So there’s a lag on decisions that may be impactful
I wish there was more push back for these ghouls enriching themselves like this.
You might even refer to them as suave villains… :D
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.
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?
deleted by creator
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.
We need to know who says the trade should be allowed and fire them/vote them out.
By far she is the biggest crook up there. None of these trash talking republicans have done as much harm in the name of greed as she has. Most republicans in DC are lower than Whale shit. She is at least six to seven feet lower than that. Not that she is unique in that cesspool of trash floating on top of the swamp.
Not for nothing but she’s not the one that killed the law that would have regulated this, that was the Republicans. Who are in no less apt to engage in insider trading than anybody if you look at the actual numbers. She just gets more publicity for it, and as you can see from reading the article in this case it’s false publicity.
She probably shouldn’t have.
On the other hand… “some say.”
