or politicians make decisions based on how it affects their portfolio.
Nancy Pelosi’s husband made some big tech purchases
- Thread starter Edmond
- Start date
or politicians make decisions based on how it affects their portfolio.
Pretty much what I meant, at least in terms of choosing to let them have a portfolio and enrich themselves, vs choosing to replace them with those that have no clue about investing and hate everyone who trades or makes money. Choose between two evils.
Last edited:
I think allowing politicians to invest is ripe for all sorts of abuse. It creates all sorts of agency problems.
That’s why banks, law firms, and other companies that deal with confidential information or deal with things that can significantly impact a client’s company restrict personal trading.
I agree, just be careful what you wish for because every problem that traders have (PDT, limited leverage, various regulations, restrictions and taxation) are direct results of solving other problems. The more problems traders solve, the more unhappy they are and more restricted they feel, and complain about problems they created by complaining about previous problems. With every complaint the list of laws and regulations only grows and never gets smaller. We’re living on a physical planet, not in utopian paradise where we can wish for everything to be perfect.
For me it’s just a water-cooler type observation.
Last edited:
there is definitely a push along all aspects of life for more regulation in the name of safety.
the the trading examples you cited were because someone lost a lot of money because of those rules weren’t in place. Not that I agree with all those rules: like the PDT and the accredited investor rule.
Not out of any sense of moral obligation. Only because of the laws against it, passed by lawyer politicians, who allow themselves a big fat lawyer loophole.
Either all or nothing. I say all and let chips fall where they may. Of course it'll never happen. The righteous would rather the status quo, well they would say not so, nothing is what they want.
Which also of course will never happen. Ergo status quo - and endless social media bitching on this and other gubmint stuff.
I don’t think there are laws requiring banks, law firms, and investment firms to restrict the personal trading of their employees.
anyway, guru and I were talking about whether allowing congressmen to trade unrestricted was a good idea or a bad one.
" .... that deal with confidential information or deal with things that can significantly impact a client’s company .."
Really?
They are not subject to the same nonsense insider trading laws as the rest of us.
???
When I worked at a bank I wasn’t allowed to trade ANY stocks on their restricted list even if I wasn’t holding non-public information. There were employees who had inside information but the rules applied to all of us. Further there were other rules about holding periods and hedging to restrict trading.
to guru’s and my conversation: it was done to prevent actual or potential clouding of judgement. If i am an investment banker and I own TIF stock, I would be encouraging LVMH to make a bid for the company. If I was short the stock (because I thought the pandemic would hurt sales) I might discourage them.