Senator dumped up to $1.6M of stock after reassuring public on Covid-19

https://www.propublica.org/article/senator-dumped-up-to-1-6-million-of-stock-after-reassuring-public-about-coronavirus-preparedness

by AndrewBissell • 6 years ago

116 37 6 years ago

propublica.org

AndrewBissell3• 6 years ago

My guess: regardless of which party wins the presidency in November, there will be as much accountability for this senator and others like him as there was for the George W. Bush administration officials who lied the country into war and implemented a program of torture. That is to say, none whatsoever.

toomuchtodo• 6 years ago

Fun fact: AOC and Ted Cruz have cosponsored legislation banning Congress folks from lobbying for life. I’m unaware of the current status, but people still work across the aisle and not all hope is lost. We must push on. This (excellent) reporting by ProPublica is part of that.

AndrewBissell3• 6 years ago

The calls for the senator to face a grand jury coming from some Congresspeople are encouraging. I'll still be pleasantly surprised if he serves a single day in prison.

a3n4• 6 years ago

[Violent suggestion deleted.]

I believe the gentleman's actions should be submitted to the relevant ethics committee.

Harumph.

alloutblitz85• 6 years ago

Is this not insider trading? He made decisions based on info not available to general public.

a3n4• 6 years ago

Link to SEC insider trading complaint site https://www.sec.gov/tcr

smabie• 6 years ago

That's not the definition of insider trading.

mulmen• 6 years ago

Ok, I’ll bite. If that is not the definition of insider trading what is?

a3n4• 6 years ago

I have submitted an insider trading complaint to the SEC, https://www.sec.gov/tcr

In their list of categories describing the person being reported, Member of Congress is not included.

In their list of categories describing the reporting person, Member of Congress is included.

Huh.

dugmartin• 6 years ago

I believe congress is exempt from insider trading laws.

Edit: looks like I was wrong. Thanks for the links.

a3n4• 6 years ago

I don't think so. Most recently there was a congressman from an east coast state convicted of same or at least similar, as I recall. I might recall incorrectly.

frizkie• 6 years ago

According to the STOCK Act of 2012 [0], members of Congress are not exempt from insider trading laws.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

chrisbennet• 6 years ago

They were (exempt) but they passed a law to make it illegal though I believe they watered down. Previous to the law it wasn't illegal for them to do insider trading.

icedchai2• 6 years ago

Smart guy. I'd be about 30% richer today if I did the same.

harry82• 6 years ago

No you wouldn't. Everyone would be in your boat. He has info you did not which is how he did it. It's not smart. It's just unscrupulous. It may also turn out to be really, really dumb. At least I hope so.

icedchai2• 6 years ago

He can buy back in at a lower level and probably double his gains. You can't say he made a bad decision.

dk-3• 6 years ago

to be fair, anyone watching china cases emerge in january should have done the same thing. hindsight is 20/20 and all, but when china didn't lock their borders down right away should have been a major warning sign

moneywoes• 6 years ago

How is this legal

chatmasta• 6 years ago

There is a rather amusing line in his wikipedia entry [0], given the current context:

In fall 2008, during that year's financial crisis, Burr said he was going to an ATM every day and taking out cash because he thought the financial system was going to soon collapse. In April 2009, in response to press about his experience, Burr told NC public radio station WFAE that he would do the same thing again next time.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Burr

dk-3• 6 years ago

i've been pulling out my max cash withdrawal limit from cash machines every day since we hit 10% down in the markets. of course cash is probably useless when a bank run does happen, but it does give you a sense of safety and is something you can simply redeposit.

sunstone• 6 years ago

The time to buy is when blood is dripping down your screen.

dk-3• 6 years ago

(blood is not dripping down your screen yet, wait for the layoffs and bankruptcies and bailouts)

true_religion• 6 years ago

Just because he reports factual information about the market, does not mean he has to believe those facts or even act upon them. Actors are allowed to be irrational.

Furthermore, even were he to believe in the long term market prospects, doesn’t mean that he has to continue taking the risk in the short term. It’s okay to diversify your portfolio in a time of crisis, even if you have no current knowledge that things will change for the worse. For all you know, things will change for the better and you would miss out on gains because one company you were not investing in did better than predicted.

quantified• 6 years ago

As chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he had and has plenty of current knowledge. He reports actual facts to donors/supporters and counter-facts to the public. About what we all would expect from him.

aazaa• 6 years ago

Burr was one of just three senators who in 2012 opposed the bill that explicitly barred lawmakers and their staff from using nonpublic information for trades and required regular disclosure of those trades. In opposing the bill, Burr argued at the time that insider trading laws already applied to members of Congress. President Barack Obama signed the bill, known as the STOCK Act, that year.

What a piece of work.

AndrewBissell3• 6 years ago

This appears to have been quite a thing.

Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA): https://www.thedailybeast.com/sen-kelly-loeffler-dumped-mill...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): https://twitter.com/justinmclachlan/status/12408449876143882...

ramblerman• 6 years ago

This seems like a witch hunt for what is a conflict of interest.

Either you have certain roles, i.e. members of congress, that can't hold shares at all. Or you allow them to trade and then only go after very specific insider trades. I.e. at a business to business level.

But going after an individual for "knowing" how the entire economy will move is a stretch imo.

BoiledCabbage• 6 years ago

Or you don't try to frame this as a false choice line you did here - and you prosecute people listening to classified briefings and then immediately illegally trading and benefiting from it.

anthonypasq• 6 years ago

Every company has already figured out policies to avoid accusations of impropriety.

Its a solved problem.

sixhobbits• 6 years ago

This reminds me of Matt Levine's column from 16 March [0]

"Is the coronavirus securities fraud?

I wrote on Friday that, because everything is securities fraud, the novel coronavirus is securities fraud"

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-03-16/market...

ematvey• 6 years ago

I might be missing something here, but how does the knowledge pandemic and about the severity of the disease about qualify as insider information? I guess this guy can be accused of not expressing his real beliefs to the public (to contain the panic as he would surely argue), but that is not the same as insider trading.

jjeaff2• 6 years ago

He did express his concerns about the economy to a small group of donors. He also was one of only 3 senators to vote against the stock act, making things like this illegal.

Senator dumped up to $1.6M of stock after reassuring public on Covid-19

Related Stories