Congress Needs to Stop Day Trading, Says Sen. Mark Warner

https://bigtechnology.substack.com/p/congress-needs-to-stop-day-trading

by kantrowitz • 5 years ago

240 162 5 years ago

bigtechnology.substack.com

Bostonian2• 5 years ago

As I've said before, publish the trades of politicians and Fed officials online every evening. If they make hundreds of millions trading on information the public is unaware of, disseminate that information quickly. Politicians say things they know are untrue, but they will trade in what they perceive to be their interests.

"Some of the most egregious stock trading in Congress occurred when several Senators dumped large volumes of stock in Winter 2020, right after Congress was briefed on the magnitude of the Covid threat. Sen. Kelly Loeffler sold millions in stock. Her fellow Georgia Sen. David Purdue made a windfall by dumping and buying back stock. Sen. Richard Burr offloaded more than $1.6 million in stock ahead of the market crash (and then made a suspicious call to his brother-in-law, who promptly called a broker)."

rolobio2• 5 years ago

Sounds great. Could we also start some sort of Index fund using those trades? Congress seems to have some fantastic returns I would like to tap into!

sputknick• 5 years ago

Not an index fund, but you can programmatically get access to their disclosed trades and create your own trading bot from there. I think this disclosures are a month or so after the fact.

https://api.quiverquant.com/docs/

adoxyz2• 5 years ago

They're required to disclose the trades, but usually have like 2 months to do it and the fines for not disclosing or improperly disclosing are minimal to none. It's a joke.

They should be held accountable like most people that have a conflict of interest. I work for a publicly traded company, and even though I don't have anything to do with the financial side of things, I'm forbidden from trading for most of the year to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

Teknoman117• 5 years ago

I remember a thread on this a few months back, and the problem is that most of these trades happen at the small windows in time where members of congress have information the public doesn't. While trades by members of congress have to be made public, there is a delay. If you buy/sell after the delay (up to 45 days), the performance isn't really going to correlate with what they're getting.

csee4• 5 years ago

Side effect would be that this would help them make even more money, due to lots of money following their trades after they have entered the position, and it would create pump and dump incentives.

melony• 5 years ago

Why online in the evening? Do it in real time with an official federal FIX stream.

filoleg3• 5 years ago

Imo real time is not enough, but it is a solid bare minimum requirement. If private executives have to schedule and declare their company equity trades months and months ahead of time, why do we let the government officials off the hook with just real time?

I am not proposing the same “months and months ahead” rules for politicians, because for private executives that restriction applies only to the equity of their own companies (while for congress it would be for all companies). But what about a day ahead? I think that’s reasonable to make government officials to declare their trade a day ahead. After all, unless it is some specifically-timed trade based on insider info, why would it matter? It is just a single day.

But i would also be ok with “declared a day ahead to SEC, with the trade info being automatically released to the public the second it happens” (basically, same as real-time, but with an extra safeguard). Mostly proposing this one, because I am concerned that knowing their trades ahead of time publicly might introduce unwanted side effects.

Supermancho2• 5 years ago

As I've said before, publish the trades of politicians and Fed officials online every evening

Just like banning trading, this will be circumvented by family/business proxies doing the trades. Including potential family proxies, in the public accounting, would probably be the most effective move to motivate ethical behavior. At least put some risk in the form of the relationship to the business partners, given the vast amounts of money flowing.

TheDong3• 5 years ago

I've got a slight improvement to your idea. Instead of publishing the trades after, or as they make them, instead publish them before they make them.

Require any congress-person who wishes to trade a stock to write a plan saying "I will buy/sell roughly this many dollars worth of these shares on this date", and require the plan to be published a week before the trade is executed.

We already require CEOs and company officers at large companies to do similar plans (though they do not have to publish them publicly ahead of time), and requiring our government officials to act as sorta officers of the entire economy seems kinda fair. They have material information on many different things.

Making them decide on trades weeks or months in advance seems like it should prevent day trading, while still letting them invest in reasonable portfolios if they want.

gamerDude• 5 years ago

When I worked in a financial trading firm, I had to submit trades that I would make 3 days before hand and then get them approved to make sure I had no relationship to that stock. The same seems fine with me for any government official.

Make a trade request, gets published publicly, a legal body reviews and allows or denies.

Bostonian2• 5 years ago

The difference between our views is that I want government insiders to trade on their information, as long as their trades are soon publicized, so that the information is quickly incorporated into market prices. Slowing down their trading by making them wait a week interferes with that.

mythrwy• 5 years ago

This is the best idea yet in my opinion.

panny• 5 years ago

As I've said before, publish the trades of politicians and Fed officials online every evening. If they make hundreds of millions trading on information the public is unaware of, disseminate that information quickly.

Then Senator Jackass dumps stock on Monday to crash it and picks it back up for a song on Tuesday.

dudus• 5 years ago

Wouldn't that be a wash trade?

revscat2• 5 years ago

What benefit would that serve? We already know this is happening. So we would know it... more?

ramesh31• 5 years ago

Awkward title. It implies congress is considering a ban on retail day trading.

kupopuffs2• 5 years ago

how? It's one senator saying this....

kej2• 5 years ago

The headline can be interpreted as "Members of Congress should not themselves be day trading" or as "Congress should enact legislation to prevent everyone from day trading". The article is clearly the first one, but the headline could be read either way.

tata71• 5 years ago

Interesting interpretation....never in a thousand years would have read it this way.

I take it you don't trade/follow financial markets?

zever• 5 years ago

It seems obvious after I caught my mistake, but I too originally misread it in this away. Not sure why you're being downvoted.

okamiueru• 5 years ago

I wish every time someone complained about a title, they included the title at the time. HN moderators are very quick to correct issues, and it leaves the comment and the rest wondering "what is wrong with it?"

zw1234562• 5 years ago

CEO's and officers of corporations have to disclose their trades of their company stock. It is only fair that the public officials making the laws that govern the operations of said corporations should have to disclose all their stock activities as well, since almost any law they pass could potentially impact almost any company.

gkoberger• 5 years ago

This is already the law. Since the "Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012", they already have to disclose any stock trades made by themselves, a spouse or a dependent.

Because this hasn't fixed the issue, and most don't seem to have any shame, these recent laws (originally coming from Ds but Rs have their own version) prevent them from trading individual stocks while in office.

animal_spirits• 5 years ago

I think the problem with this act is AFAIK it states they have to report the trades 45 days AFTER they make them. Not before they make them. So they all just wait until 45 days later when it’s not relevant anymore. New news cycle, people forget

ryan_lane2• 5 years ago

CEOs and officers don't just have to disclose their trades, they have to trade on schedules.

zw1234562• 5 years ago

Exactly. The same rules should apply, except for CEO's it's just their company they have to disclose ahead of time because their decisions affect that company, for congress it should be any company they trade because their decisions are more far reaching and can affect almost any company.

revscat2• 5 years ago

We will see a black hole evaporate via Hawking radiation before a bill such as this becomes law. The United States Senate is the body representing the capitalists/landed gentry/aristocracy/etc., and from my amateur reading of US history it always has been. The House is only slightly better.

There may be politically powerful voices which speak out on issues such as these, but only briefly. Tomorrow will be a new crisis, or celebrity death, or something which takes attention away. And because the politicians voicing support for change are in the minority, and support for their efforts non-existent, then there is no momentum to push it forward beyond the crisis of the week.

This has been true for as long as I can remember. I have never seen evidence, current or historical, that gives evidence otherwise. Instead, voters are blamed, blamed for a system they have little to no power to affect in any significant way.

throwaway2331• 5 years ago

Seems like the only way to enact "real" change is to convince the propertied class that such changes are within their interests (and have them pull the strings in a mutually-beneficial way).

I cannot think of anything the lower classes can offer that would be of any substance -- only things they can take away by force to impel the other to meet "eye to eye."

redanddead2• 5 years ago

Why not leverage the power of technology?

wmeredith• 5 years ago

We will see a black hole evaporate via Hawking radiation before a bill such as this becomes law.

This is the content I'm here for. Well done LOL

MomoXenosaga2• 5 years ago

And the best HN can come up with is throwing more money at the problem making anyone in public office automatically a part of the gentry.

chiefalchemist2• 5 years ago

If you've ever wondered why anyone would run for Congress given the pay, this is your answer. What's amazing is how many of them will shamelessly promote the idea of corruption in other countries, and then day trade and grasp their hypeocricy.

notacoward2• 5 years ago

That's absolutely correct. It's far from the only way they profit from their offices, but it's certainly one way. It's shameful that you were downvoted for making the point.

chiefalchemist2• 5 years ago

I stopped worrying about down votes and HN dysfunction a while ago.

That aside, such information is a form of currency, and done right...untraceable. A term or two in office, is temporary. The involvement in this currency is forever.

faangiq• 5 years ago

Just pay these people 50 mil a year and tell them to go away.

sumedh2• 5 years ago

Why 50 million?

m_ke• 5 years ago

Only way we'll ever get rid of Pelosi.

aerostable_slug2• 5 years ago

I can't recall who said it, but the gist of the quote was: "If you want to eliminate earnings inequality in the United States, give every citizen real-time access to Nancy Pelosi's trades."

According to the now-Cancelled Twitter account (would that have happened if she was a Republican?) dedicated to her financial shenanigans, her portfolio has outperformed Bitcoin. Something is deeply, deeply wrong here.

helloworld11• 5 years ago

Is there no other source for information on her financial activities?

xt00• 5 years ago

It has to also include the typical provisions for insider trading like "telling others material information related to stocks / companies etc". I tend to like the idea people are proposing of requiring the information to be disclosed in real-time when the trade is made (also not like "at the closing bell" BS that I'm sure people would push for..). Like it would be awesome to see people making trades 10 mins after a briefing and going, huh.. ok cool, so looks like Lockheed won the contract... :-)

ISL3• 5 years ago

Members of Congress make ~$174k/yr. [1]

It will be an unpopular opinion, but I believe that we should pay better (and demand better) for a job with that much responsibility. Otherwise, a congressperson will be forever tempted to align their incentives with service to causes other than their electorate.

I'm fairly certain we should be paying our elected officials at least as much as our football coaches.

[1] https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing...

jakelazaroff• 5 years ago

Let's say we increased that salary by 10x. Why would they not simply continue their lucrative conflict of interest side gig on top of the lucrative salary they make? The potential gains from trading on insider information are greater if you have more money to invest!

sodality2• 5 years ago

There's more at risk to be lost

Tenoke3• 5 years ago

For what is worth, if they get even less compensation and more limitations it might become even less lucrative for capable individuals which I'm honestly not sure if it won't make things even worse as it leads to both less misaligned incentives but also worse quality talent.

You can't get anywhere near a top-notch CEO for their salaries, why would you expect to get a top-notch Congressman?

ip26• 5 years ago

I think you're mixing up your branches. Congressmen are legislators, not executives. How much does a board member cost? :)

abakker• 5 years ago

it would also probably reduce the opportunity costs for other good candidates to be members of congress for shorter periods. Career politicians are a blight.

peteradio2• 5 years ago

I think there should be more of them so that we might actually know the guy. It's too big a job for its original intent I somewhat think.

tastyfreeze2• 5 years ago

The house would be much bigger if the size wasn't capped in 1929. Representation would also be more equally distributed.

ISL3• 5 years ago

Totally agreed for the House. There is an outstanding amendment from 1789 that would apportion one representative for every 50,000 voters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am...

redanddead2• 5 years ago

Or our doctors! Imagine if most kids would answer "congressperson" instead of doctor or lawyer. More competition might help that sector.

ShamelessC4• 5 years ago

I mean, lots of kids want to become president which at a certain age is basically code for "I want to be a political leader and don't know how the system works in its entirety". Does that not qualify?

jmann99999• 5 years ago

The problem with this assessment is that it will never be enough. There is always more to make. For you. For your partner. For your kids.

Many of us here are in software development and make more than $174K a year. That's great. However, even if we were paid $225K, but found an easy way to make $3 million a year, many of us would be tempted to go for the millions.

jonnycomputer2• 5 years ago

Many state governments don't pay much or anything at all to their state legislators. Which is a great way to make sure that only rich well connected people can afford to serve.

Tenoke3• 5 years ago

That's not how markets typically work. There are million dollar jobs in software, we are just not good enough to get them but some people are. If congress' salaries were higher more of those people who currently have better paid opportunities would compete with them rather than having the same quality people but just better paid.

R0b0t1• 5 years ago

Many of us is an overstatement. The jobs threads are always full of people making way less, have you not seen?

ryandrake• 5 years ago

I've seen Senior Engineers who probably make $300K+ steal and bring home whole pizza pies from "Pizza Night For Late Workers". It doesn't matter how much you make, if they are fundamentally dishonest and see $100 sitting on the floor they're going to take it.

EDIT: Correction--engineers, didn't actually see managers do it.

hourislate• 5 years ago

I don't know if you realize this but most of the folks who get elected to Congress are already very wealthy and those that are not become wealthy very quickly. And this might come as a surprise to you but the Democrats in Gov are far more wealthier than the Republicans...Go figure the party that says they represent the small guy...lol...

pm903• 5 years ago

You can be personally wealthy and want to support the “small guy”. It is not a contradiction.

vineyardmike6• 5 years ago

Based on data from disclosures, it seems that the democrats invest way smarter than republicans. I wonder who has more income when entering congress, vs who ends up making more per term. Are democrats actually wealthier, or do they just better use their inside knowledge.

ShamelessC4• 5 years ago

I'm fairly certain we should be paying our elected officials at least as much as our football coaches.

Or! Pay our football coaches significantly less/tax them more and redistribute that wealth towards a safety net for all Americans.

But sure, give members of congress a cool million while the poor go hungry.

To be clear, I agree with the sentiment. Elected officials should probably get a bit more money. But, I think you vastly underestimate the greed of the ultra-wealthy in the US. Ultimately government jobs need to be motivated by a desire to change the system for the better. If you just give them all millions of dollars you're inducting them into the class of the wealthy on day one.

TimTheTinker• 5 years ago

Regardless of their pay, a congressperson will be tempted to align their incentives with service to causes other than their electorate. Plus, people who just want to make a lot of money (instead of serve their country) would be tempted to run for congress to receive "football coach level pay".

It makes sense to pay them a high enough wage so (lack of) money doesn't become a worry in their life, but incentives get borked beyond that.

What worries me more is the fact that they are guaranteed that same wage for the rest of their life after serving in Congress.

ISL3• 5 years ago

Congressional pensions: https://foxx.house.gov/legislation/fact-or-fiction-members-a...

Looks like one must serve at least 5 yr to get them (so House members aren't automatically in, but Senators are).

kup02• 5 years ago

Hell, maybe even it would be okay to have lack of money become a worry in their life- potentially would help them understand a significant portion of their electorate better. So many of them are out of touch as it is in regards to financial security, the prices we pay for things, etc.

chad_oliver• 5 years ago

My rule of thumb is that for decision-making roles, you want financial compensation to at least match the 'status compensation' (respect, status, etc). When the vast majority of the role's compensation comes via the _prestige_ of being a member of congress, you're bound to get weird results.

belter4• 5 years ago

It has been proven multiple times, that already very well paid company managers, will accept bribes for small amounts of money and petty motives.

Integrity is not connected to how well someone is paid. Reckless behavior for minor motives that makes people risk careers of years, family responsibilities, seems the norm for some individuals.

I collect these cases, as they fascinate me on what they say about human nature.

I am still trying to find out if these individuals end up on those roles because of that unhinged behavior, or getting into these roles is what intoxicates their moral judgement, despite many years of successfully running professional careers.

In other words, your strategy will not work.

Rd6n62• 5 years ago

Can you share some of these cases or research?

DantesKite• 5 years ago

A fairer framing would be, “Does increasing salaries of politicians decrease corruption, increase it, or make no difference whatsoever due to other factors?”

I suspect it helps more than it hurts since it seems to be a successful policy in Singapore. I’m skeptical decreasing the salaries would help because competent people would work elsewhere.

peteradio2• 5 years ago

I would say I've found myself abutting roles that I was uncomfortable to take due to risk aversion. I don't have debts to pay either. Sometimes you want a motivated person, sometimes you want a you-name-it.

masteruvpuppetz• 5 years ago

But they should be paid fairly commensurate with their responsibilities. Some of them with spine will actually be demotivated to do corruption.

pm903• 5 years ago

Agreed. A salary that would allow them a decent quality of life while having to maintain at least 2 residences (DC and their home district) is absolutely required. Money is deferred time: we want politicians to focus fully on serving the people not trying to balance their household budgets.

The cheaters are going to cheat anyways. The politicians who are inclined to do the right thing: let’s make it easier for them.

imnotlost• 5 years ago

How about public housing in DC for congress critters and senators? Windowless dorm rooms so they're tempted to go outside and do stuff instead of sitting inside watching tweets or whatever.

ren_engineer• 5 years ago

or just make the consequences for abusing power so drastic that power hungry psychopaths don't run for public office which would be far more effective. The main reason congress is corrupt is because they make the rules and know they will only ever get a slap on the wrist.

Make any form of corruption by congress automatic death penalty and congress would clean itself up pretty quick because the type of scum who go into politics to make money would look for easier targets where their life isn't at risk

Of course the problem with this is who enforces the law and how do you stop them from being corrupt themselves. The obvious answer to the root problem is to have the smallest government possible to limit centralization of power and ability for mass corruption

IG_Semmelweiss5• 5 years ago

No. Hell no. Elected office is a sacrifice and a duty. It is not a way to make a living. Thats how you end up with dinosaurs working those halls for 68 years.

I have a better idea.

1)Fix salary at 2x poverty wage.

2) make house members 1:50,000 representation to their county (yes that means the house would explode to 8000 elected officials)

3) tax any earnings above their pre-office historical income avg, at say 98%. No ones lives off the taxpayer and no ones lives off favors given.

If they want to serve. They serve. The country would be far better off if congress shut down because they have DAY jobs to perform to keep their families fed.

If they cant make ends meet with their basic salary, they dont know sacrifice. If they dont know sacrifice shouldn't be running for office.

Stop paying for busy bodies and start electing hardworking, everyday americans

atlasunshrugged5• 5 years ago

If you're going to this extreme why not keep the system as is with the only change being that we no longer have elected officials but rather citizens of voting age chosen at random in much the same way a jury is selected to serve for a term? No competitions, no prestige, just a duty that people are randomly asked to do to serve their countries.

vineyardmike6• 5 years ago

If they cant make ends meet with their basic salary, they dont know sacrifice. If they dont know sacrifice shouldn't be running for office.

This is how you get bad candidates.

If they dont know sacrifice shouldn't be running for office.

The poster might like AOC then. But something tells me they're not a supporter.

Stop paying for busy bodies and start electing hardworking, everyday americans

TBH not sure i trust the "everyday american" to make really big complex decisions for a job. People who are familiar with such decision making process make a lot more and may not be "hardworking, everyday americans" to this poster.

prewett• 5 years ago

That's a great way to get corruption. Relying on independently wealthy people to sacrificially serve their country is not a reliable way of getting good quality talent.

My father spent some time in Bolivia some decades ago, and people in government were paid practically nothing. So there were a lot of bribes expected. And government officials got a fantastic exchange rate on Bolivios -> USD, which after you go through the cycle a few times, ended up with the government transferring the rate subsidy to the official.

China also doesn't pay its government officials much, and similarly, there is lots of corruption, which Xi Jinping spent several years cracking down on.

At the very least, it will be independently wealthy people (aka "elites") running the country, which brings its own set of problems.

simonebrunozzi• 5 years ago

Go ahead, be first. I'll wait.

creato• 5 years ago

Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

sethd• 5 years ago

make house members 1:50,000 representation to their county (yes that means the house would explode to 8000 elected officials)

I disagree with rest, but something along these lines does seem like a good solution.

imtringued2• 5 years ago

Why sacrifice yourself before your political career ended? Why not do it afterwards with extremely high capital gains and income taxes (100% tax for anything above $200k) for retired politicians?

atlasunshrugged5• 5 years ago

Yes, I 100% agree. I've mainly been in tech throughout my career with a few times working in gov here and abroad but have above average familiarity with how the current system works in Congress. Unfortunately, there is no constituency that is ready to vote for higher congressional salaries now. However, while there salaries are one thing, I think the caps they get on # of workers, square feet of office space, and total budget they get in both the House and the Senate is far more dangerous. These offices are criminally understaffed, you've got kids with 1-2 years of work experience, most of it probably in opening letters for the same person they're working for now, managing portfolios for freshman Congresspeople that have serious potential impacts for the nation. There are some fellowships that have sprung up to assist and some federal agencies lend people out to committees but it is nowhere near enough and the repercussions are going to be serious, esp for tech which is now truly on the radar for regulation but which very few congresspeople or their staffers understand.

paxys2• 5 years ago

How much is fair compensation for a Congressperson? $250K? $500K? $1M? Why not even more? They certainly have a lot more power and responsibility than a CEO or sports coach who is paid many times that.

The problem is that there isn't a free market which any politician's salary can be determined by. Someone can't decide they don't like the salary in the US Senate and apply to the Canadian Parliament instead.

Plus, these salaries aren't that much out of line compared to other Federal government employees. The benefits are what really keeps them in the job.

Rd6n62• 5 years ago

Very high salaries are a countermeasure against conflicts of interest and “lobbying.” We can trust our leaders better if we don’t have to worry quite as much about other parties tempting them

squeaky-clean• 5 years ago

I'm sure there are people who would be fantastic in politics but choose not to because of the pay.

ergocoder2• 5 years ago

Doesn't seem hard.

Let's make it fairer and attractive.

We can start with $1m.

User23• 5 years ago

I suggest that you spend some time at certain popular bars inside the beltway where you can hear drunk staffers flapping their lips. You will quickly learn that our elected representatives have virtually no responsibility whatsoever beyond maintaining the charade that the USA is in any way a democracy.

The schoolhouse rock look at me I’m a bill thing isn’t even wrong anymore. There’s not a single “legislator” who actually writes legislation anymore. They literally just broker their signatures (those brokers are called lobbyists) to the parties that actually write the laws. It’s a painful bandaid to rip off, but that’s how the system actually operates.

krapp• 5 years ago

I suggest that you spend some time at certain popular bars inside the beltway where you can hear drunk staffers flapping their lips. You will quickly learn that our elected representatives have virtually no responsibility whatsoever beyond maintaining the charade that the USA is in any way a democracy.

As you seem to be a beltway insider with connections, and not just making up bullshit to sound cool, which bars specifically would you suggest?

throwoutway• 5 years ago

I’d be in favor of allowing them to put their money in blind trusts and withdraw them tax free after 10 years. It would encourage them to adopt measures that help the nation gain long term advantages, not short term

MomoXenosaga2• 5 years ago

I heavily disagree. We are already in a situation were poor people don't even fucking bother to vote anymore because none of the politicians live on the same planet as they do.

None of these millionaire douchebags are relatable at this point.

jrockway• 5 years ago

I think the problem is that if we don't pay them, someone else will. And the "someone else" always attaches strings.

imtringued2• 5 years ago

Or maybe you shouldn't build a society around making capital gains and interest income from doing no work as that encourages politicians to become corrupt for a quick 10 million bucks and thereby let them off off dividends or stock buybacks long after their political career ended.

All those people that pretend to understand that interest rates affect discounted future values seem to forget that this is also creating short term thinking where destroying something (potentially long lived) to get money today is profitable and encouraged.

yunohn• 5 years ago

I strongly do not believe that higher salaries will change anything.

In every country I’ve lived in, politicians are not there for the formal salary/responsibilities. Those are tangential.

Political roles attract people who want power and control. The networking of favours is expected and emphasised - with money being the underlying foundation for it all.

This is all quite obvious social science, and I’d be curious to hear others thoughts.

nopenopenopeno• 5 years ago

More salary is fine, but stock trading is an entirely different question.

Handytinge• 5 years ago

Is that not a good wage? That's at arouns 5x median/3x average American wage from the numbers I found online and puts them in the top 6% of earners in the country based on a random calculator I found[1].

I accept there's probably some variance here, but even if they're in the top 10% of Americans, is that not sufficient? What percentage do you think they should be in?

[1] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/

iamleppert2• 5 years ago

How is it acceptable for them to engage in these activities while on the job? It should be illegal based upon their job duties. During office hours, and while at the office, like everyone else, they should be required to carry out their job duties and not engage in personal or outside activities. Trading stocks and the like has nothing to do with their job and should not be done while at your job.

If a congress person is caught doing anything else besides their job, they should be fired immediately for cause. We need to put the public service back in public service.

reidjs• 5 years ago

Are you 100% focused all the time when you're at work? I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect that kind of focus from anyone at any job. If they're getting their work done, I don't see the harm in trading stocks ASSUMING they are playing by the rules, i.e., not insider trading.

iamleppert2• 5 years ago

I think there’s a difference between reading the news or social media occasionally at work and doing something like trading stocks. It falls into the realm of work. I know some people trade stocks for leisure but the vast majority do it to make money.

Is it right to work another job for profit at your employer or while your employer is expecting you to be doing work on behalf of them? According to my moral compass, that’s a no. I would be pretty upset if I found one of my employees trading stocks while they were supposed to be working. Especially if my approval of them was low, which is the current situation with many government officials right now. If there was agreement on both sides before taking a job, that would be different but I find that hard to believe before taking a job someone would admit to that, and that’s a sign they know it’s wrong.

They have a lot of nerve thinking this is acceptable behavior when the country is in the middle of a crisis and has a lot of problems to solve.

ShamelessC4• 5 years ago

Spoken like a truly horrible manager.

tastyfreeze2• 5 years ago

They aren't necessarily trading on the clock. Just making trades based on information nobody else has that they only have access to because of their job.

atlasunshrugged5• 5 years ago

I absolutely think this should be banned but they (and their staffers) don't have real workplaces. Sure, there's the office but a ton of their work is meetings, talking to constituents, travel between their district and DC, etc. and many of them put in 80+ hour workweeks. Trying to put them in the bucket of an average 9-5 person with a set workspace doesn't work.

ryan_lane2• 5 years ago

The problem isn't that they're doing something other than their job, it's that they have insider information, and they're using that insider information to buy and sell stocks.

csee4• 5 years ago

Their insider trading a very small problem compared to the problem of the perverted incentive to steer legislation in a direction that helps their portfolio.

andrewclunn• 5 years ago

Insider trading for EVERYONE! The market is already part scam part gambling. Let's give private business a shot by making publicly traded ones little more than a pyramid scheme.

sslayer• 5 years ago

Does anyone actually believe this is going to accomplish anything meaningful? I'm sure there is thousands of more loopholes to get around it. We should be focused on accountability to the American people, not just the rich.

UIUC_063• 5 years ago

All the discussion about how much Senators and Representatives should be paid and whether it leads to bribery misses the most important moral point, which is:

They are in a position to influence stocks, and hence must be barred from owning them, other than in a blind trust.

It's the same moral principle as "Judges must recuse themselves from cases in which they have a financial interest."

We want them to vote on regulating Big Tech based on their understanding of the issues and their constituents' desires, not on their holdings of Big Tech stocks. Yes, I know that's naïve and there are campaign contributions to think of, but that's a separate topic of law.

Discussing whether they get "enough" to live on also misses the fact that they're not doing it for living expenses -- they're doing it to get rich.

q1w22• 5 years ago

I have trouble with the escalation of demands being made on social media.

Initially the titles talked about banning "insider trading", despite them not legally being insiders (which is a very specific legal term which refers to company employees/agents which specific non-public corporate information).

The the titles talk about banning "day-trading", which is trading in-out of stocks multiple times per day. They are almost certainly NOT doing that.

...now you're saying they cannot even have any stock ownership - which would imply they cannot have a 401k or 529 for their kids (because those invest in funds) - or even a vanilla money-market savings account at any bank.

Taking this logic further, they shouldn't be allowed to own any financial assets - bonds, real estate, etc...

These arguments have lost touch with reality.

UIUC_063• 5 years ago

First of all, you're right about the title. The article is not about day trading, which confused me at first too.

However, "insider" is often construed broadly as "possessing material, non-public information." For example, if you work at Google and you realize the next earnings are bad and you call your brother-in-law, who sells short, he can be prosecuted for violating insider trading laws. I think. Not just you.

Now as to "you're saying they cannot even have any stock ownership" -- I didn't say that, I said "blind trust." This is a legal vehicle that's been used for public officials for generations. It means they can't influence it and they don't know how it's doing.

Congress Needs to Stop Day Trading, Says Sen. Mark Warner

Related Stories