7 ms·

Politicians in Congress are explicitly allowed to insider trade based on information they hear about. This is why congressmen's stock portfolios are far more p

Politicians in Congress are explicitly allowed to insider trade based on information they hear about. This is why congressmen's stock portfolios are far more profitable than an average person's.

rayiner 11y ago
It makes sense to insulate Congressman from insider trading charges. They are exposed to so much inside information that the executive could bring charges against them on a whim. Which would have significant separation of powers concerns. Of course, the answer to that is to require all Congressmen to put their assets in a blind trust.
- sjg007 11y ago
  What about public disclosure of their stock holdings?
  - tertius 11y ago
    They are disclosed, but offline.
    - sjg007 11y ago
      So can you do a FOIA? Or go to an office in DC?
      - tertius 11y ago
        Legislative Resource Center 135 Cannon House Office Building Washington DC, 20515-6612 Phone: (202) 226-5200 Office Hours: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm You can go here and make copies.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - chii 11y ago
      what does offline mean here? I agree that public disclosure of their trades is viable, because if they decide to trade based on information they have, the public (whom they _serve_!) should also get the same opportunity.
    - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
      For staff only, for the actual congresspersons they are online: http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial.aspx http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial.aspx
- coldtea 11y ago
  >It makes sense to insulate Congressman from insider trading charges. They are exposed to so much inside information that the executive could bring charges against them on a whim. Which would have significant separation of powers concerns. How about disallowing them to trade altogether in the first place for as long as they hold office?
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I agree with that (hence the blind trust suggestion).
  - pyre 11y ago
    This would make more sense if there weren't career Congress-critters, though perhaps this would encourage movement in that direction...
    - lsaferite 11y ago
      Yeah, that is a huge issue in itself. Public office should not be a career but something you take time out of your career to perform.
- kasey_junk 11y ago
  Or to decriminalize all insider trading.
- hueving 11y ago
  It makes sense if an idiot were to come up with a solution in 5 seconds. The answer is NOT to give them free reign to do it. It's to prevent them from being allowed to choose stock investments entirely. They get enough perks, they don't need free reign over the market.
mslate 11y ago
Do you have any source data?
evanpw 11y ago
SEC employees also do pretty well for themselves: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-02-27/the-sec-should-really-start-a-hedge-fund http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-02-27/the-sec-sho...
martey 11y ago
Doesn't the STOCK Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act) explicitly ban Congresspeople from insider trading? The only study on the performance on Congressional stock portfolios is from 2004 [1]. Do you know of any post-STOCK studies? [1]: Ziobrowski, A.J., Cheng, P.X., Boyd, J.W., and Ziobrowski, B.J. (2004) “Abnormal Returns from the Common Stock Investments of Members of the United States Senate.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 661-676. (http://www.walkerd.people.cofc.edu/400/Sobel/P-04.%20Ziobrowski%20-%20Abnormal%20Returns%20US%20Senate.pdf http://www.walkerd.people.cofc.edu/400/Sobel/P-04.%20Ziobrow...)
- bsbechtel 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure the key provisions of the STOCK Act were repealed the same weekend as the Boston Marathon Bombings. See the amendment section of the Wikipedia article you linked to.
  - martey 11y ago
    The amendment makes it significantly more difficult to detect insider trading (since financial disclosure reports are not available online), but I wouldn't describe it as a repeal of the law's "key provisions". See http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496... : "Still, two major elements of the law remain. Insider trading is illegal, even for members of Congress and the executive branch. And for those who are covered by the now-narrower law, disclosures of large stock trades are required within 45 days."
    - tzs 11y ago
      > The amendment makes it significantly more difficult to detect insider trading (since financial disclosure reports are not available online) That's only for staff. The reports for Congress members are still required to be available online. They are here [1]. [1] http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial.aspx http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial.aspx
_nedR 11y ago
Wait, Wait. Hold a second. I am not sure I read that correctly. Are you telling me that until 2012, for every confidential hearing that American congressman could attend, every budget proposal or allocation they had to vote on, every bill (say on the environment, or regarding corporate or financial regulation) they had to pass, or every declaration of war they had to approve, they were allowed to choose the outcome and personally profit from it?

Politicians in Congress are explicitly allowed to insider trade based on information they hear about. This is why congressmen's stock portfolios are far more profitable than an average person's.

rayiner 11y ago

It makes sense to insulate Congressman from insider trading charges. They are exposed to so much inside information that the executive could bring charges against them on a whim. Which would have significant separation of powers concerns. Of course, the answer to that is to require all Congressmen to put their assets in a blind trust.

sjg007 11y ago
What about public disclosure of their stock holdings?
- tertius 11y ago
  They are disclosed, but offline.
  - sjg007 11y ago
    So can you do a FOIA? Or go to an office in DC?
    - tertius 11y ago
      Legislative Resource Center 135 Cannon House Office Building Washington DC, 20515-6612 Phone: (202) 226-5200 Office Hours: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm You can go here and make copies.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - chii 11y ago
    what does offline mean here? I agree that public disclosure of their trades is viable, because if they decide to trade based on information they have, the public (whom they _serve_!) should also get the same opportunity.
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    For staff only, for the actual congresspersons they are online: http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial.aspx http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial.aspx
coldtea 11y ago
>It makes sense to insulate Congressman from insider trading charges. They are exposed to so much inside information that the executive could bring charges against them on a whim. Which would have significant separation of powers concerns. How about disallowing them to trade altogether in the first place for as long as they hold office?
- rayiner 11y ago
  I agree with that (hence the blind trust suggestion).
- pyre 11y ago
  This would make more sense if there weren't career Congress-critters, though perhaps this would encourage movement in that direction...
  - lsaferite 11y ago
    Yeah, that is a huge issue in itself. Public office should not be a career but something you take time out of your career to perform.
kasey_junk 11y ago
Or to decriminalize all insider trading.
hueving 11y ago
It makes sense if an idiot were to come up with a solution in 5 seconds. The answer is NOT to give them free reign to do it. It's to prevent them from being allowed to choose stock investments entirely. They get enough perks, they don't need free reign over the market.

mslate 11y ago

Do you have any source data?

evanpw 11y ago

SEC employees also do pretty well for themselves: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-02-27/the-sec-should-really-start-a-hedge-fund http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-02-27/the-sec-sho...

martey 11y ago

Doesn't the STOCK Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act) explicitly ban Congresspeople from insider trading? The only study on the performance on Congressional stock portfolios is from 2004 [1]. Do you know of any post-STOCK studies? [1]: Ziobrowski, A.J., Cheng, P.X., Boyd, J.W., and Ziobrowski, B.J. (2004) “Abnormal Returns from the Common Stock Investments of Members of the United States Senate.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 661-676. (http://www.walkerd.people.cofc.edu/400/Sobel/P-04.%20Ziobrowski%20-%20Abnormal%20Returns%20US%20Senate.pdf http://www.walkerd.people.cofc.edu/400/Sobel/P-04.%20Ziobrow...)

bsbechtel 11y ago
I'm pretty sure the key provisions of the STOCK Act were repealed the same weekend as the Boston Marathon Bombings. See the amendment section of the Wikipedia article you linked to.
- martey 11y ago
  The amendment makes it significantly more difficult to detect insider trading (since financial disclosure reports are not available online), but I wouldn't describe it as a repeal of the law's "key provisions". See http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496... : "Still, two major elements of the law remain. Insider trading is illegal, even for members of Congress and the executive branch. And for those who are covered by the now-narrower law, disclosures of large stock trades are required within 45 days."
  - tzs 11y ago
    > The amendment makes it significantly more difficult to detect insider trading (since financial disclosure reports are not available online) That's only for staff. The reports for Congress members are still required to be available online. They are here [1]. [1] http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial.aspx http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial.aspx

_nedR 11y ago

Wait, Wait. Hold a second. I am not sure I read that correctly. Are you telling me that until 2012, for every confidential hearing that American congressman could attend, every budget proposal or allocation they had to vote on, every bill (say on the environment, or regarding corporate or financial regulation) they had to pass, or every declaration of war they had to approve, they were allowed to choose the outcome and personally profit from it?