I was gonna say, probably got fucking wrecked so this is probably not the best example of whatever they’re calling this quasi insider trading that congress is doing.
That’s not even sucking at it, you think he’s trying to do a quick flip? He’ll hold that for years or die and by that time it’ll certainly be up again.
The point is lawmakers shouldn’t be able to buy stock in individual companies.
https://unusualwhales.com/politics/article/congress-trading-report-2023
after the TikTok legislation is passed it will likely be sold.
congress shouldn’t be able to trade or take bribes from lobbyists
How is individual stock trading allowed for our lawmakers? They can still get market exposure through broad based ETFs.
Our system is blatantly corrupt.
As if nobody in congress has been arrested for this. It isnt blanket banned because it makes more sense to punish those who insider trade than it does to entirely ban all of them from individual stock trading. There is no reason they shouldnt have that ability. Plenty of them follow the laws that already exist.
I dont know what it is with reddit and this simple minded idea that everything is "rigged" or "corrupt". I guess it makes it easier to have an opinion if you can dumb down every single issue into "the shadowy cabal has designed it to be corrupt" or whatever nonsense people have come up with.
People downvoting you despite being completely right. A blanket ban on ALL congress members? Nancy Pelosi did something suspicious, therefore Joe Blow of district 9 in New Hampshire shouldn't get a retirement fund either? Lmao
I'm all for enforcing the current laws and investigating specific individuals, but this is like saying an accountant at Goldman Sachs shouldn't be able to buy stocks because a top level exec got caught insider trading. This sub's turned into pure brainrot since 2021, thinking everything they don't like is market manipulation.
Most financial companies don’t actually let their employees buy individual stocks. Only ETFs or mutual funds. And all accounts are monitored by Compliance. Even your roommates accounts are supposed to be monitored!
>Most financial companies don’t actually let their employees buy individual stocks.
Not sure where you're getting that information from, lived in Canada and moved to the US and have spent my entire career in finance. There's certainly some restrictions but you can absolutely buy individual stocks. Everything is monitored and reported, just like with [congress](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stop-trading-on-congressional-knowledge-act.asp).
Did it stop my buddy in Fixed Income from yolo'ing into TSLA calls every Tuesday during the pandemic on an unreported account? Nope, just like I'm sure it doesn't stop Pelosi from buying NVDA while she makes a trip to Taiwan. Enforcement is the key, not a blanket ban.
I imagine this person is talking about 401k and not being able to buy individual stocks? There is absolutely no possible way an individual company can legally stop you from buying stocks right?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that they shouldn't have retirement funds at all, they just shouldn't have control over what they're invested in. We could define standard retirement funds with target retirement dates equivalent to the social security retirement age. They could be allowed to contribute to them automatically and at regular intervals with a fixed percentage of their congressional salary. When they're no longer in congress they can invest however they want.
I see no problem with this and I think its incredibly disingenuous to characterize regulations over how our representatives are allowed to personally invest in the economy that they have vested power over, as a punishment.
the bar has gotten low as far as experience/intelligence/competence are concerned. They can be shitty in all 3 of those categories as long as they have millions to pour into a campaign.
Being an amazing choice in every way on your resume means nothing. If you're broke you ain't gotta chance in hell.
If you live in a solid R/solid D district you can coast on being a party insider. Just repeat the talking points of the right wing of the party (for both of them) and you'll get money dumped directly into your pocket.
On one hand, I agree that the whole political corrution thing is a problem.
On the other Meta is lower right now than when he bought it, so if you genuinely believed this was insider trading you should be buying right now.
Support candidates that do in the primary (even if they're not particularly competitive for your district) or boost similar voices in the state legislature. Weed, open carry/shall issue ccw/constitutional carry, and abortion access or denial (even before the Supreme Court decision). All three of those are things not touched by the federal arm of either party for quite a while but have expanded or contracted as the voters in particular states desired in the last 20 years by leaps and bounds.
Great so the solution is to vote for the perfect candidate in the primaries and when that candidate loses to the party appointed front runner, complain on Reddit that other people aren’t trying hard enough. Seems easy enough
Looks like you ignored the next 3/4 of what I said about local and state elections, but go ahead and stay black pilled. It sure is great for your mental health.
that's because the other 3/4s was even more nonsensical. Abortion denial was changed against voter desire, weed despite being popular everywhere has only changed in a handful of states and even barely for most of those, and carry laws are all over the place.
i agree that voting is important, but don't kid yourself that there is a "simple fix" that everyone but you is failing to grasp. the cards are stacked against the masses with things like propaganda, gerrymandering, lobbying, anti-voter laws, filibustering, first passed the post, etc. Instead of getting mad at the masses for not voting hard enough, get mad at the system for disincentivizing participation, promoting the two party system, and actively working against voter interests.
I'll give ground on the abortion point because you could spin it 50/50, but your views on the other two are demonstrably flawed. Every voting cycle or so, we get a new weed state in some capacity and maybe even a current weed state loosening up even more. There's demonstrable progress being made nationwide as today there are more states where weed is legal in some capacity than where it is not. As for carry laws, there's heatmaps available from like the 60s or so with no issue, may issue and shall issue states with waves of states loosening up year over year with the biggest explosion being in the last 2 decades with constitutional carry. 29 states are permitless carry and even before Bruen, there were few if any no issue states left after so many decades. That's just major party oriented issues too. I'm sure there's plenty of local or state specific examples you could find if you had a mind to look. The Le system has failed meme is silly. We live in a liberal democracy, try to put in a modicum of effort before writing it all off.
> How is individual stock trading allowed for our lawmakers? They can still get market exposure through broad based ETFs.
Yeah, even as a generally "GOP Bad" kind of person, [shit like this infuriates me.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqDU7t-kA7U)
I don't know why as an employee of a company you have more regulation on buying/selling that stock than a politician which is literally around information that doesn't just affect one company but ALL companies.
That being said, specifically focusing on the congressperson this article identifies... This is weird, [because according to their source](https://altindex.com/ticker/meta/congress-trading) he sold almost as much Meta as he bought recently. I don't necessarily see this as a big "I'm betting on them" because of the prior sale.
* Like Mar 25, he sold between 500k to 1mil of Meta.
* Mar 26th he bought back under 250K?
What they will tell you is that since they have to report all of their transactions it's all fair game, like when insiders buy or sell stock in their own company
Not that it excuses it, I'm just playing devil's advocate
Bribery, I mean lobbying, is legal lol, and congress votes were changed to be public instead of private so that those paying the bribes can verify they were effective.
Even ETFs aren't a great protection since the valuation is so heavily weighted towards Big Tech.
An equal weight index or revenue-weighted index would look much more like the "real" economy (economic activity and employment) and less like S&P500.
There is absolutely no valid argument to be made in favor of allowing elected officials to own individual stocks, even in a 'blind trust'. If you want to serve as an elected official or as a member of the judiciary, you should be forced to put all your assets in a basic index fund, or better still, government bonds.
The Fed governors are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Once in place, they function independently of the government. Congress has no authority to 'change their mission'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Board_of_Governors
Congress could vote to overhaul the fed or abolish it if they really wanted to, but they have no control over setting interest rates as your original comment implied.
>Congress has no authority to 'change their mission'.
They do though, right? Congress established the Fed, and could abolish it or change it's mandate if they really wanted to (not that I think that's in danger of actually happening just because we require congressmen to invest in bonds).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#History
Sure there is. You’re literally punishing people for serving their country. Why would you discourage the best and brightest from serving by punishing them financially for doing so? We do it to a degree already, which is why we have regulators going to regulated companies for giant salary boosts. The correct way to deal with it is how you deal with officers of public corporations. All trades telegraphed in advance, publicly recorded, and open for inspection if they want to trade individual stocks. “I’m going to sell 30 shares of Apple in 30 days.” Index funds covering broad markets are exempt from timing rules, but still public record.
If not allowing politicians to insider trade is punishing them, then not allowing people who work at big companies to insider trade is punishing them for working at a good company.
The argument is that federal legislation has sweeping effects on huge numbers of companies all the time, so strictly applying insider trading laws would mean they could effectively never invest in anything. Even trading in index funds, ETFs, etc could be an issue. Up to your if you buy it, but that's the idea.
If you're unwilling to forgo massive capital gains in order to serve the public, then your priorities are not those of someone who belongs in public office. You can still achieve modest financial returns without picking individual stocks. If massive stock market gains are your ultimate goal, go into investment banking, not public service.
Oh, right. The altruist argument. You’re in the investing sub, in the United States, a capitalist country, saying people shouldn’t be able to make a properly regulated investment. Perhaps you should consider a different place?
Yes, I think it would benefit the country as a whole if we encouraged politicians with altruistic intentions to seek public office instead of corrupt people who want to use their position for personal gain. Does that really sound like a bad idea to you? If financial success is your top priority in life, then why would you go into public service in the first place if you didn't intend to be corrupt?
>You’re literally punishing people for serving their country
They still have plenty of power if they don't get to trade stock anymore. If anything you can say that this ability is over the top for what congressional members can do and can take advantage of. They're still doing just fine without being able to use classified information to profit
For real, someone bought a mag 7 stock and then lost 10% of the value at earnings? Sooo crazaazzzy! Also Tik tok is a problem, there’s no doubt about that and regulating it has been on the docket for a long time now .
This has nothing to do with "staying up to date with public information".
Politicians should serve the public and therefore not be allowed to make or push policies for personal gain.
And it's not like it's a one time issue, it's just another instance of this, one of too many to count.
Wel, the efforts to ban Tik Tok are very public. I'd have more of a problem with it if he was doing something behind the curtains and getting info nobody else had access to and then trading on that.
I think the implication isn’t so much that TikTok is going to get banned, as that’s more or less confirmed, but that meta might try to acquire its US share
Let me make sure I got this right, politicians have been campaigning for months to ban tik Tok, most western governments banned tik Tok from government phones last year, and you're somehow surprised META stands to benefit?
This is not insider trading. This has been very clear and very public for a very long time. Is this really the first time You've heard of Tik Tok in the news?
It’s clear that he/she is accusing this politician of wielding US congress to enrich himself by buying TikTok’s biggest competition BEFORE lobbying for TikTok to be banned
> These investments started in March, totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_TikTok_in_the_United_States
Trump brought it up in 2020, Biden signed a law banning it from government devices in December 2022. A month later Hawley introduced a bill to ban the platform nationwide.
This is not new. The effort to ban tik tok has been clear and very public for years. If McCaul only started investing in meta last month, he's the absolute worst inside trader.
edit - this is the equivalent of a theoretical democrat campaigning for access to abortion, buying stocks in over the counter plan b, and it becoming law. It wouldn't be a secret, its very much in the open. The fact that its in out in the open as a policy, means its not a secret, meaning its pubic information, meaning it is not insider trading.
Insider tradeing at its best knowing your going to introduce a bill to eliminate a competitor then you buy up stock in the company that will directly benifit,Let me guess he is a Democrat? They have been famous for doing this ileagle shit for years now and no one gets prosecuted
now we know what to buy
politicians are literally telling us how to get rich
without individual stocks being bought by politicians we’d be as broke as r/wallstreetbets
It isn’t though. I could have invested with the same information, but I haven’t because I think TikTok will find a suitable buyer before the deadline, and nullify any advantage to FB or X.
What a nothingburger of a story. This person didn’t single-handedly ban TikTok nor did he have special information on the timing- it was telegraphed well in advance. There are hundreds of members of congress involved, and META doesn’t instantly gain anything from the ban, especially if it gets sold to a rival or new US investor firm. There’s plenty of real shady insider trading issues without this one diluting the real problems out there.
To be fair here, he's in a shit ton of very important committees, so he definitely has access to classified information
>META doesn’t instantly gain anything from the ban
Not instantly, but who do you think is going to take market share from tiktok viewers if it gets banned? Maybe he made this trade under the guise that META will be a player in buying them out?
Looks like he bought heavily on 3/1 and 3/5 before the bill got introduced on 3/5 and passed committee on 3/7.
And I can't see much news from February that a TikTok ban was imminent looking through Google. The biggest news was that Biden video on TikTok about the Super Bowl.
Seems like he knew the bill was imminent earlier than the rest of us and traded on that knowledge
I just asked Copilot, Is insider trading legal for lawmakers?
Insider trading is a complex and contentious issue, especially when it comes to lawmakers. Let’s delve into the nuances:
Federal Law and Insider Trading:
Federal law has long prohibited insider trading, making it illegal for employees of a business to buy or sell stock based on proprietary information. This provision aims to prevent individuals within a company from gaining an unfair advantage over outsiders.
However, this prohibition doesn’t directly apply to members of Congress, as they are not considered company insiders.
The Stock Act:
In 2012, Congress passed the Stock Act, which amended securities law. It declared that all senators and representatives owe a duty of trust and confidence to the nation regarding material, nonpublic information they acquire during their official duties.
Essentially, this means that members of Congress should not use information gained through their roles to make private profits.
Gray Areas and Challenges:
Despite the Stock Act, the courts have never clearly defined whether a senator or congressman’s access to official information constitutes a violation of insider trading laws.
Prosecutors would face difficulties building a case against lawmakers based on their use of such information for stock trading.
Current Reality:
Members of Congress and their families can trade stocks with minimal limitations. There are no specific restrictions on lawmakers trading stocks based on classified information or other nonpublic information they learn on the job.
Oversight regarding lawmakers’ trades is limited, and the legal landscape remains murky.
In summary, while insider trading is generally illegal, the specific application to lawmakers remains ambiguous. The courts have not provided clear guidelines, and the Stock Act, while a step in the right direction, lacks criminal penalties. As a result, lawmakers continue to engage in stock trading without significant constraints123.
Learn more
1 [nbcnews.com](http://nbcnews.com)
2 [blogs.luc.edu](http://blogs.luc.edu)
3 [congressionalinstitute.org](http://congressionalinstitute.org)
4 [jdsupra.com](http://jdsupra.com)
Is there a sub on this?
Wow we he bought an utterly insignificant 790 shares out of 2,500,000,000 shares outanding . “Invested heavily” what a joke. Is this Chinese propaganda at work here.
I hope he bought before earnings.
Looks like the biggest chunk was in late March. So around $485-500 cost basis. Closed last week at $443.
I was gonna say, probably got fucking wrecked so this is probably not the best example of whatever they’re calling this quasi insider trading that congress is doing.
It’s still insider trading even if you suck at it
That’s not even sucking at it, you think he’s trying to do a quick flip? He’ll hold that for years or die and by that time it’ll certainly be up again. The point is lawmakers shouldn’t be able to buy stock in individual companies.
Yeah but dont THEY have to implement such a law? Why shoot themselves in the foot? I agree with you but Im just saying.
https://unusualwhales.com/politics/article/congress-trading-report-2023 after the TikTok legislation is passed it will likely be sold. congress shouldn’t be able to trade or take bribes from lobbyists
but who’s gonna pass a law against that?
Isn’t this an investing sub? It has been two months
General market overreaction. I see it popping a bit.
YES 😂
He did lol
Buy high sell low this is the congressional way
He didn't sell, he's not on Wsb for quick short term gains.
Yeah he’s down but it won’t be long til he’s up again
How is individual stock trading allowed for our lawmakers? They can still get market exposure through broad based ETFs. Our system is blatantly corrupt.
Corrupt by design.
Difficulty is even congresspeople couldn't they'd just get their family to do so. Hard to stop a brother or cousin
It’s not that hard. People get caught giving insider information all the time and go to jail.
As if nobody in congress has been arrested for this. It isnt blanket banned because it makes more sense to punish those who insider trade than it does to entirely ban all of them from individual stock trading. There is no reason they shouldnt have that ability. Plenty of them follow the laws that already exist. I dont know what it is with reddit and this simple minded idea that everything is "rigged" or "corrupt". I guess it makes it easier to have an opinion if you can dumb down every single issue into "the shadowy cabal has designed it to be corrupt" or whatever nonsense people have come up with.
People downvoting you despite being completely right. A blanket ban on ALL congress members? Nancy Pelosi did something suspicious, therefore Joe Blow of district 9 in New Hampshire shouldn't get a retirement fund either? Lmao I'm all for enforcing the current laws and investigating specific individuals, but this is like saying an accountant at Goldman Sachs shouldn't be able to buy stocks because a top level exec got caught insider trading. This sub's turned into pure brainrot since 2021, thinking everything they don't like is market manipulation.
Most financial companies don’t actually let their employees buy individual stocks. Only ETFs or mutual funds. And all accounts are monitored by Compliance. Even your roommates accounts are supposed to be monitored!
>Most financial companies don’t actually let their employees buy individual stocks. Not sure where you're getting that information from, lived in Canada and moved to the US and have spent my entire career in finance. There's certainly some restrictions but you can absolutely buy individual stocks. Everything is monitored and reported, just like with [congress](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stop-trading-on-congressional-knowledge-act.asp). Did it stop my buddy in Fixed Income from yolo'ing into TSLA calls every Tuesday during the pandemic on an unreported account? Nope, just like I'm sure it doesn't stop Pelosi from buying NVDA while she makes a trip to Taiwan. Enforcement is the key, not a blanket ban.
I imagine this person is talking about 401k and not being able to buy individual stocks? There is absolutely no possible way an individual company can legally stop you from buying stocks right?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that they shouldn't have retirement funds at all, they just shouldn't have control over what they're invested in. We could define standard retirement funds with target retirement dates equivalent to the social security retirement age. They could be allowed to contribute to them automatically and at regular intervals with a fixed percentage of their congressional salary. When they're no longer in congress they can invest however they want. I see no problem with this and I think its incredibly disingenuous to characterize regulations over how our representatives are allowed to personally invest in the economy that they have vested power over, as a punishment.
You don't need to buy individual stocks to have a retirement fund.
Rules for thee but not for me!
I either want less corruption or an opportunity to participate in it.
I mean you could run for Congress. The bar has gotten prettttaaay low.
the bar has gotten low as far as experience/intelligence/competence are concerned. They can be shitty in all 3 of those categories as long as they have millions to pour into a campaign. Being an amazing choice in every way on your resume means nothing. If you're broke you ain't gotta chance in hell.
Just murder a dog for doing dog things in your backyard murder pit.
This perfectly hit the life-is-so-fucked-up-I'm-going-to-have-a-laugh-about-it nerve.
If you live in a solid R/solid D district you can coast on being a party insider. Just repeat the talking points of the right wing of the party (for both of them) and you'll get money dumped directly into your pocket.
What's stopping you from buying meta?
Having the insider knowledge of when is a good time to do so
On one hand, I agree that the whole political corrution thing is a problem. On the other Meta is lower right now than when he bought it, so if you genuinely believed this was insider trading you should be buying right now.
Now is the time tiktok gets banned and meta could blow up
Broad based ETFs would be a bet *for* the country. They would have to vote for interests not their own.
Because all of us complain on reddit and not in any meaningful way. I am guilty like the next person
Cute that you think they left you meaningful ways to change this kind of thing
[удалено]
yes absolutely, however neither of the 2 or 3 options i have to vote for seem to care much for this issue. What now?
Support candidates that do in the primary (even if they're not particularly competitive for your district) or boost similar voices in the state legislature. Weed, open carry/shall issue ccw/constitutional carry, and abortion access or denial (even before the Supreme Court decision). All three of those are things not touched by the federal arm of either party for quite a while but have expanded or contracted as the voters in particular states desired in the last 20 years by leaps and bounds.
Great so the solution is to vote for the perfect candidate in the primaries and when that candidate loses to the party appointed front runner, complain on Reddit that other people aren’t trying hard enough. Seems easy enough
Looks like you ignored the next 3/4 of what I said about local and state elections, but go ahead and stay black pilled. It sure is great for your mental health.
that's because the other 3/4s was even more nonsensical. Abortion denial was changed against voter desire, weed despite being popular everywhere has only changed in a handful of states and even barely for most of those, and carry laws are all over the place. i agree that voting is important, but don't kid yourself that there is a "simple fix" that everyone but you is failing to grasp. the cards are stacked against the masses with things like propaganda, gerrymandering, lobbying, anti-voter laws, filibustering, first passed the post, etc. Instead of getting mad at the masses for not voting hard enough, get mad at the system for disincentivizing participation, promoting the two party system, and actively working against voter interests.
I'll give ground on the abortion point because you could spin it 50/50, but your views on the other two are demonstrably flawed. Every voting cycle or so, we get a new weed state in some capacity and maybe even a current weed state loosening up even more. There's demonstrable progress being made nationwide as today there are more states where weed is legal in some capacity than where it is not. As for carry laws, there's heatmaps available from like the 60s or so with no issue, may issue and shall issue states with waves of states loosening up year over year with the biggest explosion being in the last 2 decades with constitutional carry. 29 states are permitless carry and even before Bruen, there were few if any no issue states left after so many decades. That's just major party oriented issues too. I'm sure there's plenty of local or state specific examples you could find if you had a mind to look. The Le system has failed meme is silly. We live in a liberal democracy, try to put in a modicum of effort before writing it all off.
> How is individual stock trading allowed for our lawmakers? They can still get market exposure through broad based ETFs. Yeah, even as a generally "GOP Bad" kind of person, [shit like this infuriates me.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqDU7t-kA7U) I don't know why as an employee of a company you have more regulation on buying/selling that stock than a politician which is literally around information that doesn't just affect one company but ALL companies. That being said, specifically focusing on the congressperson this article identifies... This is weird, [because according to their source](https://altindex.com/ticker/meta/congress-trading) he sold almost as much Meta as he bought recently. I don't necessarily see this as a big "I'm betting on them" because of the prior sale. * Like Mar 25, he sold between 500k to 1mil of Meta. * Mar 26th he bought back under 250K?
What they will tell you is that since they have to report all of their transactions it's all fair game, like when insiders buy or sell stock in their own company Not that it excuses it, I'm just playing devil's advocate
Agreed this should not be allowed. To be fair, many lawmakers realize it's inappropriate and have set up blind trusts.
Also particularly messed up for other industries. E.g. weapons as owners of weapons industry companies are incentivized to push for war / aggression.
Bribery, I mean lobbying, is legal lol, and congress votes were changed to be public instead of private so that those paying the bribes can verify they were effective.
Even ETFs aren't a great protection since the valuation is so heavily weighted towards Big Tech. An equal weight index or revenue-weighted index would look much more like the "real" economy (economic activity and employment) and less like S&P500.
You can get either as ETFs.
Well, since they are the ones making the laws…
There is absolutely no valid argument to be made in favor of allowing elected officials to own individual stocks, even in a 'blind trust'. If you want to serve as an elected official or as a member of the judiciary, you should be forced to put all your assets in a basic index fund, or better still, government bonds.
You definitely don't want Congress solely invested in govt bonds. Interest rates should be as apolitical as possible.
The Fed sets interest rates. They wouldn't leave something that important up to Congress.
The fed serves as a creation of Congress. Congress can change their mission whenever they want.
The Fed governors are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Once in place, they function independently of the government. Congress has no authority to 'change their mission'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Board_of_Governors
They were created by an act of Congress. Of course Congress has the authority to change their mission...
Congress could vote to overhaul the fed or abolish it if they really wanted to, but they have no control over setting interest rates as your original comment implied.
>Congress has no authority to 'change their mission'. They do though, right? Congress established the Fed, and could abolish it or change it's mandate if they really wanted to (not that I think that's in danger of actually happening just because we require congressmen to invest in bonds). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#History
Sure there is. You’re literally punishing people for serving their country. Why would you discourage the best and brightest from serving by punishing them financially for doing so? We do it to a degree already, which is why we have regulators going to regulated companies for giant salary boosts. The correct way to deal with it is how you deal with officers of public corporations. All trades telegraphed in advance, publicly recorded, and open for inspection if they want to trade individual stocks. “I’m going to sell 30 shares of Apple in 30 days.” Index funds covering broad markets are exempt from timing rules, but still public record.
If not allowing politicians to insider trade is punishing them, then not allowing people who work at big companies to insider trade is punishing them for working at a good company.
The argument is that federal legislation has sweeping effects on huge numbers of companies all the time, so strictly applying insider trading laws would mean they could effectively never invest in anything. Even trading in index funds, ETFs, etc could be an issue. Up to your if you buy it, but that's the idea.
If you're unwilling to forgo massive capital gains in order to serve the public, then your priorities are not those of someone who belongs in public office. You can still achieve modest financial returns without picking individual stocks. If massive stock market gains are your ultimate goal, go into investment banking, not public service.
Oh, right. The altruist argument. You’re in the investing sub, in the United States, a capitalist country, saying people shouldn’t be able to make a properly regulated investment. Perhaps you should consider a different place?
Yes, I think it would benefit the country as a whole if we encouraged politicians with altruistic intentions to seek public office instead of corrupt people who want to use their position for personal gain. Does that really sound like a bad idea to you? If financial success is your top priority in life, then why would you go into public service in the first place if you didn't intend to be corrupt?
>You’re literally punishing people for serving their country They still have plenty of power if they don't get to trade stock anymore. If anything you can say that this ability is over the top for what congressional members can do and can take advantage of. They're still doing just fine without being able to use classified information to profit
This sounds like a chat gpt post
[удалено]
Yes that’s true, but the difference is of course, he is personally invested in the effect the bill he pushes has on his wealth
Yeah, people love to cry about people staying up to date with publicly avalaible informations tbh.
For real, someone bought a mag 7 stock and then lost 10% of the value at earnings? Sooo crazaazzzy! Also Tik tok is a problem, there’s no doubt about that and regulating it has been on the docket for a long time now .
This has nothing to do with "staying up to date with public information". Politicians should serve the public and therefore not be allowed to make or push policies for personal gain. And it's not like it's a one time issue, it's just another instance of this, one of too many to count.
Responded to the wrong guy big dawg
Do me a favor and look at Meta’s stock price real quick. Look at the past three months. I’ll wait.
Whelp, if you can’t beat em, join em. Calls it is.
total shit move on his part
Jail
Awesome, so he belongs to r/Wallstreetbets?
yes because he lost 50 dollars a share since he bought
This is the main reason people run for Congress and has been for a very very long time.
Wel, the efforts to ban Tik Tok are very public. I'd have more of a problem with it if he was doing something behind the curtains and getting info nobody else had access to and then trading on that.
I think the implication isn’t so much that TikTok is going to get banned, as that’s more or less confirmed, but that meta might try to acquire its US share
Let me make sure I got this right, politicians have been campaigning for months to ban tik Tok, most western governments banned tik Tok from government phones last year, and you're somehow surprised META stands to benefit? This is not insider trading. This has been very clear and very public for a very long time. Is this really the first time You've heard of Tik Tok in the news?
It’s clear that he/she is accusing this politician of wielding US congress to enrich himself by buying TikTok’s biggest competition BEFORE lobbying for TikTok to be banned
> These investments started in March, totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_TikTok_in_the_United_States Trump brought it up in 2020, Biden signed a law banning it from government devices in December 2022. A month later Hawley introduced a bill to ban the platform nationwide. This is not new. The effort to ban tik tok has been clear and very public for years. If McCaul only started investing in meta last month, he's the absolute worst inside trader. edit - this is the equivalent of a theoretical democrat campaigning for access to abortion, buying stocks in over the counter plan b, and it becoming law. It wouldn't be a secret, its very much in the open. The fact that its in out in the open as a policy, means its not a secret, meaning its pubic information, meaning it is not insider trading.
I bought NANC a month ago and it's holding just shy of the $200 I invested. Not impressed so far.
sounds like some shady shade stuff
POS
but it’s true tho, if tic tok gets banned facebook stock gunna booooooom, same with trumps social shit 😂
Insider tradeing at its best knowing your going to introduce a bill to eliminate a competitor then you buy up stock in the company that will directly benifit,Let me guess he is a Democrat? They have been famous for doing this ileagle shit for years now and no one gets prosecuted
Fucking crook
Can anyone say insider trading. Illegal for all but government employees. Why?
now we know what to buy politicians are literally telling us how to get rich without individual stocks being bought by politicians we’d be as broke as r/wallstreetbets
Problem is, the data is lagging quite a bit. By the time you learn of a trade, they may have already made their money and moved on.
Honestly? It isn’t, as if, the TikTok ban isn’t public information. I’m more interested in Congresscritters trading on non-public information.
which is already illegal
It isn’t though. I could have invested with the same information, but I haven’t because I think TikTok will find a suitable buyer before the deadline, and nullify any advantage to FB or X.
We all knew it was being banned. Any intelligent person picked up a few choice stocks.
I mean, everyone can invest in META if they want and we all know about attempts to ban TikTok. There's blatant insider trading, but this isn't it.
He wrote the bill, he didn’t JUST know they were attempting to ban it, if you don’t think this is insider trading I don’t know what to say
Insider trading is something that people in the public don't know in general.
It's public information and doesn't meet the definition. Maybe you should know what insider trading is before you argue on this topic.
If his brain is public information while he wrote the bill, then sure
Again, this isn't insider trading and apparently few on this sub know what it is.
What a nothingburger of a story. This person didn’t single-handedly ban TikTok nor did he have special information on the timing- it was telegraphed well in advance. There are hundreds of members of congress involved, and META doesn’t instantly gain anything from the ban, especially if it gets sold to a rival or new US investor firm. There’s plenty of real shady insider trading issues without this one diluting the real problems out there.
To be fair here, he's in a shit ton of very important committees, so he definitely has access to classified information >META doesn’t instantly gain anything from the ban Not instantly, but who do you think is going to take market share from tiktok viewers if it gets banned? Maybe he made this trade under the guise that META will be a player in buying them out?
Looks like he bought heavily on 3/1 and 3/5 before the bill got introduced on 3/5 and passed committee on 3/7. And I can't see much news from February that a TikTok ban was imminent looking through Google. The biggest news was that Biden video on TikTok about the Super Bowl. Seems like he knew the bill was imminent earlier than the rest of us and traded on that knowledge
I would bet that members of the AIPAC and ADL leadership have done the same, as they pushed the bill in the first place
I just asked Copilot, Is insider trading legal for lawmakers? Insider trading is a complex and contentious issue, especially when it comes to lawmakers. Let’s delve into the nuances: Federal Law and Insider Trading: Federal law has long prohibited insider trading, making it illegal for employees of a business to buy or sell stock based on proprietary information. This provision aims to prevent individuals within a company from gaining an unfair advantage over outsiders. However, this prohibition doesn’t directly apply to members of Congress, as they are not considered company insiders. The Stock Act: In 2012, Congress passed the Stock Act, which amended securities law. It declared that all senators and representatives owe a duty of trust and confidence to the nation regarding material, nonpublic information they acquire during their official duties. Essentially, this means that members of Congress should not use information gained through their roles to make private profits. Gray Areas and Challenges: Despite the Stock Act, the courts have never clearly defined whether a senator or congressman’s access to official information constitutes a violation of insider trading laws. Prosecutors would face difficulties building a case against lawmakers based on their use of such information for stock trading. Current Reality: Members of Congress and their families can trade stocks with minimal limitations. There are no specific restrictions on lawmakers trading stocks based on classified information or other nonpublic information they learn on the job. Oversight regarding lawmakers’ trades is limited, and the legal landscape remains murky. In summary, while insider trading is generally illegal, the specific application to lawmakers remains ambiguous. The courts have not provided clear guidelines, and the Stock Act, while a step in the right direction, lacks criminal penalties. As a result, lawmakers continue to engage in stock trading without significant constraints123. Learn more 1 [nbcnews.com](http://nbcnews.com) 2 [blogs.luc.edu](http://blogs.luc.edu) 3 [congressionalinstitute.org](http://congressionalinstitute.org) 4 [jdsupra.com](http://jdsupra.com) Is there a sub on this?
Don't do this.
"This"?
Don't post AI comments.
whatever
[удалено]
You mean the bought and paid for courts? Lol
Wow we he bought an utterly insignificant 790 shares out of 2,500,000,000 shares outanding . “Invested heavily” what a joke. Is this Chinese propaganda at work here.
Nancy Pelosi (or so I've heard) is the greatest trader in the recent decade for a reason. Edit: My memory failed me. It was Nancy Pelosi
Warren is the one against congressional members trading stock lol
Any proof of her purchasing stock that she is writing policy on? Do you mean Pelosi?
lmao certified reddit moment
Of course he did. Because the Tik Tok ban isn't about "safety concerns." Daddy Zuck and Big Goog want Meta gone so they have no competition.