I mean, they were just buying gamestonks en mass, what are you going to do, give capital interests the right to turn off stock market every time it looks like they or their buddies might lose money under the guise of 'protecting vulnerable investors' (themselves)?
oh, I almost forgot to post this:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nancy...173817407.html
this can fuck right off as well.Quote:
Nancy Pelosi made some stock purchases last month that are raising eyebrows — and questions — about the ethics of Congresspeople buying and selling stocks. In December, Rep. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, purchased 25 call options of Tesla stocks, along with a few other stock purchases. Why does this matter? Because under the Biden administration’s new agenda, with its focus on environmental protections and combating climate change, Pelosi could benefit financially from those political plans.
Why can't they just get a second job christ
I am fully in support of pausing trading of highly volatile securities provided that the pauses happen at the level of exchanges, not specific brokers. I also think that mom and pop brokers should sharply limit people's ability to easily do things like buying on the margin or buying more complex options because of the aforementioned sophisticated investor rule. FYI *I* don't qualify as a sophisticated investor quite yet, so I'm suggesting that there should be limits on my own ability to purchase complex financial products.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I do understand why the likes of Robinhood and E Trade have been restricting even normal trades on these equities (though I don't agree with them). These investors are exposing themselves to very high probability losses on a horrible scale, and when the bubble bursts I can guarantee that the brokers will be blamed for making it too easy for people to pour their life savings into highly volatile and overvalued stocks. So they're damned if you do, damned if you don't, and they chose the more paternalistic approach. I personally would have favored a nudge - adding a nag screen for stocks with volatility over some threshold (or other risk metrics) to warn people that they're making a risky choice. But I get why they did what they did.
Seriously? Do you need to be Nancy Pelosi to assume that the new administration will be much more friendly to technologies that mitigate climate change? It's not rocket science. The issue is trading on secret information to enrich yourself, not just making an obvious call. (... not that I don't think Tesla is overvalued, but it's not a bad play for climate friendly regulation)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Robinhood just announced that they will be allowing limited purchasing of select previously blocked options starting tomorrow. BB climbed an additional 8% in after hours since the announcement.
20%, tomorrow is going to be really interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
If you genuinely think that's why they did it then I don't know what to say to you.Quote:
I do understand why the likes of Robinhood and E Trade have been restricting even normal trades on these equities (though I don't agree with them). These investors are exposing themselves to very high probability losses on a horrible scale
The the problem is that it's an enormous conflict of interest. She's in a position to help influence & pass laws which she will then personally profit from, which is what usually gets called 'corruption'. Legislators should not be allowed to trade and invest, period.Quote:
Seriously? Do you need to be Nancy Pelosi to assume that the new administration will be much more friendly to technologies that mitigate climate change? It's not rocket science. The issue is trading on secret information to enrich yourself, not just making an obvious call. (... not that I don't think Tesla is overvalued, but it's not a bad play for climate friendly regulation)
Claims that Robinhood has been selling people's shares when they didn't want them sold.
If that's true (big if, can't believe much on Twitter) it seems inexcusable.
Unless there's a margin call or rational explanation.
My best guess, the people are idiots. With the buy option disabled the sell option is now in that button location.
Really? Strange design. Would expect the button to be where it always was and the buy one missing or greyed out.
I don't ascribe motivation to others; I have no idea why they did it. It's easy to imagine that they're trying to placate powerful funds that have shorted these stocks, but the reality is that their connections to the financial industry are to different players, not these kinds of funds. My guess is that their motivation isn't altruistic per se, but more an exercise in damage mitigation and trying to avoid suffering irreparable reputation damage. It's really hard to walk the fine line between truly providing these investing options to the masses and low cost and allowing them to be fleeced willy-nilly by more experienced traders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
For that matter, I have doubts about the real impetus behind all of the noise on these stocks on reddit. I have no doubt that the masses who are buying this are thumbing their noses at institutional investors and thinking they're being 'contrary' (and relishing the casualties of the short squeeze). But I wouldn't be shocked if some of the people who have identified these targets and pushed their popularity themselves have either long positions or more complex agendas wrt weakening those shorting the stocks. It's hardly the first time that enthusiasm for an investment has been drummed up by people with an ulterior motive.
I'm not really sure how a Democrat buying shares in an electric car firm are as much of a conflict of interest as you think. And I certainly think that the more despicable members of Congress who e.g. made substantial profit from early briefings on Covid are a far more serious problem. But I do agree that in principle there should be a law that officials who are sufficiently senior in government so as to allow them to substantially affect policy should be required to put their assets into someone else's control for the duration of their service.Quote:
The the problem is that it's an enormous conflict of interest. She's in a position to help influence & pass laws which she will then personally profit from, which is what usually get's called 'corruption'. Legislators should not be allowed to trade and invest, period.
I wonder if this whole thing will lead to more retail investment in stocks or if it will dissuade people. I haven't personally traded stocks on an individual basis in several years (Roth is in a mutual fund, 401(k) doesn't even allow individual stock trading and is in a target date fund) but the whole thing kind of makes me itch to throw some fun money at it.
Yeah, there's an easy motivation to find without involving altruism here. RobinHood only gets paid if their users keep trading. You're probably not going to keep trading if you just lost most of your life's savings on trading in just the span of a week. They could be looking to protect their bottom line by keeping their customers in a position to drip feed them trading fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I am not saying this is definitely why, or it's the only reason why, but I'd be pretty surprised if it didn't come up at least once in their internal conversations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
And yet, encouraging market volatility on large scales is still not a good thing and the work platforms and yes, the government and its regulatory agencies, take to reduce volatility should be appreciated for what they are: efforts to protect the general public from getting screwed over even harder, regardless of who else benefits in whatever ways.
And bearing in mind this forum's original origins out of a gaming forum, is there anyone here who really appreciates actions which protect Gamestop from getting regular kicks to the ass like it so richly deserves?
Twitter Link
In this particular case it is known that Robinhood has a connection with Citadel capital, the firm that bailed out Melvin.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I also would not be shocked. Still, there is a lesson to be taught here.Quote:
For that matter, I have doubts about the real impetus behind all of the noise on these stocks on reddit. I have no doubt that the masses who are buying this are thumbing their noses at institutional investors and thinking they're being 'contrary' (and relishing the casualties of the short squeeze). But I wouldn't be shocked if some of the people who have identified these targets and pushed their popularity themselves have either long positions or more complex agendas wrt weakening those shorting the stocks. It's hardly the first time that enthusiasm for an investment has been drummed up by people with an ulterior motive.
It's a clear conflict of interest because they're going to (hopefully) be passing environmental laws that making owning EV's (and other associated Telsa products, like the powerwall) more desirable, thus making the line go up.Quote:
I'm not really sure how a Democrat buying shares in an electric car firm are as much of a conflict of interest as you think.
Not only is this completely unethical, it also opens up environmental legislation to attack from bad faith actors (like the Republican party or the entire fossil fuel industry and automobile industry and, now that I think about it, just industries generally), saying she's only doing it because she wants to get rich off her Tesla stock, and what's your counter argument there? 'it's ok, she wouldn't do that' ? Not only is that inaccurate - she absolutely would do that - even if it were not it's hardly going to convince people who are, again, acting in bad faith and frankly I could do without it.
As I've said before, we should hold our elected representatives to higher standards than we hold games journalists writing for kotaku.
The good thing about my proposal is that it solves both of those problems.Quote:
And I certainly think that the more despicable members of Congress who e.g. made substantial profit from early briefings on Covid are a far more serious problem.
I would want to go further than that. Elected representative responsible for passing legislation = no stonks. Most of those fuckers are rich anyway.Quote:
But I do agree that in principle there should be a law that officials who are sufficiently senior in government so as to allow them to substantially affect policy should be required to put their assets into someone else's control for the duration of their service.
Given that the government and regulatory agencies have shown absolutely zero interest in protecting the general public from getting screwed over by any one of the following: dying through lack of health-care, going bankrupt from medical bills then dying form lack of healthcare, student debt with predatory interest rates, unemployment and eviction due to a deadly global pandemic, being killed by the police for no reason, wage theft, mass shootings, stagnant wages and the rising cost of living, homelessness, monopolistic broadband providers, poisonous drinking water, ridiculous sentences for minor crimes (and much more) and every interest in protecting the rich and advancing their interests, then when we have a situation when they're doing something ostensibly about protecting people from being screwed over which coincidentally also advances the interest of capital, then I become intensely skeptical.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Gamestop are a trash company who deserve what they get (I still haven't forgotten that time they tried to claim they were an essential business so they could stay open during the pandemics early months), but the people who work for them not so much, so if it's Gamestop or a hedge fund, I'll take Gamestop.Quote:
And bearing in mind this forum's original origins out of a gaming forum, is there anyone here who really appreciates actions which protect Gamestop from getting regular kicks to the ass like it so richly deserves?
I don't actually agree with your proposal or your assertion. For the second point, the median net worth of a member of Congress is about $1 million. That's a lot of money, sure, but for a well educated professional you're likely to have net worth on the order of $1 million by the time you're 35-45. Hardly unreasonable for Congressmen whose median age is somewhere around 60. Are there wealthy members of Congress? You betcha, and that includes Nancy Pelosi (to the tune of $100+ million). But your typical Congressman is well off, not truly rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
And that brings me to my objection to your first point. Investing in equities is the way that most professionals in the US build wealth (for middle classes, it's typically house equity). I don't think it's fair to ban your typical Congressman from investing in equities; essentially you'd be saying that you can only reasonably plan for your future and also be a Congressman if you start out independently wealthy, which is not an outcome I desire. I think it's fine to force them to give up decision-making capability over their assets while they are in office because of the aforementioned conflicts of interest and potential for insider trading.
I'm not really sure what to do with government leaders who are major owners of companies that the government or people in power do business with (e.g. Trump, Bloomberg, etc.); even if they technically hand off control, the reality is that they can still enrich themselves further through policymaking, and it's often impractical to unwind their ownership in an orderly manner without substantial disruptions to their business. I suspect this is an issue that we will continue to wrestle with in the future.
And their spouses? I was as livid as you could have wished/liked about the senators who did stock sell-offs after being briefed on Covid last winter, including Feinstein. But it wasn't really her stock being sold off, it was her husband's. He's the rich one, running an investment firm. Are we requiring those passing our legislation to have their partners also sell off their investment assets and give up their jobs? What about their kids?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
LF, there are rules on the books preventing trading on insider information as well as having people trade on your behalf from insider information, or people trading on the basis of insider information you give them. It's sometimes challenging to prosecute, but the rules exist for insider trading. I'm not sure why you couldn't set up a similar system for people privy to non-public information from the government, including family members. My wife and I routinely have to refrain from sharing details of our jobs with each other because we would be disclosing non-public material information. Certainly our policymakers can be asked to do the same - especially since much of that non-public information is in fact classified.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The question of conflicts of interests is more challenging - e.g. you can't really require all of an official's extended family to divest themselves or put their assets into blind trusts. So at some point policymakers can always create policy that benefits those close to them. Hell, that's the case even if they don't own a single share of a company. I'd say at that point you have to rely on as much transparency as is possible wrt to beneficial relationships and potential conflicts of interest. The press can help here, even if it's not a legal remedy.
That based on data, or just your circle of acquaintances?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
It seems like including 'house equity' i.e. owning a house and paying off your mortgage in the same category as shorting gamestop is a little disingenuous there.Quote:
And that brings me to my objection to your first point. Investing in equities is the way that most professionals in the US build wealth (for middle classes, it's typically house equity). I don't think it's fair to ban your typical Congressman from investing in equities; essentially you'd be saying that you can only reasonably plan for your future and also be a Congressman if you start out independently wealthy, which is not an outcome I desire. I think it's fine to force them to give up decision-making capability over their assets while they are in office because of the aforementioned conflicts of interest and potential for insider trading.
Nevertheless, if the only way to reasonable prepare for your future in the US even for the well trained middle class is to make bets on abstract mathematical models about fictitious capital/what drunk idiots think abstract mathematical models will say about fictitious capital, then that seems like it might be bad. We should probably do something about that, like make wages go up or something.
To be clear, problem I have with letting them to continue to trade but have someone else actually make the decision is it's honestly too easy to pass information back and forth in ways that are completely deniable. "Thinking about making it so all new cars have to be EVs by 2030" "Say no more", etc
These guys can put their money in an ISA or something.
Ineligible for public office. Why do you think I was so down on Bloomberg as the Democratic nominee all those years ago? Other than him being terrible, obviously.Quote:
I'm not really sure what to do with government leaders who are major owners of companies that the government or people in power do business with (e.g. Trump, Bloomberg, etc.); even if they technically hand off control, the reality is that they can still enrich themselves further through policymaking, and it's often impractical to unwind their ownership in an orderly manner without substantial disruptions to their business. I suspect this is an issue that we will continue to wrestle with in the future.
For spouses: yes to assets, no to jobs. Not sure about kids, that is genuinely a good point; I would probably lean towards drawing the line at restrictions on adult children. Spouses tend to share assets, but once kids grow up they're ostensibly independent individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Can't vouch for quality of data but here's one possible answer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
https://ofdollarsanddata.com/average...and-education/
So if you make some specific assumptions about type of education and subsequent career, and say that you're actually talking about household net worth for a highly educated professional couple then sure.
Twitter Link
Lalalala
Yeah, but the median net worth of congressers is $1 million as individuals. Not sure how they factored household wealth into that, but that's the number we're dealing with.
That's really not disproportionately a lot for well educated professionals in their 50s or 60s.
Yes, you have to make some specific assumptions about the type of education and their subsequent careers—assumptions that may be so specific that it may well be fair to describe most Congressmen as being wealthy at least. I personally don't believe it's all that relevant to a discussion about whether or not Congressmen should be allowed to trade individual stocks. If you're not wealthy and you want to get into politics while being able to secure your financial future, get index funds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Although note that you haven't considered payoffs to mistresses and prostitutes.
You can just embezzle campaign funds for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Look, if congress people are concerned about putting food on the table after I ban them from trading stocks, I do have some useful tips for them:
1) Eat out less
2) Consider working a second job at McDonald's or Starbucks
3) Sell your iPhone, you don't actually need a state of the art smart phone
4) Downsize from your enormous mansion to something more sensible, and you can always share a home with another congress person and their family to save even more
5) Put on a few layers and turn the heating down during the winter months to save money on gas and electricity
6) Carpool with other congress people to and from Capitol Hill, potentially even from the opposing party
I do think that with sensible budgeting they could make their starting salary of $174,000 go a *long* way.
But this would mean that only people who aren't independently wealthy would become congressmenQuote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint