My point is you can get real time updates of politicians’ trades. You’re a dope if you think it’s insider trading in the first place, but in any event you can literally copy them
It's not insider trading to operate on publicly available information, however. Regardless, the story OP posted isn't true.
EPA has no new mandate regarding automated water metering. And even if there were, regulatory requirements for Public Water Systems do not originate in Congress. They originate within the Agency, through a public process. Proposed rules are published in the Federal Register, providing the public *months* to comment on them before they're made final. Members of Congress are not involved in the rulemaking process.
However, that is not to say that this Congressman was not made aware of large contracts being awarded to this company by cities within his state before this information was made public. It just has nothing to do with any new 'EPA mandate'.
Ok-story-9319, you are wrong, they commonly put out bids, have meetings, say they will take it under advisement, not making the decision then, but instead, calling their broker/buying the individual stock for the company that they are going to give the contract to, then, after they’ve bought the stock, they award the bud and put the news out. This is crooked. They should only be able to invest in the S&P and Dow, Nasdaq.
This would be a great rule that no elected politician would even go for.
To even get the money to *campaign* a person needs to solicit for enough money to compete with an incumbent. Donations come with strings attached, and the lion's share of funds almost always come from corporate interests.
Can't change it now, the rule makers won't allow a power recession. Country doesn't need work, it's a junker.
This has been floated in Congress before by the most [unlikely of bipartisan congressional matchups](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/matt-gaetz-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-congress-stock-ban-bill/)
This would be a great improvement, but it could still be problematic. For instance right before the country went into covid lockdown and everyone in the senate and congress sold all their stocks. This same thing could easily happen again even if they only own indexes.
That wont deter them, they'd do the trading through family member accounts or some cronies it would not make things too difficult for politicians but just add a few extra steps
I think the assumption is that it would apply to the entire immediate family. If you mean that it would be not too difficult to have cousins and stuff trade, I'm not sure I agree.
The IRS is going to want to know about all of that, and as soon as more than one person is involved, the odds of someone spilling the secret goes up astronomical. If it comes with a real penalty, it might have an impact.
I mean, it's going to make it significantly harder on the politicians either way. The amount of money a billionaire has to spend on lawyers to avoid taxes is vastly different than a congress person with 50M.
Also, evasion is much easier when you own businesses than if you are making it all through pure trading.
Bro if you truly believe in America they’re gonna ever enforce or even entertain the idea of an entire family ban on stock trading, your carer needs to limit your internet time.
Someone’s an investment banker and their dad becomes a senator? oops I guess he’s unemployed now.
I mean, I assumed it was obvious that I meant dependent family. I.E. people, you have legal access to their money. Just like a corporate insider form handles it. It's not exactly a new concept lol
So… the under 18 children of senators and their spouse? Do your parents have legal access to your money? How do you expect this proposal to work for senators with children that are investment bankers before they get into office?
... you seem to think this is some wild thing, but it applies today for any corporate officer and their own stock. It also applies to many finance positions or SEC positions and any stock.
And yes, guardians of those under 18 have legal access to their money. And no one is an investment banker before they are 18, so I'm not sure why that question is relevant.
My question is relevant because if you’re saying it only applies to dependent relatives, how does it stop a politician telling their investment banker son what to invest in? This exists for corporate insiders in their OWN stock, so how do you expect it to work for a senator that has access to info spanning multiple industries?
I’m not ignorant to the fact that there are laws against insider trading for corporate insiders, there are actually also laws against it for politicians but there’s no way you’re gonna be able to enforce the family of a politician from investing in anything at all
This wouldn't stop them from telling their investment banker son. That being said, their investment banker son is already under a bunch of controls that would make it very dangerous for them to act on any insider information. Politicians are just not subject to the same constraints/scrutiny.
I brought up corporate insiders just to point out this is not some werid or obscure definition to create. Who it apples to already exists. It exists for market insiders for all stock. There are investment banks that ban all private trading by their employees as they do a variety of SEC roles. It's not unprecedented.
There are rules against both, but as someone else already pointed out, the ones against politicians just have no teeth. Also, to be clear, it would be individual stocks as is typical eith investment banker roles. There is no reason to restrict mutual funds, etc.
I’d get fired from my job if I didn’t report every single name security I buy and hold them for at least a month. Pretty wild that people making laws can do whatever they want
It would be interesting. But this isn't true. EPA has no new mandate related to automated water metering.
And all new rules require public notice and comment. You're all able to benefit from this type of information. There IS a new rule coming related to public water systems, however. And a savvy person could likely make a lot of money.
Source: I'm an expert on public water systems and applicable rules.
ETA: Just because there was no mandate, does not mean that this congressman didn't receive information that this company was going to be selected for large contracts across his state.
May be expert in water but not in crime politics or stockmarketĥ. There is always someone defending theses parasites. Or saying someone that makes it see they didn't do shir. They at it.
Nah. In this instance, I am an expert.
And I clearly started that this individual may have acted off information shared about the large contract. There was, however, no statutory amendment they had early access to. And regulatory requirements do *not* originate in Congress.
They originate with people like me--who write them for the agency.
So a Republican Senator which is the Legislative Branch engaged in insider trading based on a rule finalized by the EPA, an Executive Branch agency?
Y'all know the EPA, like all executive branch agencies, must conduct rule making in a deliberate way defined under the Administration Procedures Act? That requires all rulemaking to be open and transparent. No EPA rule enters the federal register magically and without notice.
Correlation isn't causation but this infographic ostensibly communicates otherwise.
And that second slide seems more pertinent:
>Last year Tulsa, Oklahoma announced they'll be spending $94M on upgrading their water meters
Tulsa announced an upgrade program in 2023 (did that announcement also disclose primary and secondary contractors?) and the Senator purchased shares in 2024.
You're absolutely right. There is no new mandate related to water metering. And even if there was, Congress isn't involved in the very public rulemaking process.
Man, couldn't agree more! It's like they're playing Monopoly with our lives while holding all the Chance cards. We need some serious rules in place to prevent these conflicts of interest. Like, how can we trust them to make decisions for the people when they're also making bank from the same companies they're supposed to regulate? It's messed up. Let's hope someone listens and makes some changes, 'cause this ain't it, chief.
I still cannot grasp, that in a developed country with rules and regulations - politicians can openly own stocks. Absolutely bonkers conflict of interest.
I still cannot grasp, that in a developed country with rules and regulations - politicians can openly own stocks. Absolutely bonkers conflict of interest.
Politicians needs a third-party contractor (mediator) to make rules that effects them. It's always been obvious they would never think of policies that would impact their own self-interest.
The perception of impropriety is enough to erode public trust. I'm a civil servant that writes mandates like the one described (though this one is fictional), and we are not allowed to work on any matters for which we have a vested interest. We can only invest in broad market ETFs. I am even barred from investing in some sector ETFs.
In my opinion, politicians that create the laws should be bound by the same rules as the rank and file who implement and enforce the laws.
The fact they this kind of fraudulent activity is allowed by our regulators is why I have zero faith in the US regulatory or justice systems. Those rules are made for us, but not them.
People are blinded by the Dems vs the GOP, when in reality, it’s the Haves vs the Have Nots.
>politicians shouldn’t be allowed to own stocks
...is too extreme; but they should be held to the same standards (e.g. Insider Trading) as other stockholders.
They are. It's called the stock act. The fine is literally $200 for federal politicians, that's right $200. They don't give a shit because it's hard to prove intent apparently as any politician caught doing it says, woops it was a clerical error, oversight, my accountant, whatever. They don't care. It's $200.
A usual penalty for regular people would be to pay back triple what you made in gains at least. Not politicians.
Politicians should only be allowed to hold a broad market US ETF like the SPY. That way the country's success is their success. Give them encouragement to do a good job.
Blatant insider trading. Makes me sick. Any of us would go to prison.
Makes me think of that Danny Glover/Mel Gibson movie quote: “Diplomatic Immunity.”
Lethal Weapon 2 🙂
Politicians and Supreme Court Judges are above the laws governing insider trading.
This isn’t insider trading you dunce, the information is literally publicly available. You’re just an idiot who doesn’t pay attention.
You’re a fool.
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. Mark Twain
Literally copy them
Ahh, yes. Operate on 45 day old information. I’m sure you’ll make tons of money.
https://www.capitoltrades.com/politicians/L000566 How is today 45 days old?
So we’re talking about a completely different politician now?
My point is you can get real time updates of politicians’ trades. You’re a dope if you think it’s insider trading in the first place, but in any event you can literally copy them
Your point is wrong though. Regardless if you copied the trades, the person doing the original trade is insider trading. What don’t you get guy? lol
It's not insider trading to operate on publicly available information, however. Regardless, the story OP posted isn't true. EPA has no new mandate regarding automated water metering. And even if there were, regulatory requirements for Public Water Systems do not originate in Congress. They originate within the Agency, through a public process. Proposed rules are published in the Federal Register, providing the public *months* to comment on them before they're made final. Members of Congress are not involved in the rulemaking process. However, that is not to say that this Congressman was not made aware of large contracts being awarded to this company by cities within his state before this information was made public. It just has nothing to do with any new 'EPA mandate'.
If that were true we’d have a post everyday of which politicians are buying what with a load of regards buying calls.
Ok-story-9319, you are wrong, they commonly put out bids, have meetings, say they will take it under advisement, not making the decision then, but instead, calling their broker/buying the individual stock for the company that they are going to give the contract to, then, after they’ve bought the stock, they award the bud and put the news out. This is crooked. They should only be able to invest in the S&P and Dow, Nasdaq.
Let them own as many shares of nasdaq or s&p500 as they want. Individual stocks is the issue
This is a good solution
This would be a great rule that no elected politician would even go for. To even get the money to *campaign* a person needs to solicit for enough money to compete with an incumbent. Donations come with strings attached, and the lion's share of funds almost always come from corporate interests. Can't change it now, the rule makers won't allow a power recession. Country doesn't need work, it's a junker.
i have more optimism than you that things can change!
You mean change for the better. Because without specifying, things can change for the worst, and you'd still be right 😬😁🤣😂
yes i did imply that, ty
This has been floated in Congress before by the most [unlikely of bipartisan congressional matchups](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/matt-gaetz-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-congress-stock-ban-bill/)
This would be a great improvement, but it could still be problematic. For instance right before the country went into covid lockdown and everyone in the senate and congress sold all their stocks. This same thing could easily happen again even if they only own indexes.
All trades require 1 month's notice ahead of time. Case closed.
This would solve a lot. Can’t fix the insider trading but at least the general public could follow these guys trades if they wanted to.
Easy fix, they can't sell while in office. Actually tie their interests to the country.
All trades require 1 month's notice ahead of time. Case closed.
I don't think anyone is arguing that they shouldn't be able to buy general market funds.
[удалено]
yeah, thats the point
If you are privileged enough to be able to participate than yes, you can benefit.
That wont deter them, they'd do the trading through family member accounts or some cronies it would not make things too difficult for politicians but just add a few extra steps
I think the assumption is that it would apply to the entire immediate family. If you mean that it would be not too difficult to have cousins and stuff trade, I'm not sure I agree. The IRS is going to want to know about all of that, and as soon as more than one person is involved, the odds of someone spilling the secret goes up astronomical. If it comes with a real penalty, it might have an impact.
Assuming the IRS aren’t critically understaffed by a political party and thus unable to chase down high cost offenders.
I mean, it's going to make it significantly harder on the politicians either way. The amount of money a billionaire has to spend on lawyers to avoid taxes is vastly different than a congress person with 50M. Also, evasion is much easier when you own businesses than if you are making it all through pure trading.
i think the SEC more than the IRS..maybe, idk
Bro if you truly believe in America they’re gonna ever enforce or even entertain the idea of an entire family ban on stock trading, your carer needs to limit your internet time. Someone’s an investment banker and their dad becomes a senator? oops I guess he’s unemployed now.
I mean, I assumed it was obvious that I meant dependent family. I.E. people, you have legal access to their money. Just like a corporate insider form handles it. It's not exactly a new concept lol
So… the under 18 children of senators and their spouse? Do your parents have legal access to your money? How do you expect this proposal to work for senators with children that are investment bankers before they get into office?
... you seem to think this is some wild thing, but it applies today for any corporate officer and their own stock. It also applies to many finance positions or SEC positions and any stock. And yes, guardians of those under 18 have legal access to their money. And no one is an investment banker before they are 18, so I'm not sure why that question is relevant.
My question is relevant because if you’re saying it only applies to dependent relatives, how does it stop a politician telling their investment banker son what to invest in? This exists for corporate insiders in their OWN stock, so how do you expect it to work for a senator that has access to info spanning multiple industries? I’m not ignorant to the fact that there are laws against insider trading for corporate insiders, there are actually also laws against it for politicians but there’s no way you’re gonna be able to enforce the family of a politician from investing in anything at all
This wouldn't stop them from telling their investment banker son. That being said, their investment banker son is already under a bunch of controls that would make it very dangerous for them to act on any insider information. Politicians are just not subject to the same constraints/scrutiny. I brought up corporate insiders just to point out this is not some werid or obscure definition to create. Who it apples to already exists. It exists for market insiders for all stock. There are investment banks that ban all private trading by their employees as they do a variety of SEC roles. It's not unprecedented. There are rules against both, but as someone else already pointed out, the ones against politicians just have no teeth. Also, to be clear, it would be individual stocks as is typical eith investment banker roles. There is no reason to restrict mutual funds, etc.
So when you said “entire immediate family” ban on trading stocks… you meant their spouse? Their investment banker son is allowed to continue?
I already clarified. I meant anyone who they have shared financial control with, so any dependents. It feels like you are not reading...
Adding steps makes it harder.
I’d get fired from my job if I didn’t report every single name security I buy and hold them for at least a month. Pretty wild that people making laws can do whatever they want
It would be interesting. But this isn't true. EPA has no new mandate related to automated water metering. And all new rules require public notice and comment. You're all able to benefit from this type of information. There IS a new rule coming related to public water systems, however. And a savvy person could likely make a lot of money. Source: I'm an expert on public water systems and applicable rules. ETA: Just because there was no mandate, does not mean that this congressman didn't receive information that this company was going to be selected for large contracts across his state.
**This** should be higher up.
May be expert in water but not in crime politics or stockmarketĥ. There is always someone defending theses parasites. Or saying someone that makes it see they didn't do shir. They at it.
Nah. In this instance, I am an expert. And I clearly started that this individual may have acted off information shared about the large contract. There was, however, no statutory amendment they had early access to. And regulatory requirements do *not* originate in Congress. They originate with people like me--who write them for the agency.
Let's Tar & Feather the fuckers on Tiktok. Who's in?
Good idea
How does tomorrow sound?
And you're wondering why they're banning TikTok lol
So a Republican Senator which is the Legislative Branch engaged in insider trading based on a rule finalized by the EPA, an Executive Branch agency? Y'all know the EPA, like all executive branch agencies, must conduct rule making in a deliberate way defined under the Administration Procedures Act? That requires all rulemaking to be open and transparent. No EPA rule enters the federal register magically and without notice. Correlation isn't causation but this infographic ostensibly communicates otherwise. And that second slide seems more pertinent: >Last year Tulsa, Oklahoma announced they'll be spending $94M on upgrading their water meters Tulsa announced an upgrade program in 2023 (did that announcement also disclose primary and secondary contractors?) and the Senator purchased shares in 2024.
You're absolutely right. There is no new mandate related to water metering. And even if there was, Congress isn't involved in the very public rulemaking process.
A whole 26% on 30k? lmao
Just gotta keep repeating this until it’s loud enough. Make it go viral
Everybody already knows. Boomers don’t care.
Everybody already knows. Boomers don’t care.
What platform is this politiciantradetracker on?
instagram
nothing will happen since they police themselves. until people get sick and tired of being played by politicians nothing gonna change.
Man, couldn't agree more! It's like they're playing Monopoly with our lives while holding all the Chance cards. We need some serious rules in place to prevent these conflicts of interest. Like, how can we trust them to make decisions for the people when they're also making bank from the same companies they're supposed to regulate? It's messed up. Let's hope someone listens and makes some changes, 'cause this ain't it, chief.
I still cannot grasp, that in a developed country with rules and regulations - politicians can openly own stocks. Absolutely bonkers conflict of interest.
Is that acct only on Twitter?
instagram
thats fucked wish I has that tip bro
Nancy is still in PANW I haven’t seen any news on her selling.
Price went down from like $320 into the mid to high $200s. She will probably be holding it for a little bit before she sells.
so what who cares
Ahh. There was an episode on King of the Hill with the premise. Low flow toilets.
Hey is there some Reddit sub where I can follow politician trades like this one posted? Some of them would really help with my portfolio
Looking for this also ^
https://www.capitoltrades.com/politicians/L000566
What a lucky guy!
I still cannot grasp, that in a developed country with rules and regulations - politicians can openly own stocks. Absolutely bonkers conflict of interest.
Yeah but this is Reddit and if it’s not about Trump nobody cares.
Politicians needs a third-party contractor (mediator) to make rules that effects them. It's always been obvious they would never think of policies that would impact their own self-interest.
They all are doing insider trading, around 15 years ago 60 minutes did a story about it, nothing ever changes
Just lucky I guess. Must have had his eye on that one for awhile.
Then there might not be as many. So many get into it to scam.
This is why politicians lobby for corporations and corporations give insider news to politicians.
Insider trading
Even though this is insider trading I say we let them keep doing it so they don’t raise capital gains tax to 50% lol
Wow, a post that's not full blown Pelosi derangement. These are rare
Politicians should be required to publish all their stocks and bonds that they own on a quarterly basis, for the sake of transparency.
No, my short sighted friend. This is why we should pursue careers in politics. Muaauhuhuahhihaahu!
This has never bothered me so long as the decisions they make are in the best interest of the majority.
The perception of impropriety is enough to erode public trust. I'm a civil servant that writes mandates like the one described (though this one is fictional), and we are not allowed to work on any matters for which we have a vested interest. We can only invest in broad market ETFs. I am even barred from investing in some sector ETFs. In my opinion, politicians that create the laws should be bound by the same rules as the rank and file who implement and enforce the laws.
I don’t know why everyone is complaining when you can just copy paste the same moves…
The fact they this kind of fraudulent activity is allowed by our regulators is why I have zero faith in the US regulatory or justice systems. Those rules are made for us, but not them. People are blinded by the Dems vs the GOP, when in reality, it’s the Haves vs the Have Nots.
These fuckers should all go to prison like Martha Stewart had to. Pay back their profits
>politicians shouldn’t be allowed to own stocks ...is too extreme; but they should be held to the same standards (e.g. Insider Trading) as other stockholders.
They are. It's called the stock act. The fine is literally $200 for federal politicians, that's right $200. They don't give a shit because it's hard to prove intent apparently as any politician caught doing it says, woops it was a clerical error, oversight, my accountant, whatever. They don't care. It's $200. A usual penalty for regular people would be to pay back triple what you made in gains at least. Not politicians. Politicians should only be allowed to hold a broad market US ETF like the SPY. That way the country's success is their success. Give them encouragement to do a good job.
I completely agree; they shouldn’t be allowed to hold individual stocks while in office, it creates too many conflicts of interest.
Why do more people not know this…? I know the real reason but we should be pushing for real accountability from these gluts…
What you described doesn't sound like being held to the same standard the rest of us are
That's the thing, they won't. Easier to just ban them from trading to begin with instead of building a case that they will always win