More congresscritter dirt

[wmw999 2,589]

I watched "60 Minutes" last night; got to watch Steve Kroft make like Michael Moore and try to interview congresscritters of both parties on their semi-insider trading.

You see, all those hearings provide lots of insight into upcoming regulations and major initiatives -- if corporate insiders were to trade on that knowledge, it'd be illegal insider trading. Of course, since congresscritters make the law, it's not illegal for them since they're "public servants" or something.

Link to the "60 Minutes Overtime" website (some written & more video here)

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,150]

Explains why so many spend $millions trying to get jobs that pay $(few hundred thou)/year.

I find this a bit of a "dog bites man" story.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

Quote

. . . got to watch Steve Kroft make like Michael Moore and try to interview . . .

"60 Minutes" pretty much invented the ambush interview. If Kroft was emulating anybody, it would be Mike Wallace.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I watched "60 Minutes" last night; got to watch Steve Kroft make like Michael Moore and try to interview congresscritters of both parties on their semi-insider trading.

You see, all those hearings provide lots of insight into upcoming regulations and major initiatives -- if corporate insiders were to trade on that knowledge, it'd be illegal insider trading. Of course, since congresscritters make the law, it's not illegal for them since they're "public servants" or something.

Link to the "60 Minutes Overtime" website (some written & more video here)

Wendy P.

There is a book out (cant remember the name or author) that just came out. I will post it when I find and or remember it

Any

Reps and Senate members have exemtped themselves from insider trading

Gore made 68 million in two days because of insider info from laws being written
Kerry made millions
Many republicans made millions
Pelosi made millions

To a level their contacts and family members are exempt too

This is huge

It needs to be stopped


This is one of the biggest reasons those in the gov want it to grow

The more they touch, the more laws they propose and make, the more millions they can make on stocks

This makes the House banking scandal small

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68297.html

Peter Schweizer's book is "Throw Them All Out"

(I think)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,589]

The problem with that book is the seeming focus on partisanship. This is not a Democrat problem, it's a politics problem. The K street lobbyists and their influence on Republican congresscritters was at least as dirty as insider trading. And they really only targeted Republicans -- both parties' people do the insider trading.

Some of it would be natural. If you, as an individual, had a friend starting a new company who offered you an investment -- would you take it if you liked his product and plan, or would you insist that he make it publically available?

The line isn't clear, but it's well-crossed

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The problem with that book is the seeming focus on partisanship. This is not a Democrat problem, it's a politics problem.

It wasn't - he exposed people on both sides of the aisle.

Quote

The K street lobbyists and their influence on Republican congresscritters was at least as dirty as insider trading. And they really only targeted Republicans -- both parties' people do the insider trading.

Did you miss the part of the Abramoff interview where he said it was both sides of the aisle?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wmw999 2,589]

I was unclear; Abramoff in particular was bigger on Republicans. Democrats are no better in their desire to gain some financial benefit.

I was basing my statement about partisanship in the book on the "Obama administration is reaping millions" shown as part of the description in Amazon. I haven't read the book.

The sad thing is that most of the congresscritters probably want to do a good job for their constituents. Really. And they want to be able to support their families. If we only elect temptation-proof people, then we're electing mainly already-very-rich people to office, because others have families to support. And it's expensive to get elected.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnealtx 0]

Thanks for the clarification.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The problem with that book is the seeming focus on partisanship. This is not a Democrat problem, it's a politics problem. The K street lobbyists and their influence on Republican congresscritters was at least as dirty as insider trading. And they really only targeted Republicans -- both parties' people do the insider trading.

Some of it would be natural. If you, as an individual, had a friend starting a new company who offered you an investment -- would you take it if you liked his product and plan, or would you insist that he make it publically available?

The line isn't clear, but it's well-crossed

Wendy P.

Wendy

He rips BOTH parties

Same as I did

The line IS clear

But they exempted themselves from even seeing it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[weekender 0]

>Some of it would be natural. If you, as an individual, had a friend starting a new company who offered you an investment -- would you take it if you liked his product and plan, or would you insist that he make it publically available?

Sorry to nitpick but there is nothing illegal in your example. the insider trading rules are for public co's. there is no regulation saying a company must offer shares publically. think of a family owned business that never offers stock to anyone outside of the family. its all legal.

insider trading is when you use non public information to profit from a publically traded stock. an classic example is someone on the board tells a friend they are going to fire the co's president BEFORE its announced to the public. you trade on that, your violating the rules.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Some of it would be natural. If you, as an individual, had a friend starting a new company who offered you an investment -- would you take it if you liked his product and plan, or would you insist that he make it publically available?

Sorry to nitpick but there is nothing illegal in your example. the insider trading rules are for public co's. there is no regulation saying a company must offer shares publically. think of a family owned business that never offers stock to anyone outside of the family. its all legal.

insider trading is when you use non public information to profit from a publically traded stock. an classic example is someone on the board tells a friend they are going to fire the co's president BEFORE its announced to the public. you trade on that, your violating the rules.

A true example

Kerry was on a commitee that had just determined that a major drug was no longer going to be covered under medicare

He sold all his shares in the company that supplied that drug

The anouncement came two days later and the stock drop was big

Kerry saved millions

Insider or not?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

>Some of it would be natural. If you, as an individual, had a friend starting a new company who offered you an investment -- would you take it if you liked his product and plan, or would you insist that he make it publically available?

Sorry to nitpick but there is nothing illegal in your example. the insider trading rules are for public co's. there is no regulation saying a company must offer shares publically. think of a family owned business that never offers stock to anyone outside of the family. its all legal.

insider trading is when you use non public information to profit from a publically traded stock. an classic example is someone on the board tells a friend they are going to fire the co's president BEFORE its announced to the public. you trade on that, your violating the rules.

A true example

Kerry was on a commitee that had just determined that a major drug was no longer going to be covered under medicare

He sold all his shares in the company that supplied that drug

The anouncement came two days later and the stock drop was big

Kerry saved millions

Insider or not?

I'm sorry, i honestly dont know. I am not going to say it is or isnt, unless im certain.

If he had a securities license, than yes certainly. he does not, as far as i know, so maybe it isnt. The laws are very specific and quite complicated. it could be that for some reason it is not considered inside information. How did he get this information? from public hearings that no one pays attention too? if so, than its perfectly legal.

for example, if you are watching CSPAN and realize a law is going to pass that could affect your portfolio. you can trade on that. its public, just not well known. People pay HUGE money for that info because its legal.

i assume that since he is not in jail it was legal. you might be offended but that doesnt make him a criminal.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Some of it would be natural. If you, as an individual, had a friend starting a new company who offered you an investment -- would you take it if you liked his product and plan, or would you insist that he make it publically available?

Sorry to nitpick but there is nothing illegal in your example. the insider trading rules are for public co's. there is no regulation saying a company must offer shares publically. think of a family owned business that never offers stock to anyone outside of the family. its all legal.

insider trading is when you use non public information to profit from a publically traded stock. an classic example is someone on the board tells a friend they are going to fire the co's president BEFORE its announced to the public. you trade on that, your violating the rules.

A true example

Kerry was on a commitee that had just determined that a major drug was no longer going to be covered under medicare

He sold all his shares in the company that supplied that drug

The anouncement came two days later and the stock drop was big

Kerry saved millions

Insider or not?

I'm sorry, i honestly dont know. I am not going to say it is or isnt, unless im certain.

If he had a securities license, than yes certainly. he does not, as far as i know, so maybe it isnt. The laws are very specific and quite complicated. it could be that for some reason it is not considered inside information. How did he get this information? from public hearings that no one pays attention too? if so, than its perfectly legal.

for example, if you are watching CSPAN and realize a law is going to pass that could affect your portfolio. you can trade on that. its public, just not well known. People pay HUGE money for that info because its legal.

i assume that since he is not in jail it was legal. you might be offended but that doesnt make him a criminal.

You are correct

The congress has specifically exemptd themselves from insider trading rules and laws

Does not make is right

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[weekender 0]

>You are correct

>The congress has specifically exemptd themselves from insider trading rules and laws

>Does not make is right

im not sure if they exempted themselves. I understand you say so but i have never heard this before. it seems more likely to me that they can trade on the information because its speculative and public. anyone can see the voting and no one can technically be sure how a vote will go. Again, it might be offensive but not illegal.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>You are correct

The congress has specifically exemptd themselves from insider trading rules and laws

Does not make is right

im not sure if they exempted themselves. I understand you say so but i have never heard this before. it seems more likely to me that they can trade on the information because its speculative and public. anyone can see the voting and no one can technically be sure how a vote will go. Again, it might be offensive but not illegal.

Them being exempted has caught a lot of people of gaurd

I had no idea until this week

Many news and talking heads have said the same this week

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>You are correct

>The congress has specifically exemptd themselves from insider trading rules and laws

>Does not make is right

im not sure if they exempted themselves. I understand you say so but i have never heard this before. it seems more likely to me that they can trade on the information because its speculative and public. anyone can see the voting and no one can technically be sure how a vote will go. Again, it might be offensive but not illegal.

If it's a congressional meeting, how can it be considered public if it's not something that hits C-SPAN?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[weekender 0]

Quote

Quote

>You are correct

>The congress has specifically exemptd themselves from insider trading rules and laws

>Does not make is right

im not sure if they exempted themselves. I understand you say so but i have never heard this before. it seems more likely to me that they can trade on the information because its speculative and public. anyone can see the voting and no one can technically be sure how a vote will go. Again, it might be offensive but not illegal.

If it's a congressional meeting, how can it be considered public if it's not something that hits C-SPAN?

my example was that it was on C-SPAN so its public. yours is not so it isnt.

its mute because after doing some reading it turns out they can trade on anything. the reason behind this is" congressional lawmakers have no corporate responsibilities and have long been considered exempt from insider trading laws"

i'm willing to bet that personal ethics have kept people in the past from trading during these situations. our current congress does not have the same ethical motivations. probably time to change the laws. my 2 cents

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>You are correct

>The congress has specifically exemptd themselves from insider trading rules and laws

>Does not make is right

im not sure if they exempted themselves. I understand you say so but i have never heard this before. it seems more likely to me that they can trade on the information because its speculative and public. anyone can see the voting and no one can technically be sure how a vote will go. Again, it might be offensive but not illegal.

If it's a congressional meeting, how can it be considered public if it's not something that hits C-SPAN?

my example was that it was on C-SPAN so its public. yours is not so it isnt.

its mute because after doing some reading it turns out they can trade on anything. the reason behind this is" congressional lawmakers have no corporate responsibilities and have long been considered exempt from insider trading laws"

i'm willing to bet that personal ethics have kept people in the past from trading during these situations. our current congress does not have the same ethical motivations. probably time to change the laws. my 2 cents

The News show was specific, closed Congressional meetings and then the Members of Congress acting on that info-very much insider trading. The story also went on to detail how they are exempt from the laws and went further to tell how one or two had tried to get the law repealed but only had maybe 6 co-sponsors, none of the Co-Sponsors are any of the Big Congress Crooks. But an Upside to this is, it has Pelosi NOW supporting the Stock Act (the law to make Congress follow the same rules on this we do). And has others saying they "might" once they learn more.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>You are correct

>The congress has specifically exemptd themselves from insider trading rules and laws

>Does not make is right

im not sure if they exempted themselves. I understand you say so but i have never heard this before. it seems more likely to me that they can trade on the information because its speculative and public. anyone can see the voting and no one can technically be sure how a vote will go. Again, it might be offensive but not illegal.

If it's a congressional meeting, how can it be considered public if it's not something that hits C-SPAN?

my example was that it was on C-SPAN so its public. yours is not so it isnt.

its mute because after doing some reading it turns out they can trade on anything. the reason behind this is" congressional lawmakers have no corporate responsibilities and have long been considered exempt from insider trading laws"

i'm willing to bet that personal ethics have kept people in the past from trading during these situations. our current congress does not have the same ethical motivations. probably time to change the laws. my 2 cents

Do they not have a fiduciary duty to the people they are supposed to represent?

James

[weekender 0]

>Do they not have a fiduciary duty to the people they are supposed to represent? James

you responded to me but im not sure if you are asking me specifically or just making a point.

if i had to guess i would say no. in my experience a fiduciary must act for the sole benefit of the other party. i dont think thats congress's job. how do you do that with so many different constituents?

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[Amazon 7]

I really can't believe that anyone who supports comnpletely the 1% with the delusion of joining them someday would have ANY issue with anyone who does anything legal that the current 1% have used legal or illegal acts to get to those lofty heights.

I guess that was not in the company newsletter huh.

[chutem 0]

Quote

>Do they not have a fiduciary duty to the people they are supposed to represent? James

you responded to me but im not sure if you are asking me specifically or just making a point.

if i had to guess i would say no. in my experience a fiduciary must act for the sole benefit of the other party. i dont think thats congress's job. how do you do that with so many different constituents?

Sorry, yes I was asking you as you seem to be knowlegable in the financial arena.

James

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I watched "60 Minutes" last night; got to watch Steve Kroft make like Michael Moore and try to interview congresscritters of both parties on their semi-insider trading.

You see, all those hearings provide lots of insight into upcoming regulations and major initiatives -- if corporate insiders were to trade on that knowledge, it'd be illegal insider trading. Of course, since congresscritters make the law, it's not illegal for them since they're "public servants" or something.

Link to the "60 Minutes Overtime" website (some written & more video here)

Wendy P.

The primary story that seems to be getting told (Pelosi buying Visa, then alledgedly not letting it come to a vote) is a rather poor example. Visa going public was an obvious investment, Bush would veto such legislation, and as Pelosi's staff is pointing out today, the bill left committee right when the financial system was blowing up, so priorities were about more pressing matters than credit card reform.

The Kerry example described in the thread is a much more serious one, as is the claim that Senators' investments do 12 points better per year than the market (House members do 6 points better).

Realistically, there's no way for Congressmen to avoid knowledge of insider information. The only way to remove conflict would be for them to invest in blind trusts. Or perhaps they could just get stuck with the same limitations I've had at financials - no shorting, 60 day minimum holding period, preclearance of everything else. Certainly cost me some opportunities.

[weekender 0]

>Realistically, there's no way for Congressmen to avoid knowledge of insider information. The only way to remove conflict would be for them to invest in blind trusts. Or perhaps they could just get stuck with the same limitations I've had at financials - no shorting, 60 day minimum holding period, preclearance of everything else. Certainly cost me some opportunities.

a new law should do just that and then some. securities traders at investment banks are restricted from trading any security the company has under coverage. even new initiations. imagine how it feels to be long xyz corp in your kids college fund only to have your own firm initiate a sell. you cannot trade out of it, even though its going down. this is why most professionals have discrectionary accounts, which are permitted. once your left holding the bag because of your own firm, you learn quick.

congress should adhere to the same laws. i doubt any reasonably intelligent person would disagree

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante