
Senate Stock Watcher - ericmay
https://senatestockwatcher.com
======
tasty_freeze
It would be great if

(a) elected officials could hold only cash, bonds, and index funds,
specifically bonds and index funds that are open the general public and have
at least $XX assets, to prevent engineering an index fund available only one
one or a few people.

(b) pay them better to make up for the loss of gravy. Sure, the pay raise
would not be sufficient to make up for the lost income, but it should be high
enough that none of them could complain they can't live on the salary. Paying
the senate majority leader under $200K / year is not enough, considering they
often have living expenses in Washington and their home state. Lower ranking
members get paid less. Pay the leader $1M/year and everyone else $500K/year
and then prohibit anything but vanilla investments.

~~~
H8crilA
Long only is actually a pretty terrible choice if you want a "solid" portfolio
with risk hedging.

I work in "tech" and I'm substantially net short "tech" as a hedge for
potential layoffs, via options. Unfortunately I can't hedge via my employer's
stock directly (like most companies my employer very explicitly disallows it,
plus I'd be running a high risk of an insider trade accusation; I think it's
understandable and acceptable).

A better idea might be to force people's allocation way ahead of time, say any
change must be pre-announced 6-12 months ahead of time. That's how responsible
executives (for example Bill Gates) sell their stock - via long term stock
sale programs. Once signed - has to happen, whether good news or bad news.

~~~
arcticbull
You can easily protect your portfolio while being net long using uncorrelated
asset classes like a blend of stocks and bonds, or even long inverse ETFs.
Look into risk parity portfolios. No need to keep your foot on the gas and the
brake at the same time.

~~~
H8crilA
Inverse ETFs are shorts, let's be real for a second :). And I'm well familiar
with risk parity.

Bonds+stocks only doesn't protect you from stagflation (inflation up, growth
down) or a depression (inflation around zero, growth down).

Bonds+stocks+gold only doesn't protect you from a depression.

Both a depression and a stagflation can easily last for over 5 years, so it
should be taken seriously, IMHO.

Related: [https://www.artemiscm.com/](https://www.artemiscm.com/) (see the
paper linked below; note that this is also a sales pitch from a long vol fund,
so possibly it's a little too optimistic about the strategy).

~~~
JBSay
You're wrong. Bonds protect against depression and index-linked bonds protect
against stagflation.

------
crazygringo
Fascinating site!

Unfortunately -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the calendar day selected isn't
the day stocks were traded, but rather _reported_ , which can be up to 45 days
after a trade? [1] E.g. today's date (Apr 10) shows trades that happened on
March 9, 20, and 25.

So very cool for transparency, but of zero utility for anyone trying to either
duplicate a trading strategy, or trying to suss out in advance what senators
know that we don't. :(

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act)

~~~
stephenmc
So, in about 30 - 45 days time this is going to make for some VERY interesting
reading..

------
Gys
If historical data is available, an aggregated result of this could be
compared to the S&P index. To see if their trades actually outperform and
therefore if they a better traders than average, and if so, this might mean
they have better info.

~~~
applecrazy
And if they're consistently worse than the average, just execute the inverse
of their trades and beat the market. :)

Joking aside, I'm surprised that members of Congress have even allowed to
trade on the markets, given how much inside information they know.

~~~
dlbucci
I think it's actually worse than that: I think they are specifically allowed
to do more insider trading than the average US citizen. I could be wrong
though, I just heard that once upon a time.

~~~
celticninja
seems like the STOCK Act should have closed that loophole,
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act,so](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act,so)
it's illegal we just have to see if anyone is prosecuted over it.

~~~
nscalf
If I recall correctly, the stock act has them regulating themselves.

------
throw2945015
How about making one for Congress?

In 2011, "60 Minutes" reported that members of Congress could legally trade
stock based on non-public information from Capitol Hill. video [0], write-up
[1]

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zh30lm7aSQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zh30lm7aSQ)

[1] [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-trading-stock-on-
insid...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-
information/)

~~~
noitsnot
The Senate is part of Congress but The House doesn't disclose trades. The
Stock Act of 2012 prohibits insider trading for the Senate and provides that
trades are disclosed, which is why the data is available for that branch.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act)

~~~
lotaezenwa
> The house doesn't disclose trades.

This is not a factual statement. See the Clerk of the House of Representatives
[0].

The main issue is that many of these trades are submitted by scanned,
handwritten documents.

[0] [http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial-
search.aspx](http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial-search.aspx)

------
mulmen
Would be interesting to create a senate-tracking "index" fund. Wonder how that
performs against the market.

~~~
mattkrause
The STOCK Act (or Ethics in Government Act, actually) only requires reporting
within 30-45 days of purchase/sale, so your fund will lag behind whatever
market-moving events they're trading on.

~~~
personjerry
If you copy the long term plays it could still be viable.

~~~
foob4r
You wouldn't know if it's long term.

Day 1 - stock purchase Day 45 - reported Day 46 - you buy or not? Day 45 -
stock sold Day 90 - reported Day 91 - you've already lost

~~~
personjerry
I mean investments that are typically long term, such as LEAPS, and as an
example buying them if they're still at the same price they were bought by the
senator at.

------
Cyberdog
A question to people who might pay more attention to the functioning of
Congress than me: Is much of their day-to-day business actually secret? If
Congress is about to pass a bill which will benefit company X, can't we all go
on to the House or Senate web sites and read the drafts of those bills and
have the same "insider information" that they do? Are we just mad that they're
paying more attention to what they themselves are doing and how it will
benefit certain companies' stocks than normal people who have better things to
do with their lives than track what Congress is debating from day to day?

~~~
toast0
> can't we all go on to the House or Senate web sites and read the drafts of
> those bills and have the same "insider information" that they do?

The published drafts are days behind what's being circulated; you can see this
every time there's an emergency bill, it's often voted on almost
simultaneously with the final text being released. Sometimes, there's a
reading of the bill, if people push the right procedural buttons.

Regardless, insider trading on delayed information isn't nearly as good as
insider trading on current information (probably? I don't have experience with
insider trading :)

~~~
metaphor
This. When npr.org has more timely, relevant information than congress.gov--
e.g. S.3548[1] wholesale pivots to H.R.748[2] with significant changes
incorporated, and the latter isn't updated until days later--it leaves much
for the general public to desire.

[1] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-
bill/354...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3548)

[2] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-
bill/748](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748)

------
bognition
> It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or use a report: for any
> unlawful purpose; for any commercial purpose, other than by news and
> communications media for dissemination to the general public;

Welp, looks like trying to actually trade on this information is illegal.

Feels like a double standard.

~~~
toyg
Good luck trying to prove that one traded after reading a specific website on
a specific date...

------
papeda
I wonder if it makes sense to forbid members of congress from owning anything
other than a narrow class of investments (for example homes and index funds,
though I'm surely missing many).

This sounds like the old "cut their pay!" argument. The rejoinder to _that_
argument is that it should be practical for people who aren't already wealthy
to hold office, and a low salary would hurt that.

This is different because the hit to potential earnings from restriction to a
basic generic portfolio seems small (maybe not relative to the upside from
insider trading, but to what members of congress would make as average
citizens). Heck, it's still possible to trade in index funds off insider
information. But the advantage seems smaller.

~~~
bmm6o
No need to limit asset classes, this is the problem blind trusts are designed
to solve. It's the tool that anyone who wants to avoid the appearance of
impropriety uses.

~~~
jimhefferon
But the current majority, at least in the Senate, seems not to need to care
about the appearance of impropriety.

------
DesiLurker
I wonder if openness of this information can lead to a senator just front
running the watchers by creating 'vibes' when none exist. so they can buy a
moderately in-news stock and declare it immediately. then sell it after the
run up. or vice-versa with shorts.

in fact they can disclose favorable news immediately and wait for 30days to
disclose unloading the position till the fervor has died off.

------
kyleblarson
It's sickening how all of these lifetime senators and congressmen can amass
such wealth given the salaries of their elected positions.

~~~
erentz
Yes this is something that needs to be looked at more. How much does their
wealth grow from the time they enter to the time they exit congress. Some
politicians seem to get very wealthy while in congress.

“You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook.”

------
seibelj
I personally don’t think insider trading is a crime, as many other people
don’t [https://reason.com/2012/11/28/legalize-insider-
trading/](https://reason.com/2012/11/28/legalize-insider-trading/)

The more resources we spend fighting “insider trading” the more valuable
people who have found loopholes or ways not to get caught. It’s a never ending
losing game. I’d rather make all trades public than ban “insider” trading.

~~~
smabie
I think insider trading should be a private affair: if you work at a company
and steal from the company by inside trading on some announcement, well then
they should probably fire you (and maybe file a civil suit).

But there's certainly arguments to be made that insider trading is very good
for the markets as it allows new information to get incorporated into the
price very quickly.

------
nicota
How about this one for suspected informed trading? ~40% in 2 days...

[https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/view/paper/82AAE77A-D129...](https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/view/paper/82AAE77A-D129-4094-9D39-DEBB561EDFFF/)
(you have to agree to the terms first)

Unless I misunderstood something, looks like Mark Begich bought KERX stock on
01/28/2013 for 1001$-15000$, sold at 01/30/2013 for 15001$-50000$.

KERX closing price on 01/28/2013 was 6.06, and 8.49 2 days later... Verified
by looking at charts in
[https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/KERX/interactive-
char...](https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/KERX/interactive-chart)

~~~
fragsworth
God damn, there is no way this is anything other than just brazenly obvious
insider trading. Completely unethical. Our representatives are complete and
utter scumbags.

Needless to say, this should be illegal. I honestly wish we could
retroactively imprison them for doing this.

The current state of the U.S. is so damn embarrassing and shameful. I
literally cringe when I imagine internationals seeing what we do here.

~~~
icedchai
As I mentioned above, it's a biotech stock. Those sorts of jumps (and dumps)
happen all the time around FDA approval dates.

~~~
devit
Yeah, but perhaps he knew in advance that the FDA would approve?

Of course, it could also have been modelling based on public info or simple
gambling.

------
intrepidhero
I'd like to see someone dig up all the most egregious examples of suspected
insider trading here and post it in the relevant voter guides for each
member's reelection.

------
tcarambat1010
Hey everyone, I'm the creator of this. I'm listening to everyone's comments
about new features and expect them shortly!

Thanks for everyone's support and appreciation.

~~~
ghufran_syed
I posted elsewhere in the thread, but figured it was worth replying directly -
is there any way to find out who is making their own investment decisions, and
who is having their money managed in a blind trust on their behalf? The two
situations are obviously very different with respect to possible abuse.

~~~
ghufran_syed
Just realized, you could get the info manually if it's not already publicly
available, given that there are only 100 senator. Their offices would probably
just give that info, otherwise "refused to answer" would still be useful info
to put on your site next to each senator's trades.

------
cco
Would be really interesting to see if lawmakers outperform the market and if
so, by how much, they can't all be Warren Buffet right?

------
heyoni
Ok this is really awesome. Now if you would just go ahead and create an API
for this, so I can set my TD Ameritrade to trigger trades off of this
information, that would be great.../s

------
croshan
The general public doesn't have great trading strategies, but Senators may be
more well informed. I wonder how a bot based off of their trades would do.

~~~
neltnerb
I suspect they're sophisticated enough to turn something like an "index fund
of what the people in charge buy" into a profit by making sure the timing of
the reporting makes it more profitable for them.

Since the reporting isn't instantaneous, they of course also have insider
knowledge of their own trades and that those trades would influence markets
and when. They could screw around with the timing of trades to give misleading
stories, like selling off a bunch of stuff just before they file a report and
then buying it after their action tanks the price.

But a virtual index fund that tracked their purchases and sales to make a
record of how well Senators do in the stock market compared to an index fund
(which I believe are also run by well informed people)? That might shame them
into changing the rules if it looks bad. Of course, I don't know enough to say
they aren't behaving themselves.

Some cases that look suspicious might, when taken as a whole with their other
trades, average out and make clear that they lose money even when they have
insider knowledge that they will lose money. Somehow I doubt that, but if it's
truly a blind trust or an independent fund it should be true and would
increase faith in our elected officials to see hard data for.

~~~
thekyle
> But a virtual index fund that tracked their purchases and sales to make a
> record of how well Senators do in the stock market

I think it's kinda funny that you called a stock index as a "virtual index
fund". Feels like we've come full circle.

~~~
neltnerb
Thank you! I meant in the sense that it's not a useful thing to buy, but it is
funny :-)

------
crispinb
I'd like something like this in Australia, targeting real estate speculation
which is probably our largest single source of corruption at all governmental
levels.

The US polity though seems too deeply corroded for transparency to be more
than a minor (albeit positive) tweak.

------
surfmike
Fun fact: until the STOCK act was passed in 2012 there was nothing restricting
insider trading by Congress.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act)

------
ghufran_syed
This would be much more useful if you could tell which senator was actually
making the trading decsions, vs having trades made on their behalf in a blind
trust. The situations are very different in terms of potential abuse of inside
information

------
RobKohr
This information should be reported within 24 hrs or less of a trade rather
than 45 days later to negate the insider trading aspect of the situation.

It also should apply to the house and the senate.

------
S_A_P
My question is this- if one were to build a trading bot that bought and sold
along with something like this- 1) would it be legal 2) I’m curious about the
returns vs the market.

------
gandalfian
I always liked this study on buying presidential supporting stock. Don't know
if it would work on trump but if we'd bought haliburton stock we'd all be
rich...
[https://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/mar/08/moneyinvestmen...](https://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/mar/08/moneyinvestments.shares)

------
Groxx
The "Thoughts & Prayers" button is brilliant.

------
toyg
Feedback - in the "about" section, this sentence is broken: "Since there is no
major reprecussion for insider knowledge trading for a senator or member of
congress to act on the best behalf of their wallet." Either drop the "since",
or replace full-stop with a comma to join the following period.

------
analog31
I wonder how hard it would be to create a mutual fund that tracks the holdings
of the senators.

------
totalZero
The easy solution to this problem would be to either require Congressmen to
publicly announce a transaction prior to effecting it, or to tax their capital
gains heavily for transactions made outside of a predetermined window.

------
iask
I love this! Create a widget as well, perhaps one day it will be added to the
senate website, or the local senators offices.

------
vinniejames
Where does this data come?

~~~
croshan
From the bottom of the page:
[https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/home/](https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/home/)

------
dragthor
Just the Senate? What about the House?

------
justaguyhere
periodic is spelled as perodic. Very neat idea, I hope something comes out of
it.

------
lowercased
the senate website source...

It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain or use a report:

* for any unlawful purpose;

* for any commercial purpose, other than by news and communications media for dissemination to the general public;

* for determining or establishing the credit rating of any individual; or

* for use, directly or indirectly, in the solicitation of money for any political, charitable, or other purpose.

"...indirectly... solicitation of money... for any ... other purpose".

The author of the site links to a site which takes donations. Is this a
violation?

I'm not suggesting he shouldn't take donations; I'm suggesting the language in
the usage terms are too overly broad.

~~~
voz_
This is news and reporting.

------
yingw787
I also remember a comparison between Barack Obama and Lee Hsien Loong. While
President Obama was learning JavaScript for the first time in office, PM Lee
had written a C++ sudoku solver prior to high office in addition to being
Senior Wrangler (top math undergrad) in Oxford. No, hard intelligence isn't
everything (in fact it's probably overvalued in most parts of our society),
but it may be a reliable indicator of other character traits important for
soft skills, like persistence, diligence, and thoroughness.

POTUS makes $400k per year. Singapore's PM makes $2.2M / year. It's hard to
avoid thinking you get what you pay for sometimes. Personally, I would be much
more inclined to consider public service if salaries for government positions
were competitive with the free market.

If I can reliably purchase a George Washington or an Abraham Lincoln quality
POTUS for $300M per year, I would consider that money very well spent.

