We hope that this work highlights potential dangers of allowing officials to trade in individual stocks, and encourage more robust legislation that would limit the sort of activity you're describing. Obviously very idealistic, but that's the goal.
Seems a lot more likely that the board recruited the son to the board hoping it would provide political cover. Which it also does not appear to have worked since Biden requested the dismissal of the AG that had already closed investigations into Barisma.
If I return 2% per year, but do so at 1% volatility and zero market exposure, then I can be a highly successful hedge fund after applying 10x leverage.
Not that it matters anyways as they probably still take advantage of things through other people. I'd be pretty good to have a way to really prevent that as this is a problem probably in every country.
Two points on that specific trade: 1) stocks include an entire family's holdings, and the 3M position is held by her husband, 2) We have to estimate the value of ranges that are reported, and we've chosen to use the midpoint but the lower end may be more true (e.g. $5,000,001-$25,000,000 is estimated to be $15,000,000)
Here's the link to the original filing (have to accept terms first): https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/view/ptr/0c76c4e6-afb1-4...
Why would anyone ever trade unless they had material non-public information? The point of having markets is so such information becomes public through prices, isn't it? Conversely, if you don't have it, you're purely gambling aren't you?
"Not legal advice" though.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I work in finance, but I think the key is what exactly constitutes "non-public information." I can trade on all the public information regarding Tesla's cars, like reviews, published production numbers, and Elon's tweets and my own analysis of all tat but not on the word of a someone who works there saying they've got some big unexpected news.
There's a bunch of interesting cases about whats on the edge, for example, commercial satellite imagery to count cars in parking lots.
This is to say that it's illegal for congresspeople to trade on material, nonpublic information because there is now a law explicitly governing it. If they (or anyone) develop the material, nonpublic information through original research, it's not illegal.
Don't trust Wikipedia summaries for these things.
No such stipulation. I'm not allowed to trade my company's stock based on information I acquire through performing my standard everyday job duties.
On its own, material and nonpublic information is fine to trade with. Likewise not all insider trading is illegal; most of it is explicitly legal and mundane.
Nonpublic information about, say, a merger, would be "illicit" in my understanding. But what if you have worked for a company for 10 years and you think management is really great?
You can be guilty of insider trading for not buying something that you'd otherwise have done, too. So if you worked for a company and found it a terrible place to work and therefore never bought company stock, or sold the stock you had, you would in fact have profited from material nonpublic knowledge. Obviously that can't generally be a crime.
This is exactly why they say material non-public information. This is not material. It is your opinion, and you can trade on it during applicable trading windows.
My public company has trading blackout windows close to earnings reports forbidding everyone from trading, non-public information or not. Outside those, you’re still not allowed to trade if you are in possession of material non-public information. If you are an executive, that basically means all the time which is why they’re required to file scheduled sales long in advance. It doesn’t matter if you “do not use it” for your trades — that’s not going to hold up with the SEC.
> You can be guilty of insider trading for not buying something that you'd otherwise have done, too.
This doesn’t sound legitimate.
This might be interesting to see what other people are doing with the Senate Financial Disclosure Database:
His methodology page describes where this data comes from: https://www.govtrades.com/methodology
edit: on closer inspection it appears the charts are provided by squarespace. So maybe squarespace also provides the connector for back end data as well??
please correct me if I'm wrong or terse
gave my laptop a wedgie... it's awesome and important, but close some tabs first :p
It is sad that todays websites offload so much work to the client. I
wish they would just deliver some text and pictures (which would
probably worked out perfectly fine in this example!) so that in case of
bugs their server crashes instead of my web-browser.
Also what is RealNetworks even selling at this point? They seem to have generated 175m$ last year!
If Senator is head of a committee, say agriculture, show all underlying assets in that sector
I struggle to see the value here other than imply that if a senator beats benchmark....that means that they are trading on private information.
Summing by individual and top N / bottom N individuals .
Also would be interesting if there are any sources for estimated private holdings?
This is an active topic in our research pipeline -- specifically, whether holdings in private companies are going up among officials. Returns in private companies are certainly less transparent, so this might be the way to go if an official wanted to obfuscate.
Maybe someone with better statistical knowledge than me can study if there is a significant difference between man and woman senator stock performance.