And if you look at the trades, you’ll learn the biggest secret on Wall Street: make long term bets on tech and you’ll get richer. Don’t tell anyone I told you.
Family members are often indicated in insider information tradesm they are still trading on insider information when if they are not part of the decision making process themselves. Both leaker and utiliser are responsible.
In the case of Pelosi, she became so famous about this that there are various Nancy Pelosi stock trackers now.
Let’s be real: Pelosi became famous for it because right-leaning groups were looking for yet another thing to put on her and then it was picked up by WSB and became a meme.
Pelosi’s rate of return isn’t the highest (in 2024, it was 10th, less than half the highest).
If you analyze their trades, very few are suspect of timing. They just make a bunch of long term bets on tech.
> If you analyze their trades, very few are suspect of timing. They just make a bunch of long term bets on tech.
But what about the ones that very obviously are? Why did they sell a lot of Visa stocks?
"On Tuesday, less than three months after the massive transaction, Visa was hit with a DOJ lawsuit alleging that the company illegally monopolized the debit card market."
Selling whenever a company gets into regulatory trouble means you avoid all the big downs but still get from all the long term ups. Its a very simple strategy as you say, but its still insider trading even though the ups are mostly the long term gains.
Ok, I guess you got me there. I guess there is no explanation why they sold $500k-$1m Visa on July 01, 2024, almost 3 months before the Sep 24, 2024 DOJ lawsuit. It's not like Visa was in a already in in a slump since the beginning of the 2024, going in the opposite direction of their tech-based stocks [it was]. It's not like they have been slowly shedding Visa for the past decade, every couple of years [they have been]. And they must certainly have closed out their full position in Visa at tht time [they didn't]. In theory it could be possible that they were shedding that to load up on $2m-$10m of NVDA around the same time [like everybody else was]. But that would be too convenient [it's not]. And they certainly made the right choice, Visa currently being ~22% above the point that they sold at; they sure saved a lot of money doing that [they lost out on money].
Rather than taking for gospel what the leader of the opposing party and it's media arms are telling you to believe (especially when many get the value wrong), I strongly urge you to consider the factual data and draw conclusions for yourself.
And then, when you want to basically match Pelosi's trades - go load up on VOO or similar like the rest of us did in 2024.
> But what about the ones that very obviously are? Why did they sell a lot of Visa stocks?
That's a good question and let's use that example.
According to the article and as you mentioned, they sold Visa stock less than 3 months ago and THEN the DOJ filed a lawsuit against the company.
So how did Pelosi know that that would cause the stock to drop and the DOJ was going to file it? The lawsuit wasn't public months ago and it is related to none other than the government which she has access to.
Then she traded with that information with no downside risk which she benefited from.
If that is not an insider trading loophole, I don't know what is.
>So how did Pelosi know that that would cause the stock to drop and the DOJ was going to file it? The lawsuit wasn't public months ago and it is related to none other than the government which she has access to.
>Then she traded with that information with no downside risk which she benefited from.
>If that is not an insider trading loophole, I don't know what is.
Yes, if you start with the conclusion (that she traded because of the impending DOJ lawsuit), then, yes, you will reach the conclusion that she insider traded because of the DOJ lawsuit.
If you instead ask why they might have traded Visa at the time they did, you will see that there were many valid reasons that they (and many, many others) decided it was a good time to sell. And as it turns out, they were all wrong, because Visa is up compared to the broad market since their sell date (July 1, 2024).
> If you instead ask why they might have traded Visa at the time they did, you will see that there were many valid reasons that they (and many, many others) decided it was a good time to sell.
All said in hindsight today, but never for those who benefitted from the insider information. Investors will always buy the stock after it plummets, whilst those who didn't sell had to wait or buy lower to break even.
This does not excuse the fact that the Pelosis' benefitted from insider (political) information and traded on that, like this blatant example. An advantage that neither of us have.
Defending politicians trading on insider info (political or economic) isn't the hill one should die on. If you did exactly that and made tens of millions, you would be in prison and be replying to me years later telling others not to do it.
>This does not excuse the fact that the Pelosis' benefitted from insider (political) information and traded on that, like this blatant example.
You, nor others, have not actually proven that.
>Defending politicians trading on insider info (political or economic) isn't the hill one should die on.
Right, and that’s not what I’m doing.
I think politicians in top levels of government should be banned from trading their own stocks (and family, etc.). (Though admittedly I don’t know exactly what that looks like) They should be serving the people, not themselves.
But if I tell you sandwiches should be banned because they are bad for you and I bring you a bowl of pasta as an example of their harmful ways, I’m going to look silly, aren’t I?
In the Pelosis' circumstance, clearly their repeated actions of such trades and their connection to the timing of key legislation or lawsuits requires no further proof, given their long history of this front-running such that other congressmen and women are doing the same thing believing they can get away with the insider trading loophole.
By inspection, it is quite obvious to see how one can repeatedly front-run legislation ahead of everyone else and outperform the market.
> Right, and that’s not what I’m doing. I think politicians in top levels of government should be banned from trading their own stocks (and family, etc.).
Why not ban them from trading all stocks instead of just their own and why only those just from "top levels" of government?
They are serving the people as well and there shouldn't be exceptions for those that have access to that level of legislation before it is made public and then trade against it no?
>In the Pelosis' circumstance, clearly their repeated actions of such trades and their connection to the timing of key legislation or lawsuits requires no further proof, given their long history of this front-running such that other congressmen and women are doing the same thing believing they can get away with the insider trading loophole.
Claiming this happens, no matter how many times you repeat it (without evidence) does not mean it happens.
Clearly, Your repeated denial of fact implies that it is instead _you_ are trading on insider information. The evidence is all right there. You should be locked up.
>it is quite obvious to see how one can repeatedly front-run legislation ahead of everyone else and outperform the market
Yes, by doing exactly what the the Pelosis and many of us did in the same time period: invest heavily in tech.
I have have about double the rate of return since 2020 than the Pelosis. Many of my moves independently mimic theirs. I personally got out of Visa in Spring of 2024, also in favor of NVDA. Am I insider trading?
> Claiming this happens, no matter how many times you repeat it (without evidence) does not mean it happens.
You already know they did and yet still continue to defend politicians like the Pelosis' trading on insider political AND legislative information before it it released publicly and that privileged access entirely benefits them, not retail investors like yourself.
So, I don't think you even believe in what you just said about supporting a ban on politicians front-running the market. It should be ALL of them and there are zero exceptions.
It's as if you really want politicians to continue front-running the market with the sort of access that they have.
> Clearly, Your repeated denial of fact implies that it is instead _you_ are trading on insider information. The evidence is all right there. You should be locked up.
You got it all mixed up and it is other way round.
I'm not the one here admitting on this site to be "trading" or copying politicians trades to get an "edge" (it really isn't) like the Pelosis' and others (who truly have insider access to decision making legislation) really have on their trades.
The stock can drop / rise before the disclosure and you would always be behind regardless. So this accusatory comment is hilarious and laughable coming from someone like you supporting politicians using such loopholes for years.
The entire point is, if YOU did that yourself, made millions BEFORE the release of key legislation and knew people with connections to congress or the government; YOU would be talking to me on this site from your prison cell telling others to not do it.
So far you have made four posts in this thread and provided no evidence. Four opportunities to provide data on what you _feel_. Four chances to share links or reports.
And yet, here you are without of that.
As such, it is doubly clear, as described above, that you are insider trading. I hope that you are prosecuted to the fullest extent.
> So far you have made four posts in this thread and provided no evidence. Four opportunities to provide data on what you _feel_. Four chances to share links or reports.
You realize that what you just posted was aiding for supporting corrupt insider trading activities in congress such as [0] and [1] in both parties?
Why do you think a bi-partisan total ban on stocks for all politicians never goes forward? [2] [3] Because at least for (some) congress-people they already know that insider trading and front-running on key information can and does indeed happen.
Which is something you would be against given the Pelosis' and others directly benefitting from this loophole, like the Nvidia [1] and Google trades [3] all timed in connection to key decisions from the government.
> As such, it is doubly clear, as described above, (baseless) that you are insider trading (citation needed). I hope that you are prosecuted to the fullest extent. (no case)
Except I didn't copy or trade on anything. You admitted to what you are (baselessly) accusing me of. Also...
It's extremely more likely that you (not any congress-person) as a retail trader would be investigated and prosecuted (and jailed) for insider trading than any other congress-person, if you knew someone with political insider information and traded on that.
But please continue to defend your politicians front-running you with their insider advantage.
And if you look at the trades, you’ll learn the biggest secret on Wall Street: make long term bets on tech and you’ll get richer. Don’t tell anyone I told you.