undefined | Better HN

0 pointsunderseacables4y ago0 comments

Yes, deeply suspicious, I was trying to split the difference and not get political. I think it’s terrible. Members of Congress should not be allowed to own, trade, or have anything to do with the stock market. I always heard a rumor that members of Congress are always richer when they leave than when they entered. That should really piss Americans off, but it doesn’t depending on which party is in power, and which party that person subscribes to.

Edit: Grammar and Spelling

0 comments

trident50004y ago

I have no issue with them owning a handful of broad ETF's like the SPY. Other than that they shouldnt be placing bets on specific parts of the economy they clearly have influence over.

throwawayboise4y ago

I think they should be able to own an investment portfolio, but while they are in office (and perhaps after, if they engage in lobbying) it should be in a blind trust.

stonemetal124y ago

How do blind trusts operate? Surely you don't put in 4K of APPL shares and a couple of years later get back carrot futures or some thing.

throwawayboise4y ago

I don't know details but in general the portfolio would be managed by a trustee, probably with a certain goal specified in advance (preservation of capital, growth, blended, etc.) the key is that the owner of the assets has no control over or knowledge of the specific investments once the trust is formed.

I don't know if a rollover into a blind trust has to involve a complete liquidation to cash to start off. That would make sense, since then there could be no assumptions about which securities the trust held.

swalsh4y ago

I disagree entirely. Markets are more effecient when these high information actors are allowed to interact with it. That said, it should be far more transparent.

sokoloff4y ago

I do think there's dirty play here, but I think you can't realistically prevent the ownership of equity instruments by politicians. You could demand they be held in blind trusts; you could demand they be able to be long-only on broad-based mutual funds; you could make demands that they announce their trades 3 trading days before enacting them.

I think you can't realistically (and shouldn't) block them from owning equities entirely though.

You don't need to block them having anything to do with the stock market; you just need to eliminate the presence and appearance of dirty play.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsunderseacables4y ago0 comments

Edit: Grammar and Spelling

0 comments

trident50004y ago

I have no issue with them owning a handful of broad ETF's like the SPY. Other than that they shouldnt be placing bets on specific parts of the economy they clearly have influence over.

throwawayboise4y ago

I think they should be able to own an investment portfolio, but while they are in office (and perhaps after, if they engage in lobbying) it should be in a blind trust.

stonemetal124y ago

How do blind trusts operate? Surely you don't put in 4K of APPL shares and a couple of years later get back carrot futures or some thing.

throwawayboise4y ago

swalsh4y ago

I disagree entirely. Markets are more effecient when these high information actors are allowed to interact with it. That said, it should be far more transparent.

sokoloff4y ago

I think you can't realistically (and shouldn't) block them from owning equities entirely though.

You don't need to block them having anything to do with the stock market; you just need to eliminate the presence and appearance of dirty play.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse