r/news • u/BeautyInTheNegitive • 16d ago
Kentucky Sen. Paul failed to disclose wife's stock trade
https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-kentucky-3b1ac2c84febb8be829555668f33b6454k
u/ShantyMick 16d ago
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has introduced legislation to prohibit members from trading individual stocks. Not surprisingly it has not received a lot of support.
280
u/jzplayinggames 16d ago
I like how even bankers and high finance brokers even have this as a rule, prohibiting from any single names or highly speculative trades. But not congress.
115
u/ShantyMick 16d ago
Yup. Because my wife works in finance and has several series licenses, I'm not allowed to trade shares without approval of her company's compliance department.
→ More replies6
u/gd2234 16d ago edited 15d ago
How does this work? Do you have to do stuff like factor in approval turn around time when making trading decisions?
Edit: Thanks for the responses:) I don’t know anything about this sort of stuff and you all have given great education on the topic
48
u/ShantyMick 16d ago
I just don’t. It’s too much of a hassle. I just stick to mutual funds etc.
6
u/Sneakaux1 16d ago
Probably for the best. ETFs generally outperform professionals, after considering fees. Normal people LARPing as professionals are presumably even worse, even though each one of them thinks of course that they're special.
→ More replies→ More replies3
u/eckstuhc 16d ago
Yep. What I gathered is long-term trading is okay, but it’s just too much hassle if you’re trying to day trade. Most places will require specific brokers, specific trade details, and approvals are typically only until close of trading that day. If you make a move the institution is considering, likely it will be rejected to prevent the appearance of front-running the market.
→ More replies29
u/labe225 16d ago
Man, I'm not sure how it is at other financial firms, but I have those restrictions and essentially anyone living in my house (a "covered person") is also under those restrictions. They keep an eye on my investments, restrict how frequently I can trade, can't participate in hedge funds or IPOs, can't donate to politicians...the list goes on and on.
And all of that was when I was making $12/hr. I couldn't exploit my position to have some sort of competitive advantage. But those were the rules we had to follow (and still do.)
→ More replies5
u/noPENGSinALASKA 16d ago
Isn’t it fucking absurd.
I just moved my accounts into our managed models because I was so tired of getting emails from compliance and going through the whole dog and pony show anytime I made a trade.
Trust me my few hundred to a thousand dollar trades aren’t doing shit even with access to npi.
1k
u/Actually-Yo-Momma 16d ago
“I had the insider info, not my wife!!!”
-politicians everywhere probably
927
u/north_canadian_ice 16d ago
771
u/northernpace 16d ago
Another user on here has compiled a really interesting data set to show every senator and congressman’s net worth and stock trades. Wish I’d saved it. It’s crazy that only a handful of them don’t own any stock at all and the ones that don’t are usually just the newly elected. This is one of the few examples of both sides are the same that I can thoroughly agree with.
477
u/rebellion_ap 16d ago edited 16d ago
The avg rate of return per year is 30 percent across the board in congress which is fucking mind blowing. Additionally, It's not like they serve in congress for a term then go back to work doing something normal. They're still working at some level with congress. Imagine what you could do with 30 percent return per year for 10 years and realize these fucks come in as millionaires half the time.
EDIT: This is my source I remember looking at. I may be misunderstanding the data presented but I'm fairly sure what I'm reading is what I said. It's funny because it highlights exactly why these fucks wait til the last second to disclose or forget .
98
u/Gonewild_Verifier 16d ago
There should be an index that follows congress stock picks. Make it so all purchases are public knowledge. Imagine the returns
→ More replies43
u/juice920 16d ago
There is a disclosure window(I think it's like 3M), so it would always be behind.
11
u/BikerJedi 16d ago
I don't understand your comment - can you ELI5 for those who don't know a lot about stocks? What is a disclosure window, what is there a limit of 3 million, and why would that make it be behind? Thanks!
→ More replies32
u/juice920 16d ago
Sorry 3M is 3 months. They don't have to disclose their trades for a period of time. I thinknthat period is 3 months. So if you built an index that tracked, you would always be way behind and the information that actually drove their trade would probably be public knowledge by then.
11
u/sevseg_decoder 16d ago
And this could easily be changed. Electronically, every move made by a representative at any level could easily be disclosed instantly.
→ More replies→ More replies5
→ More replies5
31
u/colbymg 16d ago
$1,000,000 x 1.3 ^ 10 = $13,785,849
36
u/DragonBank 16d ago
Almost 200m from 1m in 2 decades. Even an absolutely broke senator(there are none) could get a loan and make a ton.
46
u/rebellion_ap 16d ago
Loans are how wealthy people circumvent taxes. It's the norm not the exception. Very rudimentary example but essentially you put your stocks up as collateral (therefore using without selling) and invest the borrowed money. As long as that investment is returning more than the interest rate you are growing wealth without paying for it. These interest rates are minuscule as fuck at that level.
→ More replies2
u/colbymg 16d ago
$100,000,000 loan with 3% interest, invested in 30% return stock over 10 years = $1,378,584,918 - $134,391,638 = $1,244,193,280 net.
not sure on the max they would loan you... doubt anything over $1,000,000→ More replies5
u/rebellion_ap 16d ago
You don't have to do that much math 30% gain minus 3% loss isn't hard to conceptualize. The entire point is they regularly use existing wealth in a roundabout way to not owe taxes on that chunk of wealth. It's not all or nothing either, say -3% interest, -5% for cost of living/cocaine money, -2% to growing the wealth, and the typical +10% return. You're still making money on that loan using wealth that hasn't been realized and will continue to grow.
140
u/Stories_for_days 16d ago
Imagine what you could do with all that inside information
→ More replies139
u/iamdan1 16d ago
That's how they get the 30% return. When you have inside information you can make those crazy returns on investment, which is why congress made the rule that they are allowed to do it.
→ More replies5
u/2wheelzrollin 16d ago
And they go around playing some telenovela drama to stir up their bases to fight amongst ourselves while they keep growing their wealth.
28
u/Luxpreliator 16d ago edited 16d ago
Daaaamn. Never checked it but there was a post a while back that said bill gates was around 14-20%. Found a number for Warren buffet and since 1980 he's held 14.6%
→ More replies25
16
u/getmoney7356 16d ago edited 16d ago
The avg rate of return per year is 30 percent across the board
You're misreading your source. Congress had a total return of 32.4% over a 31 month period where the S&P 500 had 26.4% return over the same period. Translating that to a 30 percent across the board average rate of return per year isn't remotely close to an accurate reading of that source.
→ More replies12
u/mrjosemeehan 16d ago
Just for reference, 30% is about three times the average return on a stock, which has held steady around 10% for about 100 years.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/average-stock-market-return
→ More replies→ More replies5
u/Nemaeus 16d ago
30 percent?! What the fuck?! That’s insane ROI for an average if true.
I’ve always said, after going into tech, if I wanted to make money I would have become a politician. Contemplating. Shrug.
→ More replies3
u/derrida_n_shit 16d ago
They hide behind the fact that politician salaries are low when compared to executive private sector positions. But it's really all about the perks and the cheat codes you have access to. Build your own infinite money glitch
91
u/ragingbuffalo 16d ago
I mean most congressman come from wealth or upper middle class. Not unusual to own stocks at those income levels. Even if you didn't being a congressman you make atleast 140K+. Def the income you can start investing outside of 401ks and into personal brokerages. I do however full support limiting congressman to pure index funds.
60
u/Mecha-Dave 16d ago
A patriotic congressperson would put all their money in SPY and QQQ while they were elected.
→ More replies10
u/LurkmasterP 16d ago
A patriotic congressperson
I'm having a shit of a time trying to parse this phrase. I mean I'm pretty sure I know what each of those words means, but when you put them together, I got nothin'.
31
u/FAYCSB 16d ago
I work in the financial services industry, but have no access to MNPI. I still have to pre-clear my trades. In vanilla index etfs.
→ More replies→ More replies17
u/Rhawk187 16d ago
I don't think it has to be index funds. Their money could be actively traded, it just has to be provably blind. If your money is bundled with three billion other dollars in a hedge fund that happens to actively make good decisions, I don't fault them.
3
u/ReverendKen 16d ago
So long as there is no communication as to what should be bought and sold.
→ More replies28
u/Thorus08 16d ago
I'm not sure why senators and reps aren't prohibited to trading/buying only index funds while serving terms.
Sure, they can still benefit knowing impacts on certain sectors, but it at least limits them from taking advantage to a larger degree on individual company volatility.
Can anyone else with a better understanding chime on in on why/if that would be a good idea or not?
40
u/TheFotty 16d ago
It isn't that it is not a good idea, it is that the people who would need to enact that legislation are the ones it impacts. That is why it doesn't get done.
→ More replies8
u/BasedTaco 16d ago
People who have the ego to try and get into high public office, such as the Senate and House, are not generally the most morally ethical.
22
u/daniu 16d ago
It’s crazy that only a handful of them don’t own any stock at all
If you're reasonably well off, it would be financially irresponsible to not be invested in stock.
→ More replies7
u/Mecha-Dave 16d ago
I participated in the analysis. Although I agree that the insider trading is really bad - most of the senators that would do it would literally do better if they just put their money in SPY or QQQ and left it alone. I guess they'd do a lot worse if they DIDN'T cheat, so still...
3
u/The_Original_Gronkie 16d ago
Everybody here is concerned about insider trading by elected officials, but their staffs are a thousand times worse, and NOBODY is watching them, or asking any questions.
→ More replies3
u/Hongo-Blackrock 16d ago
/u/pdwp90 is the user you're referring to, and Quiver Quantitative is his website.
I have an account (it's free) and from my Dashboard I can access Senate Trading, House Trading, Government Contracts, Violations and Fines, Insider Trading and a bunch more data, this is just a few of them.
It's a truly awesome site he's got there, do check it out!
150
u/Feyward 16d ago
His options were set to expire on June 18, 2021, according to the disclosure report, the day when he exercised them. In fact, Pelosi only had two choices: Sell his options, or exercise them. If he did nothing, his brokerage would likely have closed or exercised the options anyway. Thus, Pelosi’s Alphabet trade on June 18 was an inevitability, whether the House subcommittee was meeting, or not.
No one ever reads the articles LMAO
68
u/rodrigo8008 16d ago
The entire point is it’s a conflict of interest that he ever bought them. It’s not like Pelosi just got elected
→ More replies→ More replies25
u/north_canadian_ice 16d ago
What is your point? $5 million option trades are absurd when your wife is the Speaker of the House.
34
u/fury420 16d ago edited 16d ago
Are they though, when your net worth is +100 million?
At that point $5 million arguably doesn't even count as a windfall for him.
→ More replies28
→ More replies25
u/GravelLot 16d ago
What part of this story suggests impropriety? Exercising expiring calls? Huh? Is there more info that isn't in your article?
So was there anything improper about Mr. Pelosi’s trades? A few critical details indicate not. In fact, the story seems to be that he made one heck of a trade.
The trades in question involve 40 call options on Alphabet’s stock at a strike price of $1,200, which were exercised on June 18, a few days before the House subcommittee convened. The contracts gave Pelosi the right to convert his 40 call options into 4,000 Alphabet shares at a price of $1,200. Because Alphabet was trading at about $2,550 when the options were exercised and converted into stock, they were in the money and are now worth about $5.4 million.
→ More replies→ More replies20
u/PoissonsRevenge 16d ago
Legally speaking, the court assumes that a married couple tell each other everything and function as one unit financially. It's for that reason that it's not just prospective candidates in government are given background checks, but also their spouses. This hasn't gotten to the point where one spouse can be held liable for the others' crimes, but it's understood that financially Mr. and Mrs. Paul are the same person.
→ More replies174
u/SsurebreC 16d ago edited 16d ago
A better legislation is for them to sell all their holdings and to buy US bonds instead. If that's too much of a hassle then they shouldn't be in government but this way they have less incentive to kiss up to any company and a lot more incentive to make sure the US as a country doing better.
75
u/fcfrequired 16d ago
Bingo.
My issue is that they stopped being professionals full time and politicians part time a hundred years ago, yet they still reap the rewards of both sides.
It's either a government job or it's not.
8
18
u/SagaStrider 16d ago
I recently looked through all of the reported holdings of the Senate and a handful of representatives. As might be expected, Republicans are typically in oil and defense, and generally larger corporations, while Dems are typically in tech and 'growth' assets. There were plenty of exceptions, every portfolio was unique. Quite a few had bonds. One republican only held a single city's municipal waste bonds. He had a lot, and keeps buying more.
33
u/monty_kurns 16d ago
I have no problem with them buying broad market index funds, especially if it's in the TSP (government 401k). If you put too many restrictions on what kind of investment they can make, that'll make it all the harder for regular people who are not already millionaires to run for and win seats.
→ More replies→ More replies3
u/lemongrenade 16d ago
Let them buy approved etfs. If a senator buys VTI which tracks the entire stock exchange they are Incentivized to help grow the economy. I’m cool with that.
4
u/NightWolfYT 16d ago
Not surprising at all considering Pelosi’s husband does insider trading all the time
5
u/ekjohnson9 16d ago
Pelosi is one of the biggest traders lmao. When the de facto head of the party is dipping in the well, good luck.
→ More replies28
u/Al_Bundy_14 16d ago
I’m sure Pelosi is avidly shutting that down.
54
u/ShantyMick 16d ago
Sounds like Rand would be right next to her. True bipartisanship.
→ More replies4
u/[deleted] 16d ago edited 16d ago
[deleted]
6
u/juanLegTapDance 16d ago
I don’t understand rich 80 year olds that are still working and trying to get every dollar. It seems like it’s just an addiction to power and money.
220
u/Maddox_Renalard 16d ago
Remember when people gave a shit about financial connections for elected officials? President Jimmy Carter remembers!
→ More replies58
u/Positive-Idea 16d ago edited 16d ago
I remember when dems passed HR1 in the house in 2019 and again in 2021 that overhauls and regulates campaign finance, gets rid of gerrymandering, etc.
The fight over voting rights are ongoing and the politicians resisting it are almost entirely with an (R) next to their name.
317
u/TheDeadlySquid 16d ago
Will there be consequences? Will there be accountability?
120
u/aZamaryk 16d ago
Unfortunately senators are allowed to lie and cheat with little to no consequences, because they make the laws. Corruption has blinded them so severely, that they can't even protect their constituents and fellow citizens from a pandemic.
→ More replies22
u/PromptCritical725 16d ago
"...there isn't a decent human being amongst you. Not one. Do you know what makes a human being decent? Fear. And therein lies the problem. None of you has anything left to fear anymore. You rest comfortably in seats of inscrutable power..."
98
u/j0a3k 16d ago
Nope. The people who would care already don't vote for him, and the people who do vote for him won't care.
→ More replies29
u/SpaceCadetriment 16d ago
This is why I roll my eyes any time there is a super majoroty vote in a divided house/senate that is destined to fail and the repeated reason given is always "This is so they go on record being a shitty person!"
It has been proven over and over again 99% of the voting population does not give a flying shit about their legislators being "on record" for opposing the other side of the isle, regardless of the ethical considerations.
Mitch McConnell has spent a lifetime going "on record" of being a vile piece of shit but the needle hasn't moved. He has won every county on Kentucky during his career going back to 1984.
→ More replies6
u/bicket6 16d ago
He has won every county on Kentucky during his career going back to 1984.
not every county
→ More replies5
u/VaderFitz 16d ago
Nope. We have seen time and again that our legislative branch faces no consequences or accountability for their actions, be it inside trading, sex trafficking, misinformation, racial injustice, insurrection, and so on.
→ More replies4
u/T0ADcmig 16d ago
This is a nothing story, if she bought $15000 max of the stock that is was only 200 shares at most. The stock is lower today, she lost money. Take a look at Pelosi's Husbands stock trades which have gains in the millions. I don't get why Paul is this lightning rod, he's an outsider of his party. Its the insiders f both parties yall need to worry about.
117
u/goldmansachsofshit 16d ago
No one in congress, SC, regulators etc...none of them fuckers should be allowed to trade at all.
14
u/MTAlphawolf 16d ago
My friend isn't allowed to trade at all because she works for a place that sells software to some huge places, and might hear something first. Good thing the ones that write the laws are the ones that profit from it /s
→ More replies→ More replies3
722
u/TexasYankee212 16d ago
Rand Paul had the covid yet keeps pushing against masks and vaccines. The average US citizen does not get to go the Walter Reed Army or Bethesda Naval Hospitals to get the best care possible like members of congress do. This guy is the shining example of dishonesty and hypocrisy - one of the GOP's best. What a royal jackass.
174
u/Gilby221 16d ago
And to think back on my youth I liked him. Dude gets world class treatment on tax payer dollars, but doesn't want that single payer med insurance for normal working people and spewing anti mask/ vaccines.
→ More replies85
u/monty_kurns 16d ago
I liked him initially because he presented himself like his father. And even with Ron Paul, I disagreed with plenty of things he said and believed in, but I had absolutely no doubt that he truly believed them and wasn't a hypocrite when it came time to cast a vote.
72
u/kkngs 16d ago edited 16d ago
His father was a racist asshole. I grew up in his district. Back before he was elected, he used to send around these racist fliers that attacked the black community.
Later, when our rural district needed federal approval to repair failing bridges or levees, we couldn’t get it, because Ron always voted no to budgets and wouldn’t even propose the projects in appropriation bills. That was literally what his job was supposed to be.
→ More replies→ More replies110
u/Straelbora 16d ago
To be honest, I could never understand the appeal of Rand Paul or his father. Ron Paul always seemed shady to me, and the whole 'libertarian' label just seems like a cover for middle class, straight, Christian white guys enjoying 500 years of systemic racism, classism, etc. by ignoring the role of the State in dismantling those overlapping privileges.
25
u/TripChaos 16d ago edited 16d ago
Ron was appealing as he was the outlier who actually voted based on his opinion of the issue at hand, not for political games. Trading votes and doing what the party tells you is rampant to the point of normality. It's one of those things that when you get a whiff of just how much congress / DC is controlled by the parties, it's pretty sickening. The idea of a member of congress voting on a bill based on their personal dis/agreement is alien to the people there.
Even way back in the late 2000s internet, I was reading about how he would occasionally end up being the only nay vote. Literally everyone else voting yea while he was the single nay. A politically "bad move," but obviously the right thing to do. His deviation from that norm highlighted just how broken the system was (is) and a lot of people find that appealing.
He also voted against the Iraq war. Back then, the term Libertarian was a whole lot more about anti-empire foreign policy stuff. The logo for his 2012 run even emphasized/stamped out LOVE from the word revolution. Try to imagine how blasphemous that would be for a Republican post 9-11 to have that kind of ethos for their campaign.
5
u/CaptnRonn 16d ago
To a large extent that is just the politics of compromise. You vote on A (which matters to my constituents), and I'll vote on B (which matters to yours).
How exactly would you expect a consensus to be reached otherwise?
→ More replies→ More replies30
u/j0a3k 16d ago
Yeah even if you accept he's not a hypocrite it's totally possible to non-hypocritically hold absolutely terrible positions on issues.
That being said, in general I think a lot of libertarians are ultimately just conservatives who want to feel superior by labeling "both sides" as bad and acting like they're above the petty squabbles of tribal politics.
31
u/Wazula42 16d ago
I've heard it described as "libertarians are just republicans who smoke weed".
→ More replies8
u/Sporadicinople 16d ago
Libertarians are just Republicans that want to be allowed to smoke weed, and defund the military, but only so they can pay less taxes.
6
→ More replies12
u/m0d3r4t3m4th 16d ago
I've heard it described as Libertarians don't want the government telling them their girlfriend needs to be in a car seat.
→ More replies→ More replies18
174
u/historycat95 16d ago
Stock purchase in company makes a COVID treatment.
And her husband uses his position to advocate for more people getting COVID.
I'm sure the Q folks will get to the bottom of this issue and find nothing wrong!
→ More replies
5
u/CaptainWisconsin 16d ago
At this point, I am convinced that being elected to Congress is basically just winning the lottery. You don’t really have to do much, other than spend your time lining your pockets, taking advantage of the excellent benefits, and the massive amounts of vacation time.
315
u/Doctor420Strange69 16d ago
Rand Paul is such a piece of shit. The dude is also a walking example of why not all experts are equal. For example, during a pandemic, I might want to trust an immunologist, like Fauci, versus a fucking eye doctor, like Paul.
102
u/stormtrooper_trainee 16d ago
an eye doctor that had to create a fake board with him as President and his wife (notably not a doctor) and dad to "board certify" him
→ More replies210
u/Kellymcdonald78 16d ago
He’s not even a real eye doctor, his accreditation is one he created himself
66
u/jenny4life 16d ago
Oh wow.
→ More replies84
u/SauronSymbolizedTech 16d ago
Technically, he had real accreditation at one point but then moved to the fake self-certification method later on. So it's not the total fraud entirely made up doctor, more along the lines of was a doctor but lost their license and wants to keep pretending to be legit type. Rand Paul may or may not be medically incompetent should you get him to eye doctor for you. (Behold all his antiscience medical disinfo that got him banned from YouTube) Roll the dice, or just go with one you can have some confidence in.
38
u/sheisthemoon 16d ago
The sick thing is he went to school and studied medical science so he definitely learned about immunology and how it affects other systems of the body and knows the facts, had to be tested numerous times on his knowledge of the facts to pass and still was like "hey yall, im here to tell you im gonna lie my ass off because it lines my pockets with green to keep people sick and hating one another! Praise jesus! Now if you'd be so kind as to look at this non-issue im going to shout about for the next hour..."
→ More replies→ More replies46
u/SheriffComey 16d ago
He created his own accreditation board because three years after he received his accreditation the American Board of Ophthalmology changed the rules from lifetime accreditation to recertification every 10 years and he got all pouty and whiny.
→ More replies26
u/seriatim10 16d ago
He’s not even a real eye doctor, his accreditation is one he created himself
He's an MD from Duke and is licensed to practice. Also does pro bono work in Haiti. A license to practice is not the same thing as board certification.
→ More replies→ More replies30
26
u/Eric6052 16d ago
And absolutely nothing will happen because of it. Politicians take care of each other.
→ More replies
11
16
u/beachbound2 16d ago
Glad it was discussed , but can we go back to all those lawmakers who made MILLIONS selling before the crash of covid in 2020 bc they had insider information ?
4
u/itonlyhurtswhenigasp 16d ago
Laws are just for the little people. The Elite have their own code, peasants.
4
u/LittleLight85 15d ago edited 15d ago
Disclosure doesn’t mean shit, being allowed to do it in the first place is the problem. Politicians and their families should be barred from owning individual stocks.
112
u/bicameral_mind 16d ago edited 16d ago
Not a fan of Rand Paul, but this is such a dumb, overtly political, non-story. His wife made this stock purchase over 6 months before remdesivir was even authorized for COVID treatment by the FDA. Paul himself reported the filing error.
If she had insider information from the FDA or Gilead that remdesivir approval was imminent, and the timing of the trade aligned with FDA approval and was actually profitable, maybe there would be something here. This just looks like a normal stock trade of a major pharma company.
ETA: It appears she bought the stock on February 26, 2020, the day after this NIH press release was (publically) issued, highlighting clinical trials of remdesivir for treatment of COVID:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-clinical-trial-remdesivir-treat-covid-19-begins
51
u/MrBrightsighed 16d ago
And the stock today is the same price as the day she bought it lol
37
→ More replies6
u/jb_in_jpn 16d ago
She ought to join us over at /r/WallStreetBets with portfolio performance of that caliber
→ More replies26
13
u/PornMonkey5 16d ago
oh no, what about the other few hundred congress people and senators who do this?
→ More replies
61
u/Anklebender91 16d ago
In a statement, a Paul spokeswoman Kelsey Cooper said Kelley Paul used her own earnings to make the investment, which she lost money on. She said the failure by the senator, who is an eye surgeon, to disclose the trade was an oversight. “Last year Dr. Paul completed the reporting form for an investment made by his wife using her own earnings, an investment which she has lost money on,” Cooper said. “In the process of preparing to file his annual financial disclosure for last year, he learned that the form was not transmitted and promptly alerted the filing office and requested their guidance. In accordance with that guidance he filed both reports yesterday.”
Doesn't exactly seem like a big deal. Guess no one is reading the article?
→ More replies
49
u/timmer67 16d ago
Weird that he would fail to disclose something like that for so long after saying how corrupt the Dems are….you would think it might jog his memory of how corrupt he is
16
→ More replies21
3
u/dismal_sighence 16d ago
I love coming to the comments to see that, no surprise, the vast majority of commenters did not read the article.
3
u/Mesapholis 15d ago
She said the failure by the senator, who is an eye surgeon, to disclose the trade was an oversight.
badum-tsss
12
11
u/francoruinedbukowski 16d ago
Lets not forget about Nancy Pelosi's husband, Russell Brand explains it clearly here.
→ More replies
30
u/KomputerIdiat 16d ago edited 16d ago
revealing on Feb. 26, 2020 that Kelley Paul purchased somewhere between $1,001 and $15,000 worth of stock in Gilead
Well for lawmakers, this is actually nothing. I thought it was Pelosi, or Loffler level trades. Theirs is magnitudes higher on insider info with millions on the line.
Under a 2012 law called the Stock Act, which was enacted to stop lawmakers from trading on insider information, any such sale should have been reported within 45 days.
Is the wife also a lawmaker? Does the act also apply to the family members?
“Last year Dr. Paul completed the reporting form for an investment made by his wife using her own earnings, an investment which she has lost money on,” Cooper said...Gilead stock traded for about $75 a share on the day Kelley Paul made her purchase. It rose to about $84 a share in April 2020, before dropping. Shares now trade at about $70 apiece.
So let me get this straight... a non-lawmaker made a trade in the brackets of 1 to 15 thousands dollars to the tunes of what is most likely some decimal point percentage of their wealth on a drug company that ultimately lost money, and this is NEWS?! I would've also lost count of what would be equivalent to my pocket change.
Did anyone even read this article?
→ More replies12
u/SunkenPretzel 16d ago
No, one does any kind of thinking. They just read the title and go with whatever the circle jerk is. If this was Nancy Pelosi levels of stock, it’s one of thing but $1-15k is literal pocket change to these people more so it’s his wife.
→ More replies
7
u/The---Batman 16d ago edited 16d ago
The system has failed because garbage politicians like this aren't in prison. How do his constituents feel about him vomiting misinformation at their expense to protect his financial Investments?
→ More replies
32
u/BenAustinRock 16d ago
It was $15,000 on a stock that has made exactly $0 since the trade.
→ More replies
12
u/Frustratedcowboy 16d ago
Call me naive, but I could see this being a legitimate oversight. With that said, our so called representatives do this insider trading nonsense all the time. both parties are so brazen about it. I just don't think in this specific case he did this on purpose.
→ More replies
10
u/piratehcky6 16d ago
She bought a very small amount. This really doesn't seem like much of a story...
4
u/JhymnMusic 16d ago
and? until there's literally any punishment for the rich for anything in this country- who fucking cares?
5
11
u/ttiredbored 16d ago
Now I know why he always advocates for smaller governments - its so he can do shady shit like this and not be called out.
→ More replies
9
u/Bigzandaman 16d ago
So she bought stock at a loss and is still HODLing... Aren't we more worried about sales or trades?
→ More replies
12
u/ChainBangGang 16d ago
It only matters when they don't make any money like Paul's wife.
It doesnt matter when your husband makes 5.3 million after a closed door meeting on the very topic.
→ More replies12
13
u/Artaeos 16d ago
I don't understand how anyone, regardless of party, can be 'okay' with shit like this regardless what side does it.
It's objectively bad and at best sketchy as fuck.
At this point no Senator should be believed that they simply 'forgot' to disclose stock trades. At this point you're doing it because you know you need to hide it.
→ More replies16
u/Okymyo 16d ago
They would've made at most $2k from the trade since it was between $1k and $15k and the historical peak was 15% higher than their buying position.
It's stated in the article that they didn't report it because it was a position that lost them money, as well.
Should he have reported it? Yes. Is this in any way comparable to others in congress making literally dozens of millions from insider-information trades? Don't think so, at all. Especially considering the purchase was made by his wife after a NIH statement claiming Remdesivir was effective against COVID, so there was literally no insider information.
→ More replies
4
u/AncianoDark 16d ago
Better hurry up and fine him a miniscule portion of the money they made off it
→ More replies
5
u/geekboy69 16d ago
If you're elected to office you and your spouse should not be able to trade stocks. Full stop
→ More replies
2
2
u/CommentSniper47 16d ago
End congressional members, staff, and immediate family ability to trade stocks. Problem solved.
2
2
2
2
4k
u/NoodlesSpicyHot 16d ago
What's the penalty for failure to disclose? Or is it nothing, just another feel-good law with no teeth, effectively a non-law?