Just smart...

 rgio wrote:
 
Same rules should apply to that office.

 R_P wrote: 
 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
 
Crooks are fine, as long as they share your objectives...

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Wait, what?

 Lazy8 wrote:
 

I guess it all comes back to the idea that we shouldn't elect crooks.

 Red_Dragon wrote:
 
Why would anyone want to be an elected representative?  President or bust!  In that job, you can build wealth...and you don't have to give anyone your tax returns as proof.

Red_Dragon wrote:

How would this treat someone who, say, made his living owning a gas station? What about a farm? What about assets offset by liabilities—a mortgage on a rental property, for instance, or a business in debt? If investments are an automatic conflict of interest what about debts? Can you put them in a blind trust?

Does a Kennedy trust fund count as a blind trust?

If you divest do you have to keep any savings in a paper sack, or stand on street corners and give it all away? After all, keeping a large cash position disposes one to oppose inflation! What about real estate holdings, like houses and such? Should only renters be allowed to serve? How high can the balance go in your checking account before you've violated the Red_Dragon Purity From Capitalism Act?

What if a spouse has a job? Is that spouse allowed a 401K?

Whatever shall we do to prevent the awful taint of having made an honest living before entering politics?

 rgio wrote:
 
Perhaps elected representatives should be required by law to either place their investments in a blind trust administered by an entity with whom they are permitted no contact with during their term, or to divest themselves completely before taking their oath.

 miamizsun wrote:
 
I have no idea when to get back in...but (IMO) there is a lot of pain coming our way before things improve.  3M more people apply for unemployment, and the market goes up?  I try to avoid conspiracy theories, but I don't trust the machines (or the people that write the algorithms).   If I'm back before 29,000, I figure I'll be ahead.

BTW - I have no doubt that Burr acted quickly after hearing the briefings he heard...but it was only (not trying to minimize...but, only...) someone's spin on a threat that had been out in the open for months.  He could have lost money by doing so as well.  This wasn't knowledge of fraud or other crimes that others could not possibly know.

If you say he did something wrong....what could he have done to be right?  Does being elected to the Senate mean you can't trade stocks?  When the rich won't run, are we comfortable stating that those with less will act more ethically?  

 rgio wrote:
 

usually the best thing that trump could do would be to get out of the way

novice timing can be a blessing and a curse (not saying you're a novice, i don't know)

if you called it correctly count your self fortunate (it is difficult to do consistently)

but it begs the question: when do you get back in?

i haven't looked into the burr investigation, but on the surface the optics are red meat for political opposition

however, there are some traders;/advisors that have discretion regarding clients and/or their accounts or have a service

they could call, email or text and suggest a trade (burr may be required to submit copies of his accounts to regulators)

but i agree with you, if they don't have clear evidence then it will be hard to prove

 miamizsun wrote:
 
I don't remember Martha's issues and don't feel like doing research...but didn't she act on something she heard on a private plane?

As an investor (not a trader), I've NEVER held cash...but I was A) thinking a slowing / recession was on the way anyway, B) worried that Trump would start to pick fights and do more tariffs with the election on the horizon, and C) watching the virus move in Asia and other countries start to do aggressive things while Trump says "I like the markets", "I like the numbers where they are", "it'll miraculously go away".  He was at Davos and saying "we have it under control". 

I understand why people would be upset, but exactly when should he be allowed to sell?  It's not enough to say "he's wrong"....you have to provide the timing of when he's allowed to act like everyone else.  He shouldn't get special treatment, but that goes both ways.

 rgio wrote:
 

how about martha stewart?

traders usually try and time stuff or trade/transact on shorter term issues like news, momentum (likely something emotional)

investors usually have a longer term focus and don't sweat the shorter term gyrations/volatility

 buddy wrote:
 
I sold most of my investments 5 weeks before him because there was a virus that was spreading and China had been locked down for weeks.  Am I an insider?

The only thing he could have received was estimates of the possible deaths and the potential impact of a lock-down.  He may not have been following it very closely, but that same issue holds true for every executive at every company in the country at some point.  They went to a meeting and someone said: "this virus thing could cause trouble...."    This wasn't an issue that only a few people could have known. No FDA approvals or Government fines here.  

Based on your understanding of insider trading, when should he have been allowed to sell?  

 Red_Dragon wrote:
 
I said below that I dislike insider trading....but this wasn't really "inside" information.  What I take issue with is people acting one way (selling), and then supporting a message that was counter to those actions.  If he was warning his constituents, other Senators, and the President that this is going to really bad, then I would suggest he doesn't have to ignore his conscious and hold investments that are going to tank.

I've been nearly all cash in my retirement funds since January...and I didn't even have a meeting with government insiders.  

 Red_Dragon wrote:

 

Burr is not the only senator who made exquisitely timed stock trades after hearing a private briefing for senators on the dangers of the coronavirus; Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) did, too, along with one or two others.

So why Burr? Remember I mentioned that the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed with the Mueller investigation, and that It was due to release the final volume of its report soon? Burr is the chairman of that key committee. If he is discredited enough to lose his chairmanship, McConnell will get to choose his replacement. And it’s a pretty safe bet the committee will no longer support the conclusions of the Mueller Report.

Heather Cox Richardson, Letters From an American, May 13, 2020

Burr to step down as Senate Intelligence chair amid insider trading probe

 Red_Dragon wrote:
 
How we continue to allow insider trading by our government is beyond me.  EVERYONE talks about taking the money out of politics...until they're the politician who can make the change.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Yup.  Sho nuff.