'60 Minutes' Congress: Trading Stock On Insider Info?

[wildcat]

Did anyone catch last night's episode?

Basically to recap, some researchers @ a Stanford think tank have performed a lot of research and have found what they believe to be stock market trades congressmen have done prior to valuable info becoming public.

Apparently, the actions are not illegal and insider trade laws are not applicable to congressmen - just maybe frowned upon. Of course all of the ones captured on camera denied involvement (Pelosi is pretty funny) and I'm sure it would be very hard to prove one of doing so (same as most insider trading cases) but it just smells real bad.

I found it pretty interesting (not that most of us don't already know DC is full of corruption):

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57323527/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information/?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

 

[REWahoo]

From the piece it was clear to me that using insider information for personal gain is one of the few areas where members of both political parties are in agreement - while loudly denying they do it.

Here's a follow-up story: Congress reacts to'60 Minutes' report on 'soft corruption' - CNN.com

 

[chinaco]

It should be against the law. Their investment assets should be in a blind trusts.

As bad as that was... the part about people gaining access to Public Policy Decisions (Inside Information) that affects the markets being up for sale was even more unfair! Apparently a new industry has been created where people (former political insiders.. like a lobbyist) with access to the political figures get the information for, or sell it to, certain investors (e.g., hedge funds, investment banks, private equity, etc).

 

[Dawg52]

I saw the show. Not only does it give them the freedom to make trades using 'insider' information, it could influence their vote. Bad business.

 

[MichaelB]

A thread about congress really should be in the politics forum so I moved it.

 

[Sandhog]

Only place in US that both economy and wages are growing is in D.C. If you follow the money, you'll find the power. When you find the power, you'll find corruption.

I don't know which is more of oxymoron Jumbo Shrimp or Honest Politicians?

 

[eytonxav]

Did I also hear correctly that they can't take money, but it was OK to take IPO shares?

 

[ERD50]

I saw the show. Not only does it give them the freedom to make trades using 'insider' information, it could influence their vote. Bad business.

They are the 0.00017% (535/312,607,162).

The 'Occupy' people are on the wrong streets.


-ERD50

 

[wildcat]

Another interesting tidbit I thought I heard (would probably have to see the segment again to make sure) was the piece about political intelligence groups searching through the hearings for info that could influence stock prices and selling it to hedge funds. Maybe someone recalls hearing the same thing?

 

[Bimmerbill]

I am not a fan of Pelosi, but the hostility shown when she responded to Steve Kroft was pretty telling (IMO).

 

[kat]

Getting $$$ information ahead of the US public is wrong.

You do not have to be republican or democratic, liberal or conservative or progressive or anarchist to know this.

 

[frayne]

I read about the piece before I saw it last night. Just makes my blood boil and wonder why there isn't an Occupy Congress Movement, requiring all congress members to have to live with the legislation they pass for others, social security, medicare, etc. not to mention not being able to work as a lobbyist after their terms. When people speak of other governments being corrupt, kind of rings hollow in respect to our own corrupted system. Throw all the bums out this election cycle.

 

[frayne]

I am not a fan of Pelosi, but the hostility shown when she responded to Steve Kroft was pretty telling (IMO).

Boehner looked a little peeved as well.

Kind of reminds me of the cliche, how do you tell when a politician is lying ?

 

[rescueme]

A thread about congress really should be in the politics forum.

Uh, U R a moderator.

Can't you simply change it?

Just wondering....

 

[Bestwifeever]

Uh, U R a moderator.

Can't you simply change it?

Just wondering....

Uh, he did--didn't you notice where you read it?

 

[sheehs1]

It should be against the law. Their investment assets should be in a blind trusts.

As bad as that was... the part about people gaining access to Public Policy Decisions (Inside Information) that affects the markets being up for sale was even more unfair! Apparently a new industry has been created where people (former political insiders.. like a lobbyist) with access to the political figures get the information for, or sell it to, certain investors (e.g., hedge funds, investment banks, private equity, etc).

Agree. I saw the segment. No wonder they leave congress multi-millionnaires.
Blind trust. Wonder how many bet against "housing" before it went bust. They said...many had gone to the sidelines.

Interestingly enough...it was during this period the Clintons had said they had moved all their stuff to Treasuries It was just another piece of information on top of other data...that made me cash out before the worst of the crisis.

We should somehow demand...a website...where every member of congress, any one connected to making or controlling the outcome of legislation...has to immediately publicly disclose their transactions and financial movements.

This really infuriated me as I watched the segment.

 

[sheehs1]

I am not a fan of Pelosi, but the hostility shown when she responded to Steve Kroft was pretty telling (IMO).

Yes. She was lying. She needs to go...along with all the others. Or ...special taxes specifically for Congressmen who get so very wealthy. This is not public service. It is "self-service".

 

[sheehs1]

Did I also hear correctly that they can't take money, but it was OK to take IPO shares?

Yes you did. And they do.

 

[MichaelB]

Uh, he did--didn't you notice where you read it?

Thank you. To avoid further confusion I clarified my earlier statement.

 

[eytonxav]

Now if we could get the OWS movement to focus its efforts on these crooks, it might be productive.

 

[HFWR]

Now if we could get the OWS movement to focus its efforts on these crooks, it might be productive.

There's lots of "concern" out there; i.e. "Occupy", Tea Party, etc. But it's hard to even figure out what these groups "stand for". All over the map...

 

[Sandhog]

I read about the piece before I saw it last night. Just makes my blood boil and wonder why there isn't an Occupy Congress Movement, requiring all congress members to have to live with the legislation they pass for others, social security, medicare, etc. not to mention not being able to work as a lobbyist after their terms. When people speak of other governments being corrupt, kind of rings hollow in respect to our own corrupted system. Throw all the bums out this election cycle.

When people speak of the other governments, they are talking about being more corrupt than ours. But I didn't know about our own law makers were lining their pockets rather than looking out for the people they served.

I agreed with you. If congress members to have to live with the legislation they pass for others, social security, medicare, etc, I guarantee you that everything is much easier to understand without having majored in English with law degree. Congress members themselves don't write, it's few assistance with law and english degrees write for them. Just think about how simple would Medicare be if they have to use it like rest of us?

I also agree that they should be banned working as lobbyist involvement either directly or indirectly for period of 12 years. By time they get back to Washington, they would has been and won't have much influence as they would soon after they had to leave either by not being re-elected or some other reason.

 

[Sandhog]

Another interesting tidbit I thought I heard (would probably have to see the segment again to make sure) was the piece about political intelligence groups searching through the hearings for info that could influence stock prices and selling it to hedge funds. Maybe someone recalls hearing the same thing?

Yes, they said that. I read both text and saw the video.

I'm still mad as hell while I'm working and working to save for ER, those people who were elected to protect the people by the people was only out there to lookout for their own financial gains. I do believe it's time to break away from two party system since they are both same. We need someone like Ross Perot back but be more in the middle to take away both GOP and DEM vote that would lead us in having non-GOP or DEM president and congress. By the people of the people.

 

[ziggy29]

There's lots of "concern" out there; i.e. "Occupy", Tea Party, etc. But it's hard to even figure out what these groups "stand for". All over the map...

My take would be this: The Tea Party seems to be against Big Government, OWS seems to be against Big Corporations, and the problem is that we have Big Government inextricably in bed with Big Corporations.

IMO, government isn't working for us because it is often bought and paid for by deep-pocketed lobbying groups including major corporations. Thus when faced with doing the people's business or the business of the million-dollar campaign contributor, the choice for them is sadly too easy.

Similarly, Corporate America isn't working for us because they are buying the government to create a climate that favors them (sometimes at the expense of labor, customers and small business competitors). They can use influence to ease regulatory frameworks, water down anti-trust and anti-monopoly enforcement, and encourage granting tax breaks to businesses who ship jobs overseas.

In a vacuum, neither government nor Big Business are "the enemy." Both serve important roles in society and the economy and neither should be vilified in and of themselves. But when they are allowed to become more and more of a single combined entity, I think all bets are off. We have a de facto "separation" of government and religion because they work best when protected against the influences of each other. I'd contend the same is true of "corporation and state" to a significant degree.

 

[eytonxav]

There's lots of "concern" out there; i.e. "Occupy", Tea Party, etc. But it's hard to even figure out what these groups "stand for". All over the map...

Thats true, its hard to know what their real agenda is. I have no gripes with anyone that wants to work and can't get a job, but I don't have much sympathy for those that simply want a free lunch and want to take it from those that earned it. Some how I think this OWS movement is more the later.