• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Insider trading on the coronavirus threat?

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,045
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
That's what it seems like for some Senators. Like Richard Burr (R-NC):

Senator Dumped Up to $1.6 Million of Stock After Reassuring Public About Coronavirus Preparedness — ProPublica - "Intelligence Chair Richard Burr’s selloff came around the time he was receiving daily briefings on the health threat."
Soon after he offered public assurances that the government was ready to battle the coronavirus, the powerful chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr, sold off a significant percentage of his stocks, unloading between $582,029 and $1.56 million of his holdings on Feb. 13 in 29 separate transactions.

As the head of the intelligence committee, Burr, a North Carolina Republican, has access to the government’s most highly classified information about threats to America’s security. His committee was receiving daily coronavirus briefings around this time, according to a Reuters story.

A week after Burr’s sales, the stock market began a sharp decline and has lost about 30% since.
U.S. spy agencies monitor coronavirus spread, concerns about India: sources - Reuters - 2020 Feb 27
U.S. intelligence agencies are monitoring the global spread of coronavirus and the ability of governments to respond, sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday, warning that there were concerns about how India would cope with a widespread outbreak.
Senator Richard Burr Warned Of Coronavirus Effects In Private Meeting : NPR
The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee warned a small group of well-connected constituents three weeks ago to prepare for dire economic and societal effects of the coronavirus, according to a secret recording obtained by NPR.

The remarks from U.S. Sen. Richard Burr were more stark than any he had delivered in more public forums.
On Feb 27, Trump had this to say:
"It's going to disappear. One day, it's like a miracle. It will disappear," the president said then, before adding, "it could get worse before it gets better. It could maybe go away. We'll see what happens.
But on the same day, Burr had this to say:
"There's one thing that I can tell you about this: It is much more aggressive in its transmission than anything that we have seen in recent history," he said, according to a secret recording of the remarks obtained by NPR. "It is probably more akin to the 1918 pandemic."
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,045
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "It is stomach-churning that the first thoughts these Senators had to a dire & classified #COVID briefing was how to profit off this crisis.
They didn’t mobilize to help families, or prep response. They dumped stock.
Sen. Loeffler needs to resign, too. https://t.co/3lx1Bjt4be" / Twitter

noting
Sen. Kelly Loeffler Dumped Millions in Stock After Coronavirus Briefing
The Senate’s newest member sold off seven figures worth of stock holdings in the days and weeks after a private, all-senators meeting on the novel coronavirus that subsequently hammered U.S. equities.

Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) reported the first sale of stock jointly owned by her and her husband on Jan. 24, the very day that her committee, the Senate Health Committee, hosted a private, all-senators briefing from administration officials, including the CDC director and Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institutes of Health of the United States, on the coronavirus.
Senator Kelly Loeffler on Twitter: "Appreciate today’s briefing from the President’s top health officials on the novel coronavirus outbreak. These men and women are working around the clock to keep our country safe and healthy. #gapol https://t.co/5866TrrEFc" / Twitter

The first of their stock sales was for a company named Resideo Technologies. I checked on it, and it offers home accessories like thermostats, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, air-filtering systems, ventilation systems, security systems, doorbells, leak detectors, "smart home" apps, ...

Its stock dropped to 1/2 its pre-COVID-19 value, more than the Dow Jones, which dropped by 1/3.

Stock that she bought was in Citrix, a company that makes telework software. It got a bit of a bump recently. I remember using Citrix WinFrame(?) some 25 years ago, to get some server's Windows app's windows on my office computer. Seems like Citrix is still making software for doing stuff like that.

Kelly Loeffler on Twitter: "Democrats have dangerously and intentionally misled the American people on #Coronavirus readiness.
Here’s the truth: @realDonaldTrump & his administration are doing a great job working to keep Americans healthy & safe. https://t.co/DaDX5wpeUj" / Twitter


Senator Kelly Loeffler on Twitter: "Concerned about #coronavirus? Remember this:
The consumer is strong, the economy is strong, & jobs are growing, which puts us in the best economic position to tackle #COVID19 & keep Americans safe.
Update following meeting with @realdonaldtrump, @VP, & [MENTION=450]steve[/MENTION]nMnuchin1: https://t.co/H9t2D6x19k" / Twitter
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,045
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Resideo Technologies stuff is the sort of stuff that one buys if one has money to spare. Thus its stock dropping because so many people suffer financial crunches.

Miranda- #LindseyGrahamIsAFraud 🌊 on Twitter: "@AOC @waltshaub Hey @AOC! Sen. Loeffler is married to the Chairman of the NYSE." / Twitter

ImaChecking on Twitter: "@AOC Interesting how she down played the Coronavirus being a threat after she sold her holdings based on Insider Knowledge
Sen Loeffler needs to go to jail! More than resign!" / Twitter


Sen. Loeffler to help oversee CFTC, which oversees husband's company
  • After joining the Senate, Kelly Loeffler won assignment to the Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
  • Loeffler’s husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, is CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, which is regulated by the CFTC.
  • Loeffler, a Republican, was appointed to the Senate by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.

Roza Calderón🌹 on Twitter: "📣These Senators sold their stocks between Jan-Feb after private briefing on #COVID19 on Jan. 24th to illegally avoid market crash📣
@SenFeinstein(D-CA)
[url]https://t.co/g4ejHrxp9e

@SenatorLoeffler(R-GA)
@SenatorBurr(R-NC)
@RonJohnsonWI(R-WI)
@JimInhofe(R-OK) https://t.co/QUhh5zMgYQ" / Twitter[/url]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Husband Sold a Biotech Stock Near Its 2020 Low - Barron's
Republican Jim Inhofe dumped up to $450,000 in stock — the fourth GOP senator implicated in scandal: report – Raw Story
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,521
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
Why should resigning from office shield anyone from prosecution for insider trading?

Would the Feds have let Martha Stewart go free if she agreed to quit her cooking show?
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,031
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
Why should resigning from office shield anyone from prosecution for insider trading?

Would the Feds have let Martha Stewart go free if she agreed to quit her cooking show?

Well no, he should still go to jail, but he should also quit the government first. Also, he's a rich white guy, so the odds of him facing any legal consequences are quite low.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,901
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
It’s despicable, but it’s not illegal. They aren’t insiders, and they weren’t given specific financial information about the stock itself. Lots of people learn things ahead of the market, but illegal market trading is rather narrowly defined.

SLD
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It’s despicable, but it’s not illegal. They aren’t insiders, and they weren’t given specific financial information about the stock itself. Lots of people learn things ahead of the market, but illegal market trading is rather narrowly defined.

SLD

What about the STOCK Act?

"In May 2007, a bill entitled the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act was introduced that would hold congressional and federal employees liable for stock trades they made using information they gained through their jobs..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
32,023
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Why should resigning from office shield anyone from prosecution for insider trading?

Would the Feds have let Martha Stewart go free if she agreed to quit her cooking show?

Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to the feds, not insider trading. Those charges were dropped.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,291
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
What about the STOCK Act?

"In May 2007, a bill entitled the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act was introduced that would hold congressional and federal employees liable for stock trades they made using information they gained through their jobs..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading

We (Americans) are all "insiders" to some extent, but we are not all privy to specific information because of being in the employ of the American public in positions that require advance notice of things that will influence specific stock prices. But it didn't take a Ouiji board for any of us to know that there was great potential for a stock crash, as soon as the votes were tallied in 2016 and it was public knowledge that a known racist fraudster and career criminal was going to be installed in the White House. If there was any doubt, it should have been erased when he stole $1,500,000,000,000.00 and gave most of it to his donors and the Companies they control. And when those Companies used the money to buy back their own stock, that should have been the last straw for all but the greediest investors.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,483
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Why should resigning from office shield anyone from prosecution for insider trading?

Would the Feds have let Martha Stewart go free if she agreed to quit her cooking show?

Well no, he should still go to jail, but he should also quit the government first. Also, he's a rich white guy, so the odds of him facing any legal consequences are quite low.
The best we can hope for is tar and feathering. He should be hung as an example. What a fucking asshole that guy is.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
32,023
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
US drugmaker doubled price on potential coronavirus treatment

The only US drugmaker that makes a potential treatment for the coronavirus that was touted by President Donald Trump raised the price by almost 100 per cent in January, as the virus caused havoc across China.

Rising Pharmaceuticals, a New Jersey based company, increased the price of chloroquine — an antimalarial, which is one of the drugs that is being tested against Covid-19 — on January 23, according to data from research firm Elsevier. The drug price rose 97.86 per cent to $7.66 per 250mg pill and $19.88 per 500mg pill.

But Rising said the price rise was “coincidental” and it restored the old price once it realised that the drug might be in demand because of the outbreak. The reversal of the price lift has not yet shown through in the data.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
It’s despicable, but it’s not illegal.

Actually, it is.

They aren’t insiders

Yes, they are.

and they weren’t given specific financial information about the stock itself.

Irrelevant, but likely part of any attempted defense.

Lots of people learn things ahead of the market, but illegal market trading is rather narrowly defined.

Not exactly.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
It’s despicable, but it’s not illegal. They aren’t insiders, and they weren’t given specific financial information about the stock itself. Lots of people learn things ahead of the market, but illegal market trading is rather narrowly defined.

SLD

What about the STOCK Act?

"In May 2007, a bill entitled the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act was introduced that would hold congressional and federal employees liable for stock trades they made using information they gained through their jobs..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading

Spot on. Though some have argued that its intent was to prevent those in power to unduly influence markets through their power, and then profit off of that influence, so we may see a lot of barking along those lines.
 

jonatha

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2002
Messages
2,567
Location
Kentucky
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic

Matthew Levine at Forbes notes that whereas Burr's gross on his sale is a substantial fraction of his net work, Loeffler's is not. She's worth about $500 million and the amount of the transaction was trivial in comparison. She has also stated that her money is managed by a third party and that neither she nor her husband have any input on specific transactions.
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,031
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God

Matthew Levine at Forbes notes that whereas Burr's gross on his sale is a substantial fraction of his net work, Loeffler's is not. She's worth about $500 million and the amount of the transaction was trivial in comparison. She has also stated that her money is managed by a third party and that neither she nor her husband have any input on specific transactions.

Uh huh. That sounds credible. It's a lucky coincidence for her that this random third party just happened to sell off a bunch of her stock portfolio right after this briefing she had.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,483
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist

Matthew Levine at Forbes notes that whereas Burr's gross on his sale is a substantial fraction of his net work, Loeffler's is not. She's worth about $500 million and the amount of the transaction was trivial in comparison. She has also stated that her money is managed by a third party and that neither she nor her husband have any input on specific transactions.

Uh huh. That sounds credible. It's a lucky coincidence for her that this random third party just happened to sell off a bunch of her stock portfolio right after this briefing she had.
Right now, Burr seems the biggest issue as I believe he reinvested said money into Telemedicine companies which implies there was no other possibly viable reason for the maneuver.
 

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,784
Uh huh. That sounds credible. It's a lucky coincidence for her that this random third party just happened to sell off a bunch of her stock portfolio right after this briefing she had.
Right now, Burr seems the biggest issue as I believe he reinvested said money into Telemedicine companies which implies there was no other possibly viable reason for the maneuver.

His behavior seems indefensible. He should resign. Post haste. And be prosecuted, as Voltaire might say, to encourage the others.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,998
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It’s despicable, but it’s not illegal. They aren’t insiders, and they weren’t given specific financial information about the stock itself. Lots of people learn things ahead of the market, but illegal market trading is rather narrowly defined.

SLD

It's not even remotely related to insider trading. The information they were presenting was what anyone paying attention to what the experts were saying would expect--hardly secret at all.

This is despicable but for a totally different reason--they were lying for public consumption.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,998
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Matthew Levine at Forbes notes that whereas Burr's gross on his sale is a substantial fraction of his net work, Loeffler's is not. She's worth about $500 million and the amount of the transaction was trivial in comparison. She has also stated that her money is managed by a third party and that neither she nor her husband have any input on specific transactions.

Uh huh. That sounds credible. It's a lucky coincidence for her that this random third party just happened to sell off a bunch of her stock portfolio right after this briefing she had.

Or the third party saw the same writing on the wall and acted on it.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,291
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
It’s despicable, but it’s not illegal. They aren’t insiders, and they weren’t given specific financial information about the stock itself. Lots of people learn things ahead of the market, but illegal market trading is rather narrowly defined.

SLD

It's not even remotely related to insider trading. The information they were presenting was what anyone paying attention to what the experts were saying would expect--hardly secret at all.

This is despicable but for a totally different reason--they were lying for public consumption.

Bingo. One could say that anyone who believed the Republican "it's a cold" spin got what they deserved. But there are a lot of people who simply tuned out that noise along with the alarms being sounded by medical experts. I would find the entire administration culpable for that.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
It’s despicable, but it’s not illegal. They aren’t insiders, and they weren’t given specific financial information about the stock itself. Lots of people learn things ahead of the market, but illegal market trading is rather narrowly defined.

SLD

It's not even remotely related to insider trading.

It is not just "related" to insider trading, it is the very definition of it. Insider trading is when you are in a privileged position to hear material non-public information and then act on that information before it is made public. That was what the STOCK Act made illegal for members of Congress and other branches of the Government:

Many people may be surprised to learn that until recently, trading based on material nonpublic information—otherwise known as insider trading—was both legal and commonplace among members of Congress.

The STOCK Act was introduced into Congress in Jan. 2012 and was passed in April 2012 with substantial bipartisan support. The purpose of the STOCK Act was to ensure that the general prohibition against insider trading applies to members of Congress and other federal employees, including the president, vice president, and certain other members of the executive branch.
...
Instances of insider trading by members of Congress are not difficult to find. For example, in 2008, then-Congressman Spencer Bachus shorted the U.S. stock market one day after attending a confidential meeting with Henry ("Hank") Paulson and Ben Bernanke, who at that time were the secretary of the Treasury and chairman of the Federal Reserve, respectively. At this meeting, which took place on Sept. 18, Bachus and other members of Congress were given material nonpublic information about the extent of the risks that were facing the financial system at that time.

John Boehner and Dick Durbin, both Senators at the time, also attended that closed-door meeting. Both of them placed orders selling shares in mutual funds the following day.

Very clearly the same thing.

The information they were presenting was what anyone paying attention to what the experts were saying would expect--hardly secret at all.

False. The information they were receiving was directly contradicted--publicly--by what the President of the United States was saying and what they, themselves, were saying publicly, but not privately. In short, they were not only acting on material non-public information before the public heard the information they received, they were encouraging their own select friends and colleagues to act as well.

They couldn't be more guilty of not just insider trading, but suborning insider trading among a close, private few.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
32,023
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Considering the fact that these effers told their wealthy constituents the situation before anyone else, I'm wondering if these people are partially responsible for the stock market slide to the bottom.maybe even wholly responsible for the panic sell-off.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
Considering the fact that these effers told their wealthy constituents the situation before anyone else, I'm wondering if these people are partially responsible for the stock market slide to the bottom.maybe even wholly responsible for the panic sell-off.

It’s certainly possible. The large amounts sold alone would have triggered a defensive reaction from any of the brokerage houses using AI-driven auto-traders, which in turn would have been defensively reacted to by the second and third tier houses that always do whatever the top dogs do.

It wouldn’t take much to trigger such panic sales and we certainly saw several of them. Were it not for the automatic shutdowns that also got triggered, it’s a safe bet the market would have completely crashed the first time. Has anyone done the timeline?
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,998
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
False. The information they were receiving was directly contradicted--publicly--by what the President of the United States was saying and what they, themselves, were saying publicly, but not privately. In short, they were not only acting on material non-public information before the public heard the information they received, they were encouraging their own select friends and colleagues to act as well.

They couldn't be more guilty of not just insider trading, but suborning insider trading among a close, private few.

His Flatulence was lying. That's been obvious to anyone paying attention. The economy was going to take a dump, the only question is when and how much.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,901
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
It is not just "related" to insider trading, it is the very definition of it. Insider trading is when you are in a privileged position to hear material non-public information and then act on that information before it is made public. That was what the STOCK Act made illegal for members of Congress and other branches of the Government:

Many people may be surprised to learn that until recently, trading based on material nonpublic information—otherwise known as insider trading—was both legal and commonplace among members of Congress.

The STOCK Act was introduced into Congress in Jan. 2012 and was passed in April 2012 with substantial bipartisan support. The purpose of the STOCK Act was to ensure that the general prohibition against insider trading applies to members of Congress and other federal employees, including the president, vice president, and certain other members of the executive branch.
...
Instances of insider trading by members of Congress are not difficult to find. For example, in 2008, then-Congressman Spencer Bachus shorted the U.S. stock market one day after attending a confidential meeting with Henry ("Hank") Paulson and Ben Bernanke, who at that time were the secretary of the Treasury and chairman of the Federal Reserve, respectively. At this meeting, which took place on Sept. 18, Bachus and other members of Congress were given material nonpublic information about the extent of the risks that were facing the financial system at that time.

John Boehner and Dick Durbin, both Senators at the time, also attended that closed-door meeting. Both of them placed orders selling shares in mutual funds the following day.

Very clearly the same thing.

The information they were presenting was what anyone paying attention to what the experts were saying would expect--hardly secret at all.

False. The information they were receiving was directly contradicted--publicly--by what the President of the United States was saying and what they, themselves, were saying publicly, but not privately. In short, they were not only acting on material non-public information before the public heard the information they received, they were encouraging their own select friends and colleagues to act as well.

They couldn't be more guilty of not just insider trading, but suborning insider trading among a close, private few.

No. Sorry. But you really don’t understand the law. I have practiced in this area of law and taken courses on it. It’s not insider trading unless the briefings contained specific information related to specific companies and their financial position. I.e. if the information in the briefing said tomorrow Boeing is going to announce a major revenue loss, then the senator went out and sold his Boeing stock or placed a put option on Boeing, that would be insider trading. But the briefings here aren’t about specific financials of companies. They were general briefs about the impact of the virus on the economy. You’re not an insider just because you get briefings about general market issues coming down the pike. Even if it is unethical (which is a different issue entirely). Barry Switzer once made a killing because he overheard an executive talking about a merger. He was not an insider. To prove insider trading you have to prove a specific fiduciary relationship with the company. With respect to Congressmen, that relationship can only come about through specific knowledge about the specific company that they traded on. If they know Boeing is going to get a government contract that will likely affect the stock price, or maybe a certain tax break. That would be relevant. But that’s not what happened here. It’s not insider information and there’s no fiduciary relationship.

Actually if they or their spouses owned 10% of the stock they might be insiders that way. But that’s not likely here.

SLD
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,045
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
House members, Senate aides traded stocks in early days of coronavirus - POLITICO
Previously unreported lawmakers who sold assets in the weeks leading up to the market crash include Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), who unloaded thousands of dollars of stock in Alaska Air and Royal Caribbean cruises. A senior aide to Sen. Mitch McConnell made a mid-January purchase of Moderna, Inc., a biotechnology company that had four days earlier announced it would begin developing a coronavirus vaccine. And an aide to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sold off stock in companies including Delta Airlines in late January and later bought stock in Clorox, Inc., which makes bleach and sanitary wipes.
 

Patooka

Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
5,056
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
There is officially no bottom. There is no rock bottom for this current administration:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H9sQiXq8C0[/youtube]

Does Trump think he is part fucking Klingon? It's been my experience that when someone uses the word honourable as often as Trump, they are as bent as a fucking paperclip.
 

Koyaanisqatsi

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,648
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Spiritual atheist
No. Sorry.

Yes. Sorry.

I have practiced in this area of law and taken courses on it.

Then you need to be disbarred and/or get your money back. I was a Director of Compliance for a wealth advisory firm in New York for over ten years and I know precisely what is and is not considered "insider trading," but more importantly, so does the US Senate. This is from their own briefing, Restrictions on Insider Trading Under Securities Laws and Ethics Rules:

“Insider trading” is the use of material, nonpublic information to purchase or sell a security, including using confidential information gained because of one’s Senate position to make a profit or avoid a loss. “Material” information is what a reasonable investor would want to know when making an investment decision. “Nonpublic” means confidential or not widely disseminated to the public.

It is deliberately left broad in order for Congressional committees to assess on a case-by-case basis. What you are alluding to is noted here (my emphasis):

Existing Securities Law Prohibits Trading on Information Obtained Through Official Duties.

Securities laws prohibit anyone from misappropriating material, nonpublic information in violation of a duty of trust or confidence owed to the source of the information, such as an employer.

That's guidance for "existing" securities laws as they relate to actors in the private sector and to what "duty of trust or confidence" is owed, not the government. In regard to the government, the phrase "such as an employer" is the key delineator:

The STOCK Act amended the existing securities laws to clarify and confirm that each Senator and staff person is prohibited from insider trading because they owe:

a duty arising from a relationship of trust and confidence to the Congress, the United States Government, and the citizens of the United States with respect to material, nonpublic information derived from such person’s position as a Member of Congress or employee of Congress or gained from the performance of such person’s official responsibilities.​

So anything that would betray the trust and confidence to the Congress, the United States Government, and the citizens of the United States is the operating concern in regard to "insider trading" as that term applies to members of Congress.

They then specify precisely what "duty of trust and confidence" is being referred to:

Members and staffers could violate a federal anti-fraud regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Rule 10b-5, by purchasing securities based on information obtained in the course of their official duties, or derived from their Senate position, if that information was material and nonpublic and they breached the duty of trust and confidence described above.

Iow, if anyone breached the trust and confidence to the Congress, the United States Government, and the citizens of the United States with respect to material, nonpublic information derived from such person’s position as a Member of Congress or employee of Congress or gained from the performance of such person’s official responsibilities, then they could have violated federal anti-fraud regulation.

And that's not all:

Existing Securities Law Prohibits Passing on Inside Information to Others Who Trade.

It is also impermissible to pass on material, nonpublic information to others who may profit themselves or help the “tipper” to profit. Members or staffers who are tippers of material, nonpublic information may be liable if they breached their duty of confidentiality by tipping another individual who then trades, and they receive some resulting direct or indirect personal benefit, be it financial, reputational, or otherwise.


As has been alleged, they didn't just sell their own securities, they evidently publicly did not reveal what was told to them in the intelligence briefing--indeed, they evidently said publicly something very different--while privately "tipping" their friends and high-value donors about their insider information, which obviously would result in a "direct or indirect personal benefit, be it...reputational, or otherwise."

It’s not insider trading unless the briefings contained specific information related to specific companies and their financial position.

Again incorrect as the example of Senator Bachus I posted alone already illustrated.

To prove insider trading you have to prove a specific fiduciary relationship with the company. With respect to Congressmen, that relationship can only come about through specific knowledge about the specific company that they traded on.

Again, incorrect as they further clarify in regard to ethics standards as well:

Insider trading is also prohibited by the federal government ethics standards and rules discussed below, violations of which may serve as grounds for action by the Committee.

Federal Government Ethics Standards.

The Code of Ethics for Government Service, which contains general ethical principles for all federal government officials, restricts the use of nonpublic information for private gain. Specifically, paragraph 8 states that a Senator or staffer shall “[n]ever use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit.” “Confidential information” is nonpublic information that Members or staff gain because of their Senate position and reasonably know is not publicly available.

Such as, once again, a non-public intelligence briefing that is singularly defined as not being publicly available.

Further (emphasis mine):

Senate Nondisclosure Rules.

Senate rules prohibit disclosing or misusing confidential information. Senate Rule 29.5 states:

Any Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate, who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees and offices of the Senate, shall be liable, if a Senator, to suffer expulsion from the body; and if an officer or employee, to [suffer] dismissal from the service of the Senate, and to punishment for contempt.

This rule applies to information obtained in a variety of circumstances, including information received in a closed, nonpublic hearing; information gathered during the confidential stages of a committee investigation; and classified national security information.
 
Last edited:

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,045
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Who Is Kelly Loeffler? Narrated By Busdriver | NowThis - YouTube
GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler recently came under fire for offloading stocks ahead of the coronavirus crisis. Here’s how the WNBA team owner and former Wall St. exec became Georgia’s first woman senator in 98 years without actually being elected ( 🎙@Busdriverr)

...
In current events and US news today, we're doing a deep dive on Republican Georgia senator Kelly Loeffler. Learn about Kelly Loeffler's career in politics and her murky involvement in profiting off the COVID-19 outbreak.
 
Top Bottom