Insider trading on the coronavirus threat?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Add Senator Loeffler:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/sen-kelly-loeffler-dumped-millions-in-stock-after-coronavirus-briefing

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]

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]

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]

Add Senator Loeffler:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/sen-kelly-loeffler-dumped-millions-in-stock-after-coronavirus-briefing

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]

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]

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.

 

[lpetrich]

Sam Stein on Twitter: "One other data point: Loeffler had not made a single stock transaction during the three weeks she served in office prior to this one. This was her first. The day she got the coronavirus briefing. https://t.co/71ZojVAfaS" / Twitter
then
David French on Twitter: "The potential insider trading is dreadful and possibly criminal, but what could elevate this to a historic scandal is the idea that senators may have known enough to be alarmed for themselves yet still projected rosy scenarios to the public AND failed to make sure we were ready. https://t.co/PeMktkEPFA" / Twitter

 

[repoman]

Can state level prosecution be launched?

 

[ZiprHead]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[lpetrich]

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.