[boulos]

The article never says this, but her husband, Paul, is a longtime investor / VC [1]. There’s obviously still a huge opportunity for leakage of information that Nancy Pelosi receives, but the trades don’t actually look suspicious nor requiring non-public information.

There was some reporting on this issue more broadly when Senator Burr seemed to place trades directly due to coronavirus information, which included Pelosi’s husband’s trades.

Edit to add: I would concur with others that we probably need to restrict trading for politicians and their family, the same way we do insiders at corporations. Index funds okay, specific stocks or perceived competition, no.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Pelosi

[dcolkitt]

Most of Pelosi's homerun trades involved bluechip public stocks. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a VC to have that much edge there. VCs specialize in early stage private companies. That's a very different skillset than trading options on NASDAQ.

If Paul Pelosi really had that much alpha in quarterly moves in ultra-liquid stocks like Microsoft and Disney, he'd almost certainly be a hedge fund manager.

[wpasc]

I don't think it's so much about individual stocks. House members and especially house leaders have the ability to propose legislation or even talk about potential legislation that affects entire industries. Blue chip stock trades ahead of major legislation (ie. trading facebook before a major revision to section 230) don't matter so much about the blue chip nature.

IMO employee insiders have restrictions to trading the stocks of their company. I don't think it's overly onerous to have congresspeople disallowed from direct control over their or their immediate family's portfolios. Does that make it difficult to work in congress and have a family member working in finance? Sure, but I think that's okay.

[abeppu]

> Index funds okay, specific stocks or perceived competition, no.

I think for people in high office, even controlling when to move in or out of index funds is also inappropriate. Congress has both information and makes choices which have broad impact across the economy.

But to your first point, that this "doesn't actually look suspicious", I'll only mention that classic "indicators of suspicion" in a criminal context are motive, means and opportunity, all of which seem to be present.

But to broaden the conversation, the main implied concern is did she profit through use of non-public information. While I think that's a worthy concern, I think perhaps the more important one is whether the holdings of congress overall tilt the policies they enact. This extends beyond stocks (where even members who are limited to index funds may be disinclined to, e.g. push for limits or rules surrounding buybacks etc), to areas like how real estate holdings impact housing policy stances.

[fighterpilot]

> the trades don’t actually look suspicious nor requiring non-public information.

The purchase was made 1 month before this story[1] broke, which was a significantly market moving announcement.

There's plausible deniability, of course.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/biden-plans-to-replace-gover...

[boulos]

Sorry, which trade are you referring to? The Dec 22 TSLA options?

Assuming yes, the disclosure report [1] says it was 25 calls with a strike price of $500 with expiration of 3/18/22 (so another long dated option). Tesla's share price that day was ~$650 [2] and the value of the 500 call went up (from ~$200 to $400) but has come right back down to ~$200 [3]. They have not exercised / sold the options (visit [4] and search for Pelosi in Filing Year 2021).

[1] https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/public_disc/ptr-pdfs/202...

[2] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/history/

[3] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA220318C00500000?p=TSLA22...

[4] https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/PublicDisclosure/Financi...

[KerrickStaley]

Which purchase?

[ProAm]

Wasn't Pelosi the cause/reason congress isn't allowed to insider trade anymore because of that 60 Minutes piece? [1]

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/video/confronting-pelosi-on-insider-...

[dkdk8283]

Pelosi is vile. Martha Stewart got a hard slap on the wrist for lying, I believe Pelosi is guilty of much more serious crimes. She has zero integrity.

[BurningFrog]

> the trades don’t actually look suspicious nor requiring non-public information

The consistent beating of the odds is what makes it suspicious.

If you roll 12 with two dice, it is not suspicious. If you do it 10 times in a row, my trust is gone!

[jb775]

> her husband, Paul, is a longtime investor/VC...but the trades don’t actually look suspicious

I would argue this is an even bigger red flag. Professional traders are much more aware of subtle cause & effects within the markets.

i.e. Not-yet public info about reducing tariffs on imported wheat would lower raw-material cost for bread companies, then would lower the cost for McDonald's hamburger buns, then McDonalds makes more profit this quarter...and Pelosi's husband buys a bunch of options on McDonalds, then dumps the options immediately after the info goes public.

So insider information that seems innocuous to the average person could be used and abused like crazy by professionals like Pelosi's husband.