[lefrenchy]

Regardless of returns, buying TSLA leap options is a terrible look and breaks down trust in institutions. How am I supposed to look at that and just trust that she isn’t influencing policy with her options trades in mind?

It’s not even about evidence of illegal actions, she’s a public official and part of her job is to build trust with the public.

[dogorman]

> breaks down trust in institutions.

This is why avoiding the appearance of impropriety is almost as important as avoiding impropriety itself. When you do things that people might reasonably mistake for unethical, it contributes to the perception that such unethical behavior is commonplace. That, in turn, might inspire others to actually behave unethically, or alternatively to despair that they live in such a society. Either is socially harmful.

[legitster]

Again, I don't disagree with you on this. I think public officials should put their assets in a blind trust, and many of them already do.

[minsc__and__boo]

>buying TSLA leap options is a terrible look and breaks down trust in institutions

What is unusual about her spouse buying TSLA options? I'd say that the TSLA CEO has been more influential over the TSLA price than any new legislation.

[fennecfoxen]

She's the Speaker of the House. Outstanding legislation proposed by the President of the United States (a member of her political party) would subsidize the electric vehicle sector to the tune of $174 billion.

If you don't think this gives rise to the appearance of impropriety, then what precisely does?

[minsc__and__boo]

>would subsidize the electric vehicle sector to the tune of $174 billion

The U.S. infrastructure deal was unanimously supported by all members of the house, not just the speaker.

This type of uncertainty/doubt argument can go both ways. Her spouse lost money on that specific option call, so that could also be proof she didn't use her influence.

[fennecfoxen]

> The U.S. infrastructure deal was unanimously supported

No it wasn't. By all members with a (D) after the name who she leads, perhaps, and some others, but not all.

> that could also be proof she didn't use her influence

I don't find this a compelling enough argument that it would likely restore the public's lost trust in these institutions.

[minsc__and__boo]

>I don't find this a compelling enough argument that it would likely restore the public's lost trust in these institutions.

Which is precisely the point of how illogical it is.

[mox1]

What about public spending on electrical charging infrastructure?

What about reduced regulation of the franchise car dealership model at the federal level?

Those might have a 'lil bit of an effect.

[lefrenchy]

She is one of the most powerful legislators in the country. If she lobbying and pushed for EV credits for instance, it could greatly affect the price of the stock. If she were to put up roadblocks to block inquiries into Tesla safety concerns or issues of the sort, it could prevent massive price changes in the stock.

Just because Elon Musk has more power over the stock does not exonerate her from buying potentially massively lucrative options on a stock that she has power to affect. My understanding is she is not under the same restrictions as a CEO would be when trading that ticker, and she also has entirely different incentives than CEO's do. CEO's have the incentive to make the company perform well because their compensation is tied to the share price. Nancy Pelosi in this case has the incentive to rule favorably for Tesla because her options will benefit from it. Those incentives are very very different.