Why in the world would somebody be complaining about the first one? Obviously the second one is a long standing, often talked about issue and is what they mean. Don't play dumb.
I'm asking for clarification because whilst there's a strong argument that politicians are performing insider trading (which as you say is widely regarded as something that should be stopped), if an amateur can copy those trades and make a 20% profit on them, what's stopping hedge funds from doing the same and millions or billions from what is basically second-degree insider trading?
I was asking if they are also suggesting that this second-degree insider trading be stopped somehow?
1. Are you saying something is wrong with amateurs making 20%?
2. If an amateur could do it, hedge funds, HFT firms, etc have definitely been doing it for longer than them and have taken away and arbitrage opportunities.
3. It very likely might be that the one month lead that the politicians have make their trades profitable, while anybody copying them will be unprofitable due to those same politicians decisions
I was asking if they are also suggesting that this second-degree insider trading be stopped somehow?