[epoxyhockey]

I'll save everyone hours of headache. The only politician's disclosures that are worth anything are Pelosi's. And by Pelosi, it is actually her husband that trades but that she has to disclose those trades as a politician. You can also copy Pelosi's trades exactly if you are into speculation and you can experience first hand how many of his trades end up -30% or more, but over the course of the year they have a chance of gaining. They gain not so much because there is any meaningful insider information, but because he holds the position for 1 year and we are still in a bull market (even as of tonight).

I think it's amusing that folks think that politicians have any sort of capability to be able to consistently beat the S&P 500.

[fragmede]

Looking at their performance numbers as a whole, they're nothing special, but the underlying story where they make policy changes that affect the markets, and they're also allowed to bet on that market, just feels so unfair that it's no longer about the numbers but it's about the emotion.

[echelon]

> we are still in a bull market (even as of tonight).

Are you so sure about that? Presumably tomorrow's > 3% crash will mean we've had more consecutive crashes of note than any other period since the Great Depression.

This is truly one of the most remarkable market downturns in all history, and by all accounts it is only just getting started.

[outer_web]

Why are the only trades worth following the Pelosi ones?

[epoxyhockey]

He is a professional trader and the others are politicians.

[outer_web]

How do his rates of return compare to these politicians?

[jatora]

Hmm this seems like a strange take.

A bull market when we have s&p drops steeper then covid?

And you are aware politicians have insider knowledge, correct? That is how you beat the s&p.

[astrange]

> And you are aware politicians have insider knowledge, correct? That is how you beat the s&p.

No, this is how low info conspiratorial voters think it works, because their worldview is everything is 1. a conspiracy 2. involves "money" in some basic way they can easily imagine.

Insider knowledge doesn't reliably beat passive investing and why would politicians even have it? You can see what they're voting for by watching CSPAN.

[mmooss]

> why would politicians even have it? You can see what they're voting for by watching CSPAN.

There are many discussions long before you see anything on C-SPAN, and some are top secret.

[epoxyhockey]

Their staffers are in the discussions and do you know that they leak information like sieves. A "top secret business discussion" in Washington, are you kidding me?

[mmooss]

> Their staffers are in the discussions

I'm sure they are in some discussions, I'm sure both staffers and elected officials are in others, and I'm sure elected officials have some without their staff.

> A "top secret business discussion" in Washington, are you kidding me?

There are those, of course; the incredulity you typed isn't evidence otherwise. But I was referring to top secret discussions that affect businesses; for example, the armed services committees have secret meetings about things that greatly affect companies in the defense industry.

[HaZeust]

There's literally TS/SCI for several departments, including the DOL, to get post-priced strike prices and costs for options before market open. And no, the prices you see before market open and saying, "Yeah! I can see that too!" is not the same. That's PRE-priced in.

[outer_web]

Taking "time in the market beats timing the market" a bit to the extreme, I think.

[pton_xd]

> No, this is how low info conspiratorial voters think it works, because their worldview is everything is 1. a conspiracy 2. involves "money" in some basic way they can easily imagine.

There's no conspiracy in acknowledging that politicians sometimes use their influence for personal gain, when it's convenient. That's just human nature.

[sksxihve]

How is acknowledging that politicians have insider information a conspiracy?

[jatora]

I dont think everything is a conspiracy, but it is obvious corruption is rampant in US politics, and who in their right mind would think that that stops at leveraging special committee insider knowledge for personal gains?

[astrange]

No, that isn't obvious. You just think that because you believe that thinking this makes you cooler.

[jatora]

Hmm. Good argument. Look into how the revolving door works, or citizens united and it's after-effects... if you're interested in even just the bottom of the barrel to get your feet wet on the topic.

[astrange]

Like I said, you're making everything about money in a basic way you can easily imagine.

One thing that happens if you actually watch election results here is 1. the left candidates have more money and 2. it doesn't help.

[mrguyorama]

Then why do they suck so bad at it? Why is Pelosi not a billionaire if they have such easy access to privileged info? Why do they barely do any better than anyone else?