Incredible. Instead of warning the general public, 1 of the senators told a few people on Feb. 27: "lawmaker gave a VIP group at an exclusive social club a much more dire preview of the economic impact of the coronavirus than what he had told the public." https://t.co/EoK1abcsfQhttps://t.co/GsAhwznbK3
RT @lmatsakis: Because I'm a journalist, I don't own individual stocks, because it's possible I may be privy to corporate information the general public is not. The same is even more true of congress. This is absolutely insane https://t.co/rFnAVKU6QW
This is exactly why members of Congress shouldn’t even be allowed to own stock in public companies. It’s an independence issue. You can’t be working for the people when you’re financially tied to other interests.
The heads-up he gave his wealthy donors is even worse than the stock selling. It's infuriating... seeing the highest rungs of government clearly knew wayyyy in advance, not that anything in Trumptown is a shock. Damn.
you cant just assume this guy had insider knowledge
human nature is to freak out - the stock market follows human nature - and the senator is still human too, so he's part of the reason the stock market dipped but this happens in currency as well as stocks
Nobody really knows for sure what’s going to happen to the stock market. If someone sees that there’s a reasonable chance of it crashing further, and they decide to sell, it’s not dumb. Especially if they are old and already have enough money saved for retirement but don’t want to lose that money.
There really is no contradiction there. Someone can believe that the virus is being handled and also believe that the stock market is going to go down, and therefore chose to sell. Actually part of the reason why the stock market is dropping is because of the measures taken to fight the virus. Obviously closing things down is going to be bad for the economy.
There is a rather amusing line in his wikipedia entry , given the current context:
> In fall 2008, during that year's financial crisis, Burr said he was going to an ATM every day and taking out cash because he thought the financial system was going to soon collapse. In April 2009, in response to press about his experience, Burr told NC public radio station WFAE that he would do the same thing again next time.
This seems like a witch hunt for what is a conflict of interest.
Either you have certain roles, i.e. members of congress, that can't hold shares at all. Or you allow them to trade and then only go after very specific insider trades. I.e. at a business to business level.
But going after an individual for "knowing" how the entire economy will move is a stretch imo.
> Burr was one of just three senators who in 2012 opposed the bill that explicitly barred lawmakers and their staff from using nonpublic information for trades and required regular disclosure of those trades. In opposing the bill, Burr argued at the time that insider trading laws already applied to members of Congress. President Barack Obama signed the bill, known as the STOCK Act, that year.
Just because he reports factual information about the market, does not mean he has to believe those facts or even act upon them. Actors are allowed to be irrational.
Furthermore, even were he to believe in the long term market prospects, doesn’t mean that he has to continue taking the risk in the short term. It’s okay to diversify your portfolio in a time of crisis, even if you have no current knowledge that things will change for the worse. For all you know, things will change for the better and you would miss out on gains because one company you were not investing in did better than predicted.
My guess: regardless of which party wins the presidency in November, there will be as much accountability for this senator and others like him as there was for the George W. Bush administration officials who lied the country into war and implemented a program of torture. That is to say, none whatsoever.