They should have to report their positions well in advance.

If I want to buy/sell Boeing stock and I'm a Senator, I should have to publicly file that intention three months in advance, and not be able to undo it. Those filings should immediately be public in a data feed.

I'd expect to see a "Congressional stock purchases index fund" arise, and it'd be fascinating to see how it performed.

Stuff like https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/11/politics/rand-paul-wife-stock... - "oops, forgot to disclose my stock moves for over a year!" - should be punishable by loss of trading ability and confiscation of the assets (not just profits) involved.

How about just reporting trades within a day or two of when they occur? As opposed to reporting months after the fact? Just publicize the order flow. This way there's no weaseling out of the fact that yes you did make such and such a trade literally a day before some government announcement.

because if you have to report it ahead of time, it neutralizes any advantage you might have from the insider information.

You mean a day or two in advance? Or post trade? Post trade is not good, but pre trade should still be able to quell the insider advantage.

With today’s technology, I do not see why trades cannot be reported immediately.

"We will put together a panel to put together a committee to review these technologies. Upon sufficiently reviewing said technologies we will institute new rules. Current target is by 2050"

True, in advance would be better.

The "Congressional stock purchases index fund" would underperform though https://www.investopedia.com/tiktokers-track-lawmakers-perso...

> Academic research revealed that senators' stock purchases underperformed the benchmark during six-month intervals by 17 basis points between 2012 and March 2020

All sorts of trading strategies you could try out on a full, in-advance data feed, though.

Only follow the trades of those in leadership, give special attention to transactions involving defense contractors by members of the Committee on Armed Services, etc.

I don't doubt that Congress has its share of confident morons to skew the numbers downwards, but you might be able to identify people who somehow manage to make better moves.

No. Three months in advance is just as stupid as a year past. It gives people opportunity to manipulate prices.

"Day of" should be the rule. Basically, have them trade in the public eye. You could subscribe to congressional stock feeds to see what they're personally buying and selling as it happens.

Three months in advance without the ability to cancel it subjects them to risk if they're trying to trade on insider info; the info could leak, change, be affected by something unexpected, etc.

Letting them do "day of" doesn't really help; if you know Boeing's gonna get the contract at 3:00pm you could just do the buy at 2:59pm. No one has time to react.

These sort of things are like driving container ships, they're big, slow, and their moves are heavily telegraphed.

When Boeing thinks about inking a contract, they crow about it. By the time the contract is signed, any changes in the stock are reflected.

"Three months without the ability to cancel" is a very naive solution and creates a whole new host of problems while not really solving much.

Nice idea, but for this to work, you'd also have require that previously announced intended trades MUST be followed through within a given window. Without out, this is way to game stocks without spending anything at all.

Yes, that's why I said "not be able to undo it".

As a software developer at a law firm, I had to have all of my stock trades pre-approved by the firm just in case there was a conflict, regardless of if I had any actual access to or knowledge of material relevant to the company stock's being traded. Since I invest mostly in indexes, it wasn't much of an issue for me but I had a coworker who had several of his trades blocked without explanation other than there was a conflict. Funny how software developers with no actual access to insider information, just the potential for access, are more restricted than members of Congress who have actual access to such information.

this rings true for me -- restrictions are placed on those that cannot defend themselves.. all of financial reporting is heading in the wrong direction, due in no small part to the operators of the system, not Mr and Miss Main Street

> Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

similar situation here, I'm a dev for a major business news company. her comments are brazen at best.

Having worked for a couple of publicly US-listed companies, when you have access to material data you had to adhere to strictly defined trade windows, among a load of other things. Being in Supply Chain, with obvious access to forecasts and inventories, I always fall under insider trading rules. Why law makers would be exempt is beyond me.

Law makers are exempt because they made themselves exempt, simple as that.

Not simply "exempt", unless you're referring specifically to the trade window part. There is in fact a law making it illegal to trade on insider information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act Arguably it did not go far enough.

I just don't think Congress has much in the way of insider information most of the time. Antitrust litigation would be one example where they do, but what else? Company insiders by contrast almost by definition have insider information.

One could make the case that the ability to influence the market itself is even more powerful than just knowing some inside data. And we are not even talking about things like defense contracts.

They should recuse themselves from any vote involving an industry that they have a more than trivial amount of stock in. Do you expect someone to restrict Big Tech when they have Facebook and Google stock?

Absolutely not, we are talking about politicians here. I like the idea of divesting into index funds during time in parliament / service.

If some Congressperson went short the market and then tanked the market though some statement that would indeed be very bad! Has anything like that ever happened? That would presumably nuke that person's reputation with costs far greater than whatever financial gains could be had.

If they're long the market and then boosting the market... I mean, isn't that what we want? You'd have to go further than a blind trust even and ban owning equities at all.

Of course they are. I guess that's one of the few cases on which all law makers can agree. Doesn't mean they should be exempt.

> They do have to report their positions

Yeah... 45 days after the trade (per https://www.investopedia.com/tiktokers-track-lawmakers-perso...). Not to mention that both dominant parties don't take their responsibilities seriously (https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-staff-violated-stoc...), and that information can be filed on paper so sleuths have a much harder time digging through the data to spot suspicious trades (https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/action-alert-stock-...).

An effective law would require all elected representatives to identify themselves and their close relatives (i.e. parents, siblings and children) as such to their banks and brokers, with the banks and brokers having to maintain an instant feed exposing all trades executed on the accounts of these people.

How quickly do they have to report their investment activity? If it's not immediate, then no, anyone is not free to copy their moves.

Not sure about congress but for corporate insiders and major investors the reporting is quarterly so likely not as useful if trading on inside info (which tends to disseminate faster).

Their moves are known ex post facto.