There is very little to discuss in finance / economics except insider trading. I am NOT into politics and am NOT posting this for it's value to republicans, but just look at Nancy Pelosi getting 65% returns and beating out every hedge fund this year.

Furthermore, finance is dead - it's the "hot field" of the 80s / 90s. It has been commoditized and isn't interesting.

I say this as a CFA who also had various useless finance licenses like CFP, Series 7, 63, 6 etc and worked both on the sales / "advisor" (read Fidelity call center out of college, where I liked to point out that we wear suits and make less than garbagemen to coworkers) side of things and real analysis and still chose to go to IT the first chance I got.

She and her VC husband bet on Nvidia - in restrospect, a good call. Congress has its winners and losers like the rest of the economy.

https://nypost.com/2024/01/04/business/nancy-pelosis-2023-tr...

> The Unusual Whales report also notes that of 100 stock-trading members of Congress, a third beat the S&P with their portfolios.

> Last year, the average Democrat nabbed returns of 31% – well ahead of the average Republican’s 18%. Unusual Whales notes Democrats are more invested in tech stocks – which surged in 2023 – while Republicans are more exposed to the banking and oil sectors.

Again, I am genuinely not into politics, but to me the idea that she doesn't trade on insider information is absolutely laughable.

I'm all for a ban in Congressional stock trading, but the idea that she needs to risk that with an already-wealthy VC husband with plenty of his own insider access seems similarly laughable. (Headlines also tend to call it her wealth, which seems pretty misleading.)

In 2022, their return was -19.8%. 2023 saw the market up enormously, and as my link indicates, Dems in Congress have been benefiting from a focus on tech stocks like Nvidia across the board.

I am more inclined to take that as an argument for "most of Congress" insider trades rather than "Nancy doesn't". I will leave that here though, long political argument ahead if we keep going. Agreeing to disagree. Also, thank you for the link, these stats definitely give a more balanced view.

> I am more inclined to take that as an argument for "most of Congress" insider trades rather than "Nancy doesn't".

1/3 beat the market; that means 2/3 did not. Right?

In a population of random idiots, you'd probably expect a certain amount to beat the market, a certain amount to match it, and a certain amount to flub.