OT Fed Chair Powell orders ethics review

[CoffeeIsForClosers]

Insider trading at its worst. I'm not sure what the answer is, but policy makers with huge financial conflicts of interest is not a good look. Perception is reality right? They(we) spend billions on regulating those who work in financial industry, but none on themselves.

Congress is pointing the finger here, but they are just as guilty. This stuff really makes my blood boil. Like my dad always said....no one ever leaves Washington broke.

Powell orders ethics review after Fed presidents disclosed multimillion-dollar investments

Fed Chair Powell directed staff to review the central bank's rules after filings showed officials made multimillion-dollar trades in 2020.

www.cnbc.com

 

[PawsFan_]

Insider trading at its worst. I'm not sure what the answer is, but policy makers with huge financial conflicts of interest is not a good look. Perception is reality right? They(we) spend billions on regulating those who work in financial industry, but none on themselves.

Congress is pointing the finger here, but they are just as guilty. This stuff really makes my blood boil. Like my dad always said....no one ever leaves Washington broke.

Powell orders ethics review after Fed presidents disclosed multimillion-dollar investments

Fed Chair Powell directed staff to review the central bank's rules after filings showed officials made multimillion-dollar trades in 2020.

www.cnbc.com

Well Coffee...we may have found common ground. Both side are equally guilty here. It amounts to insider quid pro quo in many cases. And both financial insiders and senior government officials are making millions.

Senior government officials all should be required to divest their financial holding while they are in office. This includes their spouse.

 

[Casa_del_Tigre]

So brave of them to look into this after they pumped the markets.

Don’t fight the fed. When they sell, you sell.

 

[CoffeeIsForClosers]

Well Coffee...we may have found common ground. Both side are equally guilty here. It amounts to insider quid pro quo in many cases. And both financial insiders and senior government officials are making millions.

Senior government officials all should be required to divest their financial holding while they are in office. This includes their spouse.

At least if you did that you'd have some talented CEO's going to serve in Washington just so they can divest their holdings void of capital gains tax a la Rex Tillerson. Its about time our best and brightest served.

 

[Ron Munson]

Rules for thee, not for me

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Insider trading at its worst. I'm not sure what the answer is, but policy makers with huge financial conflicts of interest is not a good look. Perception is reality right? They(we) spend billions on regulating those who work in financial industry, but none on themselves.

Congress is pointing the finger here, but they are just as guilty. This stuff really makes my blood boil. Like my dad always said....no one ever leaves Washington broke.

Powell orders ethics review after Fed presidents disclosed multimillion-dollar investments

Fed Chair Powell directed staff to review the central bank's rules after filings showed officials made multimillion-dollar trades in 2020.

www.cnbc.com

You're making a lot of conclusions here based on pretty weak connections between premises. But just as a baseline, we need to recognize that there's a difference between making policy and being a regulator. Lawmakers shouldn't be self-dealing, but if you try to avoid that by making them sell off their stock you risk taking all of their skin out of the game. They should have some stake in the policy they're making. Even when there are conflicts of interest for legislators, the policy they support or create is almost always in line with their already standing views. It's rare that you see somebody support a policy they wouldn't normally support when they know that their support would benefit them.

Finally, the money that lawmakers typically accumulate while in office, or after they're in office, doesn't typically come from investments made while they're in office. In fact, many lawmakers don't make more money while they're in office (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rom-their-offices-not-according-to-this-data/). Also. a lot of lawmakers are already rich before they run for office.

 

[stigers91]

Do as I say, not as I do.

 

[GoodWord28]

My old CFO got cleared for insider trading a few years ago when he sold stock….right before we had a literal front page of every new outlet (fox, cnn, wsj, nbc…literally all of them. I live in Atlanta. Take a stab at who I’m talking about).

None of the other executives executed their “normal” stock conversions except him.

I did the accounting and submitting of Form 4 (insider trading reporting) for an F500 company and let me tell ya….the rules are bent. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[dealer4]

Well Coffee...we may have found common ground. Both side are equally guilty here. It amounts to insider quid pro quo in many cases. And both financial insiders and senior government officials are making millions.

Senior government officials all should be required to divest their financial holding while they are in office. This includes their spouse.

We already have laws for this, and all senior government officials have to file public disclosures of their holdings and report period transactions in excess of $1K.

The more troubling issue here is how senior leaders at the Fed, which makes decisions affecting broad swathes of the economy were allowed to keep specific holdings in the amounts disclosed on their forms.

This isn’t like a senior executive at Homeland Security who owns a ton of stock in a health care company. These are the types of holdings a senior executive at the fed cannot avoid.

So while I disagree with complete divestiture, I’ll be eager to track this case to see if this is a situation of “more to the story,” of foul play and dishonest dealing, or of incompetence.

 

[Willence]

Insider trading at its worst. I'm not sure what the answer is, but policy makers with huge financial conflicts of interest is not a good look. Perception is reality right? They(we) spend billions on regulating those who work in financial industry, but none on themselves.

Congress is pointing the finger here, but they are just as guilty. This stuff really makes my blood boil. Like my dad always said....no one ever leaves Washington broke.

Powell orders ethics review after Fed presidents disclosed multimillion-dollar investments

Fed Chair Powell directed staff to review the central bank's rules after filings showed officials made multimillion-dollar trades in 2020.

www.cnbc.com

SAY IT WITH ME: Shrink the government 90%. End the corruption of politicians picking winners and losers. Stop the government control over our economy and our prosperity. If you stop and look at it, nothing has led to greater disparity in outcomes than government involvement. Just look at the wealth of people before they take office and after they leave. That should tell people all they need to know. The same applies with monetary officials and even CEOs because they all run in the same crowds these days.

Get the damn government out of our lives, out of our wallets and out of our problems. Government is a necessary evil but let us never for get it is evil as hell and has no place being a significant part of our lives.

 

[CoffeeIsForClosers]

You're making a lot of conclusions here based on pretty weak connections between premises. But just as a baseline, we need to recognize that there's a difference between making policy and being a regulator. Lawmakers shouldn't be self-dealing, but if you try to avoid that by making them sell off their stock you risk taking all of their skin out of the game. They should have some stake in the policy they're making. Even when there are conflicts of interest for legislators, the policy they support or create is almost always in line with their already standing views. It's rare that you see somebody support a policy they wouldn't normally support when they know that their support would benefit them.

Finally, the money that lawmakers typically accumulate while in office, or after they're in office, doesn't typically come from investments made while they're in office. In fact, many lawmakers don't make more money while they're in office (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rom-their-offices-not-according-to-this-data/). Also. a lot of lawmakers are already rich before they run for office.

I don't disagree with the first part of what you said and not sure how it was in contrast with what I said. It's not always the policies they make based on the investments they hold. Not going to say this was my most well thought out point I've posted.....pretty emotionally charged with this kind of stuff.

More often than not it is the trades they make based on the information they have that is not yet public (policies that are coming to be). That's been pretty well documented as happening. They seem to be immune to that judgement. We would be put in a cell if we did the same.

And okay....politicians/lawmakers are typically the 1%. They are rich already. But examples where they go to Washington and come out poorer aren't abundant.

 

[CoffeeIsForClosers]

SAY IT WITH ME: Shrink the government 90%. End the corruption of politicians picking winners and losers. Stop the government control over our economy and our prosperity. If you stop and look at it, nothing has led to greater disparity in outcomes than government involvement. Just look at the wealth of people before they take office and after they leave. That should tell people all they need to know. The same applies with monetary officials and even CEOs because they all run in the same crowds these days.

Get the damn government out of our lives, out of our wallets and out of our problems. Government is a necessary evil but let us never for get it is evil as hell and has no place being a significant part of our lives.

Sorry.....can't do that. Not going to burn down the house because it has some loose floor boards.

 

[CoffeeIsForClosers]

We already have laws for this, and all senior government officials have to file public disclosures of their holdings and report period transactions in excess of $1K.

The more troubling issue here is how senior leaders at the Fed, which makes decisions affecting broad swathes of the economy were allowed to keep specific holdings in the amounts disclosed on their forms.

This isn’t like a senior executive at Homeland Security who owns a ton of stock in a health care company. These are the types of holdings a senior executive at the fed cannot avoid.

So while I disagree with complete divestiture, I’ll be eager to track this case to see if this is a situation of “more to the story,” of foul play and dishonest dealing, or of incompetence.

Obama signed the STOCK act into law (that amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). I get it. But that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of examples of law breakers who go unpunished.

Agree with all your points. Conflicts of interest only exist where conflicts of interest exist. Its also hard to prove, especially when you are talking about very smart people. Everyone can be second guessed, but to prove someone's intent.....that's hard.

 

[The Orange Wave]

You're making a lot of conclusions here based on pretty weak connections between premises. But just as a baseline, we need to recognize that there's a difference between making policy and being a regulator. Lawmakers shouldn't be self-dealing, but if you try to avoid that by making them sell off their stock you risk taking all of their skin out of the game. They should have some stake in the policy they're making. Even when there are conflicts of interest for legislators, the policy they support or create is almost always in line with their already standing views. It's rare that you see somebody support a policy they wouldn't normally support when they know that their support would benefit them.

Finally, the money that lawmakers typically accumulate while in office, or after they're in office, doesn't typically come from investments made while they're in office. In fact, many lawmakers don't make more money while they're in office (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rom-their-offices-not-according-to-this-data/). Also. a lot of lawmakers are already rich before they run for office.

There are ways to do this without requiring them to sell all their assets. You can require them to put their assets in a blind trust. If a CNBC reporter can't trade individual stocks but Fed president can, that does not make much sense.

 

[Willence]

Sorry.....can't do that. Not going to burn down the house because it has some loose floor boards.

It's not burning down The House my friend. It's restoring things to what they're intended to be so that the framework of our government and our constitution can work.

 

[CoffeeIsForClosers]

There are ways to do this without requiring them to sell all their assets. You can require them to put their assets in a blind trust. If a CNBC reporter can't trade individual stocks but Fed president can, that does not make much sense.

Yep. Its not like this hasn't been done before. Hell even Jimmy Carter had to put his farm in a blind trust.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

SAY IT WITH ME: Shrink the government 90%. End the corruption of politicians picking winners and losers. Stop the government control over our economy and our prosperity. If you stop and look at it, nothing has led to greater disparity in outcomes than government involvement. Just look at the wealth of people before they take office and after they leave. That should tell people all they need to know. The same applies with monetary officials and even CEOs because they all run in the same crowds these days.

Get the damn government out of our lives, out of our wallets and out of our problems. Government is a necessary evil but let us never for get it is evil as hell and has no place being a significant part of our lives.

Saying government is evil is like saying that leadership or self control is evil. It is necessary, and it can be evil, but without government you have a war of all against all, leading to a life that’s nasty, brutish, and short. A more conservative stance would be to ask how government should be limited, and why. The idea that individuals should be authorities unto themselves is a fundamentally liberal point of view.

 

[gcsoccer16]

Two more weeks

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

I don't disagree with the first part of what you said and not sure how it was in contrast with what I said. It's not always the policies they make based on the investments they hold. Not going to say this was my most well thought out point I've posted.....pretty emotionally charged with this kind of stuff.

More often than not it is the trades they make based on the information they have that is not yet public (policies that are coming to be). That's been pretty well documented as happening. They seem to be immune to that judgement. We would be put in a cell if we did the same.

And okay....politicians/lawmakers are typically the 1%. They are rich already. But examples where they go to Washington and come out poorer aren't abundant.

The last part of what you’re saying is more applicable to what they do after they leave office, not what they do while they’re in office. I find that a lot of what you’re saying is typical of people who are cynical about politics. People like to think that the political class is corrupt because it’s easier than tackling problems that are sometimes intractable. People also just generally don’t like other people making more money than them, no matter how they do it. Politicians making money is especially hard for people to take in a democracy.

 

[Willence]

Saying government is evil is like saying that leadership or self control is evil. It is necessary, and it can be evil, but without government you have a war of all against all, leading to a life that’s nasty, brutish, and short. A more conservative stance would be to ask how government should be limited, and why. The idea that individuals should be authorities unto themselves is a fundamentally liberal point of view.

Yeah obviously didn't read when I wrote. I said it is ain't necessary evil but it is evil nevertheless and we should treat it as such. That's the basic tenant for limited government. When you have a government that takes what ours takes and spends what our spends and involves itself in the lives of others the way that it does it's gone way too far. It's certainly gone way too far in light of the documents which outline the intent of the founding of this country.

 

[tigerGUY]

Insider trading at its worst. I'm not sure what the answer is, but policy makers with huge financial conflicts of interest is not a good look. Perception is reality right? They(we) spend billions on regulating those who work in financial industry, but none on themselves.

Congress is pointing the finger here, but they are just as guilty. This stuff really makes my blood boil. Like my dad always said....no one ever leaves Washington broke.

Powell orders ethics review after Fed presidents disclosed multimillion-dollar investments

Fed Chair Powell directed staff to review the central bank's rules after filings showed officials made multimillion-dollar trades in 2020.

www.cnbc.com

Your preaching to the choir with me. They should all have to take a polygraph each year and the results broadcast across news and social media. I realize the results aren't used in a court of law, but perhaps their integrity questioned by all Americans would bring about changes.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Yeah obviously didn't read when I wrote. I said it is ain't necessary evil but it is evil nevertheless and we should treat it as such. That's the basic tenant for limited government. When you have a government that takes what ours takes and spends what our spends and involves itself in the lives of others the way that it does it's gone way too far. It's certainly gone way too far in light of the documents which outline the intent of the founding of this country.

You're just reiterating that government is evil, here. The logical political theory to draw from that is to make government as small as possible, not to simply limit government. If you believe that government is fundamentally good, it requires you to come up with a limiting principle that allows government to pursue its good.

 

[CoffeeIsForClosers]

The last part of what you’re saying is more applicable to what they do after they leave office, not what they do while they’re in office. I find that a lot of what you’re saying is typical of people who are cynical about politics. People like to think that the political class is corrupt because it’s easier than tackling problems that are sometimes intractable. People also just generally don’t like other people making more money than them, no matter how they do it. Politicians making money is especially hard for people to take in a democracy.

I’m not sure I follow. They have more insider information after they leave office?

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

I’m not sure I follow. They have more insider information after they leave office?

No, they make a lot more money after leaving office, and usually don’t make a ton of money while in office. I don’t generally think insider trading is a huge issue with Congress, or at least, it’s not the major source of any increase in income (to the extent it’s happening at all).

 

[CoffeeIsForClosers]

No, they make a lot more money after leaving office, and usually don’t make a ton of money while in office. I don’t generally think insider trading is a huge issue with Congress, or at least, it’s not the major source of any increase in income (to the extent it’s happening at all).

I’m not saying this is a giant widespread problem, but at the very least there is conflict of interest by those in power. No different than taking campaign contributions for personal time or doing favors for promises of speaking engagements after serving. Legal? Maybe. Okay? Shouldn’t be.

but to think insider trading doesn’t happen and then go unpunished….I disagree. Too much smoke for there to be no fire.

How Senators May Have Avoided Insider Trading Charges

regulators have discontinued their probes of coronavirus-related trading by some senators, although at least one, Senator Burr, who à la Hamilton was in “The Room Where It Happens,” remains under investigation

www.google.com

Insider trading by Congress? It’s time to fix the law

The right solution is to only allow public officials to trade securities based on broad market indices.

www.google.com

Is it illegal for lawmakers to trade stocks on insider info they learn on the job?

Analysis: Probably not, and it's a case that would be difficult for prosecutors to make.

www.google.com

 

[iceheart08]

Elected officials should have to put their investments in a blind trust when they are elected.

This is utter horseshit and wrong on every level.

 

[Willence]

You're just reiterating that government is evil, here. The logical political theory to draw from that is to make government as small as possible, not to simply limit government. If you believe that government is fundamentally good, it requires you to come up with a limiting principle that allows government to pursue its good.

The Founding Fathers of our country realized that government is necessary evil. The reason that government is evil is because people always seek to take power through the government over the people. That's the reason we have a very extensive Constitution that protects the people from the government. I'm just not sure how you can miss that. Government is never fundamentally good. Government is a reflection of those who serve or rule through it and that always ends up bad. Please show me one place where people with power don't seek more power?

 

[Willence]

Elected officials should have to put their investments in a blind trust when they are elected.

This is utter horseshit and wrong on every level.

This sounds like a good idea but so many politicians run everything through their spouses that somehow makes it okay. I would love to see everything completely cut off from all parties associated with an elected official. But I'm sure then they would do it through their children or their best friends cousins brothers mother. There's no limit to what people will do to gain financial wealth and power over others unfortunately.

Another great idea would be to remove the pension system from elected officials. Also we should pay them the equivalent to a private first class in the armed forces and set them up in family style dormitories. That would be a great start. They can bust to and from Congress. It's supposed to be public service not the public serving you.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

The Founding Fathers of our country realized that government is necessary evil. The reason that government is evil is because people always seek to take power through the government over the people. That's the reason we have a very extensive Constitution that protects the people from the government. I'm just not sure how you can miss that. Government is never fundamentally good. Government is a reflection of those who serve or rule through it and that always ends up bad. Please show me one place where people with power don't seek more power?

I don't think that was the opinion of all of the founders, and probably not the opinion of most of them except for the most radical liberals (and there weren't many of those among the founders). You'd be really hard pressed to think the Publius, in making the case for the Constitution, viewed government as a "necessary evil." They were not Thomas Paine, who I believe explicitly called government a "necessary evil," but who was also a radical liberal who would've been more at home among the French revolutionaries than the American founders.

 

[ClemsonGentleman]

SAY IT WITH ME: Shrink the government 90%. End the corruption of politicians picking winners and losers. Stop the government control over our economy and our prosperity. If you stop and look at it, nothing has led to greater disparity in outcomes than government involvement. Just look at the wealth of people before they take office and after they leave. That should tell people all they need to know. The same applies with monetary officials and even CEOs because they all run in the same crowds these days.

Get the damn government out of our lives, out of our wallets and out of our problems. Government is a necessary evil but let us never for get it is evil as hell and has no place being a significant part of our lives.

90%???
That's a little harsh don't you think?

 

[Willence]

I don't think that was the opinion of all of the founders, and probably not the opinion of most of them except for the most radical liberals (and there weren't many of those among the founders). You'd be really hard pressed to think the Publius, in making the case for the Constitution, viewed government as a "necessary evil." They were not Thomas Paine, who I believe explicitly called government a "necessary evil," but who was also a radical liberal who would've been more at home among the French revolutionaries than the American founders.

I understand what you're saying and I will consent to your points. However when our country was founded it was done so on the basis that a moral and faithful to God people would be necessary for the Democratic Republic we instituted to function. Even at the founding we were not be moral in the truest sense because we continued to allow slavery and the mistreatment of indigenous people as well as the subjugation of women.

Throughout our history we may have endeavored to be a more perfect people, but what government sends soldiers off to a foreign war only to have them return and be unable to vote because of the color of their skin? I know that's a referendum on our society as much as it is our government. Our society seeks power through the government which is why I say it's a necessary evil. And within that society individuals seek even greater power and control over that society through the levers of government.

Please show me what government in history has been moral and good. When something is always tainted with an element of evil it becomes a necessary evil. There is no truly good government and there is no government that has been good.

Apologies for any errors but I was using voice to text while I'm driving.

 

[castlesl]

There are ways to do this without requiring them to sell all their assets. You can require them to put their assets in a blind trust. If a CNBC reporter can't trade individual stocks but Fed president can, that does not make much sense.

To me there are clear differences. A CNBC reporter can skew the news on a particular company and move the stock price from one day to the next.

What is a Fed President really going to do for an individual stock? They primarily govern large macro level tools that have far reaching affects. Alone that guy just can’t do much other than sway other presidents towards tightening or loosening economic policy. Of The FOMC, only half or so of the Presidents vote at the same time.

Could they be in a position to know things about individual stocks like an Apple of Google? Maybe, but likely not anymore than anyone else who is plugged in to that world. Just my 2 cents.

 

[iceheart08]

This sounds like a good idea but so many politicians run everything through their spouses that somehow makes it okay. I would love to see everything completely cut off from all parties associated with an elected official. But I'm sure then they would do it through their children or their best friends cousins brothers mother. There's no limit to what people will do to gain financial wealth and power over others unfortunately.

Another great idea would be to remove the pension system from elected officials. Also we should pay them the equivalent to a private first class in the armed forces and set them up in family style dormitories. That would be a great start. They can bust to and from Congress. It's supposed to be public service not the public serving you.

Whole family then. But I know a LOT of elected officials. I think very very few of them would be willing to go to these lengths to obscure money.

 

[Jwilliamsiii]

The last part of what you’re saying is more applicable to what they do after they leave office, not what they do while they’re in office. I find that a lot of what you’re saying is typical of people who are cynical about politics. People like to think that the political class is corrupt because it’s easier than tackling problems that are sometimes intractable. People also just generally don’t like other people making more money than them, no matter how they do it. Politicians making money is especially hard for people to take in a democracy.

Meh- look at Bernie sanders, flimsy, or joe. Bernie and joe are career politicians, while flimsy practiced law for a while I think. How does someone like Bernie, that never had a job outside of government in his life, end up a multi multi millionaire? Don’t even think a senator makes 200k a year. That don’t add up. Do the math/meth, whichever you prefer

 

[iceheart08]

Meh- look at Bernie sanders, flimsy, or joe. Bernie and joe are career politicians, while flimsy practiced law for a while I think. How does someone like Bernie, that never had a job outside of government in his life, end up a multi multi millionaire? Don’t even think a senator makes 200k a year. That don’t add up. Do the math/meth, whichever you prefer

he wrote books. that's where bernie makes his money. and like, this is REALLY easily findable. lots of folks did this math already...

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Meh- look at Bernie sanders, flimsy, or joe. Bernie and joe are career politicians, while flimsy practiced law for a while I think. How does someone like Bernie, that never had a job outside of government in his life, end up a multi multi millionaire? Don’t even think a senator makes 200k a year. That don’t add up. Do the math/meth, whichever you prefer

Not at all a Sanders fan, or a big fan of only being in office for 50 years. But Sanders is not all that wealthy, and made most of his net worth through a book deal. Graham was in the National Guard and was a JAG, and he’s worth less than a million. He’s actually one of the poorest senators. Biden is worth a lot more than both, but again, he cashed in on his fame with book deals and speeches.

There is a big misconception that federal elected officials get all kinds of sweetheart benefits and whatnot, and it’s really not true. Most of them come in fairly wealthy (to my mind, that’s fine because you the extent that wealth indicates success, we want successful people representing us), and their wealth tends to grow based on past investments and based on things like books deals and speaking fees.

 

[iceheart08]

Not at all a Sanders fan, or a big fan of only being in office for 50 years. But Sanders is not all that wealthy, and made most of his net worth through a book deal. Graham was in the National Guard and was a JAG, and he’s worth less than a million. He’s actually one of the poorest senators. Biden is worth a lot more than both, but again, he cashed in on his fame with book deals and speeches.

There is a big misconception that federal elected officials get all kinds of sweetheart benefits and whatnot, and it’s really not true. Most of them come in fairly wealthy (to my mind, that’s fine because you the extent that wealth indicates success, we want successful people representing us), and their wealth tends to grow based on past investments and based on things like books deals and speaking fees.

the complaining about the "cush pensions" federal electeds get is the worst.

 

[Willence]

the complaining about the "cush pensions" federal electeds get is the worst.

Why? Newt gets $120k per year. You think that is ok?

 

[Chevaker]

Nancy Pelosi's husband has been killing it this year in the options market for millions. Guess he has the golden touch.

This "legal" insider trading has been going on forever. Martha Stewart says "WTF?". Both parties are guilty. Now you have some congressmen loading up on crypto and you have to wonder how that will affect regulations in that area.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

Why? Newt gets $120k per year. You think that is ok?

Where’d you see that? From what I can find, he gets 100k. He’s among many former government workers who get large pensions for many years of service. But it’s not like he had an unimportant job.