Comments on: The Congressional insider-trading non-story

By: jdanielwright

jdanielwright — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:43:05 +0000

Felix, your focus on the numbers associated with the article precludes you from seeing the overarching message that people are responding to in this article – that insider trading laws do not apply to Congressional members or their staffs. In America we have the equal protection clause based on the premise that all men are created equally. The STOCK Act will close this loophole and ensure fairness (or perceived fairness) in the marketplace – the same reason insider trading laws were created in the first place.

By: wolphkaat

wolphkaat — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:20:11 +0000

Is there recourse for a hapless insider if they repeatedly lose money on insider trading? Can the SEC or CFTC order an engorgement of the money lost by the trader?

By: Gimlet

Gimlet — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:06:20 +0000

I don’t know that Martha Stewart profited much (NB, of course what she did wasn’t actually insider trading, but lying (not under oath) to a government investigator).

The real story isn’t so much the aides, though, but the Senators and Reps themselves. See http://www.professorbainbridge.com/profe ssorbainbridgecom/2010/10/more-evidence- of-insider-trading-inside-the-beltway.ht ml It would seem they’ve been trading on material non-public information.

Also a useful corrective to the WSJ on the underlying law.

By: TinyOne

TinyOne — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:30:34 +0000

“But let’s not try to gin up a scandal where none exists.”

Felix, if you did this, you wouldn’t have a career… Abacus, payday loans, etc., etc.

You’d just be another stay-at-home dad wearing New Balance shoes at the Park Slope Y.