Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway_Bees | Hacker News Reader

Clearly not the brains of those certain congressmen and women that sold off before the crash...not to mention their constituents they likely gave the tip to while maintaining a different political posture publicly. Curious what kinds of bucket loads of cash they made and continue to make shorting with continued access to inside info including classified intelligence.

View on HN

Was it classified? Did we all not see what happened in China and think it couldn't happen here? People like to knock Burr and all, but I don't think there was anything special he saw that the rest of us didn't see coming. I didn't act, but I'm not going to fault those that did. And what if he did say something to everyone? That would have caused a panic then and there, people would make a run on the banks, and the market still would be down.

Certainly it goes without saying the head of the Senate intelligence committee has access to classified and top secret information.

He sold nearly 100% of his net worth in stocks and his public political position is inconsistent with the sale of the stock which he has at least admitted was influenced by public news reporting. It leaves one to wonder why the public news would guide his financial decisions, when as a Senator he had a different political position. Not to mention its is established he dropped the market crash tip at a $10,000/plate campaign fundraiser dinner.

Can we watch his buying activity to predict the market bottom?

No, but you could purchase a $10,000 plate at his next fundraiser and he may just tell you, like he told the donors at the last fundraiser before the crash.

Okay, really though, what information did they have access to that wasn't publicly available already? It's one thing to trade on the knowledge of a bill or piece of legislation that you're voting on, especially if you're a deciding vote, but unless I'm misunderstanding that didn't happen here. It doesn't seem like they had any information that wasn't public knowledge at that point. The whole economy was just slow to react to this. I've been paying attention to coronavirus news and honestly would have sold around the time they did had I had any exposure at the time. I get that it's easy to be mad about and makes a good headline, but I just don't see it. Maybe I'm just out of the loop though.

These folks were still actively spinning "Oh don't you worry, golly gee wilikers this will all just blow over and, besides, on April 1st it'll stop being a thing." - while dumping their portfolio. They clearly acted immorally, they also pretty clearly broke a number of laws around senate behavior (insider trading is a thing for senators), and I think one of the best outcomes at the end of this might be forcing all elected officials to commit their assets to blind trusts.

>what information did they have access to that wasn't publicly available already?

Both classified and top secret information.

For example, changes to China's production, mobilization, expenditure (sale of stocks, debts, etc...), changes to net imports/decreases in net exports, satellite imagery, State Dept/CIA field officers analysis/reports, etc...

Fair point if true, but without a source it sounds like speculation

I'd still say that by the end of january, there was absolutely plenty of reason to sell off stock. A reasonable person absolutely would have made that decision based on information that was already public.

>A reasonable person absolutely would have made that decision based on information that was already public.

The stock was sold immediately after a coronavirus briefing, not just some stock, his entire net worth.

Maybe it is reasonable to have sold your entire net worth based solely on the available public news, but then why not well before or well after the briefing and instead right after the briefing? Why tip of your wealth constituents at a $10,000/plate fundraiser while simultaneously maintaining a different political position publicly?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com