Dow Jones Cashed in Today

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by xilman

I sentence Dr Sardonicus to be hanged by the neck until he cheers up.

(With apologies to Monty Python)

Yep. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

As far as duration, I honestly don't see any return to normal until an effective vaccine is developed. At least a full year, IMO.

Little things we ordinary-peeps can do include providing a minimal cash flow to our local business, e.g. ordering lots of takeout from our favorite restaurants (I don't like the other popular meme of "buying gift cards", since those assume a business will survive the crisis, and let's face it, no matter what we do, many won't).

I agree a vaccine is at least a year off. There's a bit of a gap between "Great Depression level plunge in GDP" and "back to normal," but I take your meaning as "More than weeks, and maybe more than a few months."

I detest "gift cards" as they are currently formulated. They are often programmed to expire within a fairly short time.

I second on helping local businesses where possible.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

I detest "gift cards" as they are currently formulated. They are often programmed to expire within a fairly short time.

Some areas have laws that prevent that and allow you to cash them out when they drop below a set value.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Two Republican Senators. (Names escape me).

They sold a lot of stock just before the crisis went public. Which is nothing, by itself.

However, they were on a committee that got a private govt. briefing about the virus a short time before they sold. We do not know what was discussed in the briefing.

It may be odious, but y'all do realize that our congresscritters have long-ago exempted themselves from the same insider trading laws that apply to us rubes, yes? And such profiteering is a thoroughly bipartisan sport:

Why Congressional Insider Trading Is Legal - and Profitable | Investment U

Edit: Underscoring my 'bipartisan sport' line, just spotted this link on the NC daily links page:

Senator Dumped Up to $1.7 Million of Stock After Reassuring Public About Coronavirus Preparedness | ProPublica:

"Three other senators also sold major holdings around the time Mr. Burr did, according to the disclosure records: Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who is also a member of the Intelligence Committee; James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma; and Kelly Loeffler, Republican of Georgia.”

DiFi's husband, real estate developer Richard Blum, also has been operating a long-running scam by which he uses wifie's pull to "help the US Postal Service privatize and unload various USPS real estate" to him.

=======================

One headline today captures for me the sheer level of delusional mania that characterizes the late stages of the Everything Bubble the Fed has worked so diligently to blow post-2008. Actually, it's not the headline, it's a little gem inside the attached article:

Dow Jones Erases 400-Point Gain On New York State Lockdown; Stock Market Correction Continues | Investor's Business Daily

And here is the aforementioned LOL-line of the day:

"Meanwhile, electric-auto maker Tesla (TSLA) rallied 5% after halting production at its Fremont, Calif., factory."

Yes, with no more of the pesky "production costs" to deal with, profit margins going forward will be huge! (To be fair, said intraday rally, after reaching a ludicrous 12% intraday gain, fizzled to nothing by end of trading ... maybe TSLA management needs to burn their bridges by firing all the workers and burning down the plant for the stock to really pop.)

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I don't like the other popular meme of "buying gift cards", since those assume a business will survive the crisis, and let's face it, no matter what we do, many won't).

Consider the possibility that those gift cards amount to gifts to the business's creditors in bankruptcy.

[Xyzzy]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/opini...nig/index.html

In 2012, Congress passed a new law making it illegal for members of Congress to use inside information they gain through their official positions to buy and sell stock (surprisingly, such transactions were perfectly legal before 2012 unless they broke laws applying to the general public). Only three senators voted against the 2012 bill. Burr was one of them.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/20/opini...nig/index.html

At least Burr was honest about his dishonest intentions, or something. The Investment U article I linked to above - I post those links for a reason, y'know? - details how the 2012 law was very quickly defanged into dead-letter-dom:

Why Isn’t Congressional Insider Trading Illegal?

By the letter of the law, it is. In 2012, President Obama signed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act.

This law sought to crack down on white-collar crime in Washington. Among other provisions, it instituted strict disclosure requirements for congressmen who were buying and selling securities.

At first, the law worked like a charm. The number of stock transactions made by congressmen plunged more than 50% from 2011 to 2012. Those who kept trading had to post their trades to a searchable online database.

But then, just a year after the STOCK Act was passed, Congress amended it in a quick procedural vote. Surprise, surprise – it got rid of the online disclosure requirement.

Today, in order to see the inner workings of your representative’s portfolio, you have to go down to the basement of the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, D.C., and ask for a printed file.

Technically, that file in a damp D.C. basement still constitutes a public disclosure. Thus, your congressman’s market-beating transactions are technically not insider trading.

Unless you live near the Cannon House building, there’s no easy way to access congressional insider trading data. But anyone with an internet connection can find the next best thing.

How to Trade Like a Congressman

Unlike our elected representatives, corporate insiders do have to disclose their trades online. If an executive wants to buy or sell stock in their own company, they have to file a Form 4 with the SEC. Then you can find that form in a searchable database on this website.

Washington weaseled its way out of this simple disclosure requirement. But the private sector still has to abide by it.

Wikipedia has more on the 2013 gutting of the bill:

The STOCK Act was modified on April 15, 2013, by S.716. This amendment modifies the online disclosure portion of the STOCK Act, so that some officials, but not the President, Vice President, Congress, or anyone running for Congress, can no longer file online and their records are no longer easily accessible to the public. In Section (a)2, the amendment specifically does not alter the online access for trades by the President, the Vice President, Congress, or those running for Congress.[11] The reasoning for this change was to prevent criminals from gaining access to the financial data and using it against affected persons. This bill was introduced by Senator Harry Reid on April 11, 2013. It was considered by the Senate and passed by unanimous consent. In the house, S.716 received only 14 seconds of discussion before being passed by unanimous consent.[12]

Once again, the spirit of bipartisanship! Sorry, any attempt to paint this kind of self-legalized crookery by congress as a partisan issue ain't gonna fly. Burr has the most prominent role in the current 'scandal' (I use quotes because the real scandal is what's legal) by way of his being Intel Committee chair - fellow career grifter Dianne Feinstein previously held said chair from 2009-2015 when the Ds last had a majority in the Senate.

Also, I don't seem to recall Obama objecting to the gutting of the STOCK act - maybe he was just too busy bailing out the Wall Street fraud cartels at the time, though.

[axn]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Once again, the spirit of bipartisanship! Sorry, any attempt to paint this kind of self-legalized crookery by congress as a partisan issue ain't gonna fly.

I am kind of confused. The quote from wikipedia says that P/VP/C are still required to do online disclosure. So who _does_ it actually exempt? And how did members of Congress benefit from it?

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by axn

I am kind of confused. The quote from wikipedia says that P/VP/C are still required to do online disclosure. So who _does_ it actually exempt? And how did members of Congress benefit from it?

You're right - the Wikipedia snippet does seem to botch the details. From ref. [12] in the article:

Under the bill passed by the Senate on Thursday and by the House of Representatives on Friday - without a hearing or a recorded vote in either case - officials still must file disclosures of financial transactions, but they no longer have to file online in a way that is easily accessible to the public.

Congress, criticized for its slow pace and partisanship on most issues, managed to overcome both. No Republican or Democrat objected to the unanimous passage, which consumed about 10 seconds worth of time in the Senate and 14 seconds in the House, according to official records.

The repeal came in response to fears expressed that cyber criminals, either individuals or agents of some foreign countries, could have gained access to the financial data that was to have been posted online.

Rory Cooper, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, said the congressional action was based on findings of a study by the nonpartisan National Academy of Public Administration. “This was their recommendation and the House and Senate agreed it was the best course of action,” he said.

The STOCK Act (an acronym for Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) became law a year ago and was intended to deter insider trading by members of Congress who could use information about pending legislation for financial gain. The measure was expanded to include the executive branch of government.

Last August, Congress exempted thousands of top military officers and civilian government officials from having to post their financial assets such as bank accounts, stock and mutual fund holdings and investment properties.

Lisa Rosenberg of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit public interest group, said the repeal “undermines the intent” of the law to ensure that government insiders are not profiting from non-public information.

“Are we going to return to the days when the public can use the Internet to research everything except what their government is doing?” Rosenberg said.

She noted that the legislation makes Internet filing optional for elected officials and individuals subject to Senate confirmation while eliminating the online requirement entirely for employees, as well as a requirement in the original law making the filings “searchable.”

That agrees with the first article - put it down to a poor piece of Wiki-entry editing.

[Dr Sardonicus]

03/16/20 close 20,188.52 -2,997.10 (-12.93%)

03/17/20 close 21,237.38 +1,048.86 (+5.20%)

03/18/20 close 19,898.92 -1,338.46 (-6.30%)

03/19/20 close 20,087.19 +188.27 (+0.95%)

03/19/20 close 19,173.98 -913.21 (-4.55%)

03/23/20 close 18,591.93 -582.05 (-3.04%)

[rogue]

Wall Street is waiting for the US Congress to bail them out.

The loss of wealth caused by this pandemic has done more to cut the wealth gap in the US than the government will do.

Raising taxes on the wealthy wouldn't hurt the rich anywhere near as much as this pandemic has.