Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

member of House of Representatives oversight committee on Financial Services and questionable 2008 trades

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • member of House of Representatives oversight committee on Financial Services and questionable 2008 trades

    This certainly looks, sounds, and smells bad.

    Then again, maybe he's Chairman of the House FSC because he clearly understands the bankster business model so well...

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...ue_trader.html

    Last night, 60 Minutes ran a report on the shocking normalcy of stock trades by members of Congress. The world's greatest deliberative bodies are exempt from insider trading laws, even though its members get quicker access to market-moving information than almost anyone else. If you're one of those 9 percent of Americans who still trust Congress, well, avert your eyes.

    Steve Kroft's report was based largely on a new book, Throw Them All Out, written by the conservative scholar/sometime Palin speechwriter Peter Schweizer. I'm working my way through it now, and one of the ugliest revelations so far -- prodded in the Kroft story -- is the degree to which Rep. Spencer Bachus, then ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, bet against the market as it collapsed in 2008. Schweizer finds "no less than forty options trades" in Bachus's records from July 2008 to November 2008. The trades made him wealthier; almost nobody else had the information he had, and could have made them. Take this example, from the bottom of the collapse.
    On the evening of September 18, at 7 p.m., Bachus received [a] private briefing for congressional leaders by Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke about the current state of the economy. They sat around a long table in the office of Nancy Pelosi, then the Speaker of the House. These briefings were secretive. Often, cell phones and Blackberrys had to be surrendered outside the room to avoid leaks.
    What Bachus and his colleagues heard behind closed doors was stunning. As Paulson recounts, “Ben [Bernanke] emphasized how the financial crisis could spill into the real economy. As stocks dropped perhaps a further 20 percent, General Motors would go bankrupt, and unemployment would rise . . . if we did nothing.” The members of Congress around the table were, in Paulson’s words, “ashen-faced.”
    Bernanke continued, “It is a matter of days before there is a meltdown in the global financial system.” Bachus was among those who spoke. According to Paulson, he suggested recapitalizing the banks by buying shares.
    The meeting broke up. The next day, September 19, Congressman Bachus bought contract options on Proshares Ultra-Short QQQ, an index fund that seeks results that are 200% of the inverse of the Nasdaq 100 index. In other words, he was shorting the market. It was an inexpensive way to bet that the market would fall. He bought options for $7,846 on a day when the Dow Jones Industrial Average opened at 8,604. A few days later, on September 23, after the market had indeed fallen, he sold the options for over $13,000 and nearly doubled his money.
    There are dozens of examples like this. On September 8, Hank Paulson gets a tip from GE about the company's sluggish bond sales, on September 10, Bachus shorts GE options four times. It's all legal, and Bachus is now the chairman of House Financial Services.
    The episode in question:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...in;contentBody
    Last edited by c1ue; November 15, 2011, 09:44 AM.

  • #2
    Re: member of House of Representatives oversight committee on Financial Services and questionable 2008 trades

    here is a paper by way of Jesse that says they are subject to insider trading

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...ding-laws.html

    Richard Green responds to a 60 Minutes report saying that Congress is not subject to insider trading laws:
    David Barker writes that Congress is indeed subject to insider trading laws, by Richard Green: He points me to a paper by Donna Nagy. I will be curious to see if a prosecutor does anything with it.
    Here's the abstract to the paper:
    Insider Trading, Congressional Officials, and Duties of Entrustment, by Donna M. Nagy, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Boston University Law Review, Vol. 91, p. 1105, 2011 Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 181: Abstract: This article refutes what has become the conventional wisdom that insider trading by members of Congress and legislative staffers is “totally legal” because such congressional officials are immune from federal insider trading law. It argues that this well-worn claim is rooted in twin misconceptions based on: (1) a lack of regard for the broad and sweeping duties of entrustment which attach to public office and (2) an unduly restrictive view of Supreme Court precedents, which have interpreted Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act to impose liability whenever a person trades securities on the basis of material nonpublic information in violation of a fiduciary-like duty owed either to the issuer’s shareholders or to the source of the information. It also argues that nonpublic congressional information constitutes property which, like congressional funds and tangible property, rightfully belongs to the federal government and its citizens.
    I will also be curious to see if there's any follow-up on this point. In any case, this unfair advantage that Congress has needs to be stopped.


    Indeed this needs to be stopped.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: member of House of Representatives oversight committee on Financial Services and questionable 2008 trades

      Total corruption.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: member of House of Representatives oversight committee on Financial Services and questionable 2008 trades

        time to convene a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
        tho i suspect the power of the status quo will squash any attempt...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: member of House of Representatives oversight committee on Financial Services and questionable 2008 trades

          Originally posted by lektrode View Post
          time to convene a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
          tho i suspect the power of the status quo will squash any attempt...
          I share your anger and frustration, but don't think that a Constitutional Convention is the solution. A Constitutional Convention is very dangerous because once convened, it can't be limited to the subject that the conveners wanted to address. ANYTHING can be proposed as a new constitutional amendment, such as electing a president for life, having a state mandated religion (or prohibited religion), banning private ownership of firearms, prohibiting abortion (upsetting the pro-choice people) or permitting abortion (upsetting the right-to-life people). It could become an absolute nightmare.

          Not that I have any better solution to offer for the current problems with government, but a CC could do more harm than good, IMHO.

          Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: member of House of Representatives oversight committee on Financial Services and questionable 2008 trades

            Originally posted by shiny! View Post
            ....
            Not that I have any better solution to offer for the current problems with government, but a CC could do more harm than good, IMHO.
            with all due respect/deference ms shiny!

            this is same thing 'they' said out here after it was proposed/balloted last year: _anything_ but upset the status quo...
            means: get used to it, nothing will be changing any time soon...

            and the band played on...

            what iceburg?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: member of House of Representatives oversight committee on Financial Services and questionable 2008 trades

              Originally posted by lektrode View Post
              with all due respect/deference ms shiny!

              this is same thing 'they' said out here after it was proposed/balloted last year: _anything_ but upset the status quo...
              means: get used to it, nothing will be changing any time soon...

              and the band played on...

              what iceburg?
              Oh, believe me, I would like to do nothing more than upset the status quo, but not at the risk of losing everything I love about our Constitution. The Constitution isn't a problem that needs fixing, as I see it. The problem is greed, corruption and "self-will run riot" that is systemic throughout government and Wall Street. If we want to amend the Constitution to fix these ills, let's do it by writing whatever amendments and sending them to the States for ratification.

              I think we would have faster, more responsive change in Washington if, for every Senate, Congressional and Presidential race, States started providing an option for "None of the Above" on the ballot. If "None of the Above" garnered the most votes in a given race, new candidates would have to be fielded and the election reheld. Do this enough times and the people would start to have a voice again.

              Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

              Comment

              Working...
              X