Today is a good day for Congress passing laws with sunny punny names, so after the JOBS Act on we go to the STOCK Act, for Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge, which, who wouldn’t want JOBS and STOCKS and also much less Congressional insider trading. Anyway it passed, so now Congressional inside information is like corporate inside information in that if you trade on it you go to jail, maybe, sometimes. There was however some controversy as Reuters explains:
House Republican leaders argued that the political intelligence provision, which targeted former Capitol Hill insiders who use their contacts to gather information on pending legislation and sell it to Wall Street investors, could tread on First Amendment free speech rights. The final version orders a study of what to do about that increasingly widespread practice.
Coincidentally, earlier in this deadly deadly week we talked a little about the First Amendment and securities regulation, but that was in the context of people being able to say true non-confidential things about their investment prowess or prowesslessness. Even there, for non-Congress-related people, the First Amendment doesn’t seem to do much for them, though maybe the Supreme Court will change that but don’t count on it. Read more »
It is implausible that every one of Rajaratnam’s sophisticated investors were in the dark. Yet the law says that, unlike the Madoff investors, they bear no responsibility for ignoring red flags. On the contrary: They are being rewarded for looking the other way…The phrase I find myself muttering a lot these days is: “There oughta be a law.”…The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that there ought to be a law that says that if a fund manager’s “edge” is insider trading, his investors should have to pay a price, too. Maybe then, they’d be less willing to look the other way when their fund manager starts doing things he shouldn’t. [NYT]
Fucking women. It’s not that financial services firms in the UK don’t want to employ them, or think they couldn’t do just as bang-up a job as the men. This is not one of those situations.* The Brits love the ladies and would like nothing than more to hire them, and maybe maul them a little on the job. And therein lies the problem. Not with the grabbing of asses, per se. Nothing wrong with that. The issue is with the obscene potential pay-out these chippies could collect in the event their colleagues or superiors decide through no fault of their own to get pawsy.