[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Extra juicy! | Home]

I don't know if you've been following the US elect

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 18
Thread images: 3

File: Kb43or.jpg (97KB, 595x501px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Kb43or.jpg
97KB, 595x501px
I don't know if you've been following the US election, but there has been a new batch of DNC leaks that dropped two days ago, which /pol/ has been looking at for the past day.

In it, there is a folder called CNBC with a spreadsheet of stocks the DNC has info on, and a portfolio that seems to be generated with metastock.
We're not too sure what, exactly this points to, but it seems like the DNC is engaging in insider trading.

We need your help in figuring out anything else that could be seen with a professional eye.

Wikileaks tweet about the entire dump:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/775845990645522432

Download link and open with 7zip:
https://mega.nz/#!jZ4CGTxZ!XFfjt55w9i9vbKW6-SQia1w89NOQk4d2dXlEEAApB1A

Password, which includes the parentheses:
(GuCCif3r_2.0)
>>
>>1504536
>it seems like the DNC is engaging in insider trading.
Why do you think that?
>>
File: 1415244550343.png (16KB, 255x232px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1415244550343.png
16KB, 255x232px
>>1504649
You're on /biz/ and you seriously don't suspect how one of the major parties in the US can make money on the stock market.


>Pass legislature that benefits companies you own stock in
>Know what regulations are going to pass that will fuck over companies so you can short those stocks
>Award companies contracts that you happen to own stock in
>???
>Profit
>>
>>1504943
Obviously they can.
I'm asking why you think they are. That would be a very embarrassing and very illegal thing to be caught doing, so there's no point in making the accusation without evidence. A list of stocks is not evidence of illegal insider trading.
>>
>>1505019
The portfolio seems contain earnings reports prior to when they were released to the public, and were too accurate to be based on an outsider analysis of a company based on an anon in a thread.
I would presume industry standard of margin of error for this crap is +/-2%, and anything under/over would stand to make the stock move in the appropriate direction.

I wanted to double check to see if there were people lurking around /biz/ that would intimately know this stuff and ask for their opinion on this matter.
>>
>>1504943
>+ be immune to insider trading laws

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?/sites/kylesmith/2011/06/01/insider-trading-rules-that-dont-apply-to-congress/&toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2011/06/01/insider-trading-rules-that-dont-apply-to-congress/&refURL=https://www.google.ca/&referrer=https://www.google.ca/
>>
>>1505135
You got an archive.is link? The forbes website doesn't work for me.
>>
>>1505153
try this:
http://archive.is/sYhY7

or this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-10-14/it-isn-t-insider-trading-when-congressmen-do-it-commentary-by-ann-woolner

look pal, i'm gonna level with you; i didnt actually read either of those articles. ive just heard alex jones mention that politicians arent subject to insider trading laws. so i just googled 'politicians insider trading' to find the proof.
>>
>>1505153
just vote for Trump, ok
>>
>>1505195
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
It's now illegal to do so.
>>
>>1505087
>The portfolio seems contain earnings reports prior to when they were released to the public, and were too accurate to be based on an outsider analysis of a company based on an anon in a thread.
Okay, that's pretty suspicious.
>>
>>1505200
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
oh, well that's good i guess DNC is fucked.
just surprised alex jones isnt up to date on this :0
AJ talks abt politicians insider trading all the time. very recently bill was enacted in 2012
:0
>>
Insider Trading Rules That Don't Apply To Congress

Kyle Smith ,

Contributor

I write about economics, politics, media, business and film.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
President Barack Obama speaks to a joint sessi...

Image via Wikipedia

You want strict ethics rules? Start at the top — with the shining example of the noble knights of the House of Representatives, which bans all gifts from lobbyists and imposes a $50 limit on gifts from anyone else. And no, you can’t give an infinite number of $49 gifts to Larry Lawmaker. Sayeth the holy rulebook.
Recommended by Forbes

The general provision goes on to state that a member, officer or employee may accept from any other source virtually any gift valued below $50, with a limitation of less than $100 in gifts from any single source in a calendar year. Gifts having a value of less than $10 do not count toward the annual limit.

Okay, so maybe you can give an infinite number of $9.99 gifts, and meals are specifically designated as such. Feel free to make your case to Rep. Portentous over a daily lunch at Arby’s. But still: pretty tight rules, eh?

Except that one thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.
>>
As you might expect, those who work in the hallowed halls are not shy about availing themselves of the opportunity. A Wall Street Journal analysis published more than six months ago that has thus far provoked no particular sense of shame on Capitol Hill found that at least 72 Congressional aides in both parties had recently traded shares of companies that their bosses helped regulate. In 2009, while Senate Banking Committee member Mike Crapo, a Republican from Idaho, was involved in discussing “stress tests” on banks such as Bank of America, his aide Karen Brown traded the company’s stock on several occasions in the weeks before May 7, 2009 — when BofA surged thanks to a press release on its stress-test result, assuring Ms. Brown a nifty profit.

Asked by the Wall Street Journal to explain, Sen. Crapo’s office said the trades weren’t really made by Karen Brown but by her husband, who had no knowledge of what was going on in the banking committee. Would you go to your compliance officer, much less the SEC, with that line? True, these folks do need a good laugh now and again, and the SEC has to be in a jolly mood after the jury in the Galleon case all but repeated the verdict from The Producers: “We find the defendants incredibly guilty.”
>>
Last week a study of some 16,000 stock transactions carried out by House members was published in the journal Business and Politics. This detailed analysis showed that the investment portfolios of House members beat the market by about six points a year. (Democrats did especially well, outperforming by some nine points a year, while Republicans topped the average investor by only two percent annually.) Senators apparently do even better: “their portfolios show some of the highest excess returns ever recorded over a long period of time, significantly outperforming even hedge fund managers,” noted the journal, citing a previously published study.

In a surprising twist, the study found that there tended to be an inverse relationship between the lawmaker’s seniority and the insider-trading profits pocketed by him and his minions. The authors speculated that “Whereas Representatives with the longest seniority (in this case more than 16 years), have no trouble raising funds for campaigns, junkets and whatever other causes they may deem desirable owed to the power they wield, the financial condition of a freshman Congressman is far more precarious. His or her position is by no means secure, financially or otherwise. House Members with the least seniority may have fewer opportunities to trade on privileged information, but they may be the most highly motivated to do so when the opportunities arise.”
>>
Doesn’t that give you a cozy feeling, knowing that nonpublic securities info is helping make your friendly local politician more secure as he daydreams new ways to prevent, limit, or appropriate for his own reelection purposes – sorry, the needs of the Republic!– your financial success?

It’s not an accident that Congressionalites are expressly exempt from insider-trading laws. The reasoning is that, were the situation otherwise, “it might tend to “insulate a legislator from the personal and economic interests that his/her constituency, or society in general, has in governmental decisions and policy,” says the House ethics manual.

This is entirely beside the point: no one would object if lawmakers placed their assets in ETFs, in which case they’d still have an interest in the overall performance of the market. Or why not be simple and allow Congressional trading on everything except nonpublic information?
Recommended by Forbes

In what must be treated as more of a practical joke than a serious effort at legislation, every so often a group of lawmakers typically numbering in the high single digits proposes that Congress be subjected to the same insider-trading laws as you or me. Said proposal is always swiftly ignored — it has yet to reach the House floor and hasn’t even been bandied in the Senate. Then everyone goes out to their Spartan lunches of baloney and Cheez Curls, comfortable in the knowledge that they have improved on the Golden Rule: He who makes the rules pockets the gold.
>>
>>1504536

You're out of luck on this board

90% of this board is retarded BernieNeets and the rest of FOB from Rebbit
>>
>>1505309
>>1505313
>>1505317
>>1505320
That article was written before the STOCK act of 2012, which expressively forbids that shit.
Thread posts: 18
Thread images: 3


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.