How Congress makes its money

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

MikeDC

Member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
5,643
Likes
16
Points
38
I saw this from the WaPo today and it seems to be making the rounds:
Chris Miller nearly doubled his $3,500 stock investment in a renewable-energy firm in 2008. It was a perfectly legal bet, but he's no ordinary investor.

Mr. Miller is the top energy-policy adviser to Nevada Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who helped pass legislation that wound up benefiting the firm.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid's office, initially defended Mr. Miller's purchase of shares in the company, Energy Conversion Devices Inc. He said the aide had no influence over tax incentives for renewable-energy firms, and that other factors boosted the stock.

But on Sunday, Mr. Manley added: "Mr. Miller showed poor judgment and Senator Reid has made it very clear to Chris and all his staff that their actions must not only follow the law, but must meet the higher standards the public has a right to expect from elected officials and their staffs."

Mr. Miller isn't the only Congressional staffer making such stock bets. At least 72 aides on both sides of the aisle traded shares of companies that their bosses help oversee, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of more than 3,000 disclosure forms covering trading activity by Capitol Hill staffers for 2008 and 2009.

While this seems to be picking up steam as an issue, it's actually been around quite a while. I read about similar studies back in 2004

US senators' personal stock portfolios outperformed the market by an average of 12 per cent a year in the five years to 1998, according to a new study.
"The results clearly support the notion that members of the Senate trade with a substantial informational advantage over ordinary investors," says the author of the report, Professor Alan Ziobrowski of the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University.

He admits to being "very surprised" by his findings, which were based on 6,000 financial disclosure filings and are due to be published in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.

"The results suggest that senators knew when to buy their common stocks and when to sell."

First-time Senators did especially well, with their stocks outperforming by 20 per cent a year on average - a result that very few professional fund managers would be able to achieve.

"It could be argued that the junior senators most recently came out of private industry, so may have better connections. Seniority was definitely a factor in returns," says Prof Ziobrowski.

There was no difference in performance between Democrats and Republicans.

A separate study in 2000, covering 66,465 US households from 1991 to 1996 showed that the average household's portfolio underperformed the market by 1.44 per cent a year, on average. Corporate insiders (defined as senior executives) usually outperform by about 5 per cent.

The Ziobrowski study notes that the politicians' timing of transactions is uncanny. Most stocks bought by senators had shown little movement before the purchase. But after the stock was bought, it outperformed the market by 28.6 per cent on average in the following calender year.

In short, these guys have way too much control over things.
 
At both firms I worked at on Wall Street, there was a continuously updated database of companies in which I was not allowed to personally invest. These were companies not only with whom we were doing business, but also businesses we were pitching. In a bulge bracket firm, it likely represents 70%-80% of publicly traded paper. In practice it made it impossible to invest in anything but funds run by outside managers.

It seems the same rule would be pretty good for anyone who works for Congress. The President has to put his money in a blind trust, why not congressmen and staffers?
 
At both firms I worked at on Wall Street, there was a continuously updated database of companies in which I was not allowed to personally invest. These were companies not only with whom we were doing business, but also businesses we were pitching. In a bulge bracket firm, it likely represents 70%-80% of publicly traded paper. In practice it made it impossible to invest in anything but funds run by outside managers.

It seems the same rule would be pretty good for anyone who works for Congress. The President has to put his money in a blind trust, why not congressmen and staffers?

This would be good. Even better would be divesting them of much of their power to control others' affairs.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top