Additional attention in this area is an assumption with bipartisan support, in an era that is lacking. In June, Rep. Chip Roy, a Republican from Texas, and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, a Democrat, introduced her. Trust in Congress Act.
The bill would require their partners, spouse and dependent children to use it Worthy blind faith, As Mr. Ossoff and Mr. Kelly are doing. With such vehicles, a third party will control individual stocks, if any, and some other investment assets and keep the beneficiary from knowing a lot about the contents or trading on specialized knowledge of the upcoming legislation. (Like mutual funds, common investment and ownership will be fine.)
“It’s about making it easier for members of Congress to do their job,” Mr. Roy Said at that time.
And let us not forget what I explained in November The column: If they (or their stockbroker) stop believing that they are smart enough to defeat the market, they will end up with more money in the end. Studies on this are exclusively a Legion, and Fun one It is shown that in Congress, on average, between 2004 and 2008, people tried to pull out the market.
It is perhaps unsurprising that those who would be elected officials would not be passive investors. The same heightened sense of self that drives many of them to run for office may well make them think that they have some kind of stock-picking superpower. They almost certainly do not – and neither do financial advisors who are charging them well. Maybe they will eventually come to their senses.
Others may stock or trade to blow off steam in the form of gambling. If they can afford to lose money, and are not really using any inside information or are in a position to influence the policies that affect the companies they place bets on, So there is no real harm.
But do they want to lose the election on this?
Certainly, stock trading was not the only issue to play in Georgia. But in the purple parts of the country or districts, where the uppermost in his own party tried to make a case for it, these newly elected officials may be weakened. If they avoid personal stock for political reasons rather than more princely reasons, then so be it. This is all for the good.