Subscribe: RSS Feed | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Home | Contact Us

Obama Acknowledges Congressional Insider Trading

Posted by Larry Doyle on January 24, 2012 10:29 PM |

I will readily admit that I find President Obama to often be disingenuous in much of what he is delivering in his State of the Union.

He plays to an American public which remains severely challenged when it comes to financial literacy.

When he speaks about taxes, would he care to lay out why there is a difference between tax rates on long term capital gains versus ordinary income?

Does he know the difference and why the long term capital gains rate is lower? 

In doing so, savings and investment are promoted so that those dollars from Americans can be utilized to fund our deficit and new business rather than borrowing from foreign entities.

When he speaks about rebuilding the auto industry, would he care to lay out how the rule of law was run over in the process?

When he speaks about the destructive nature of the mortgage origination industry over the last decade, would he care to admit that he was one of the biggest beneficiaries of largesse from Fannie Mae?

When he speaks about his efforts to solidify our relationship with Israel, is he kidding?

While I will give Obama his due for efforts specifically within the education sector, I find much more of his self-aggrandizing manner to be pure political stumping for re-election than anything else.

All this said, he did distinguish himself by calling out the need for Congress to pass legislation to address those on Capitol Hill engaging in insider trading. That acknowledgement — and it is a BOMBSHELL — should be on the front page of every business section and financial periodical tomorrow morning.

Mr. President, you want greater trust and a sense of fairness throughout America? Well, your cabinet, your party, your advisors, and your friends all remain deeply embedded and engaged in the Wall Street-Washington Incest.

You don’t think so? Let’s get a little more genuine. Read that link and then come on back!!

Larry Doyle

P.S. Did Obama address why our nation’s credit rating was downgraded last summer? What about the deficit? Hardly a mention.

Isn’t it time to subscribe to all my work via e-mailRSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook?

Do your friends, family, and colleagues a favor and get them to do the same. Thanks!!

I have no affiliation or business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. The opinions expressed are my own. I am a proponent of real transparency within our markets, our economy, and our political realm so that meaningful investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.


  • Eric

    On Economic Equality/Fair Shot:

    “To me, what makes our country so special is that no matter who you are, where you come from or what your background is, in America, if you work hard and play by the rules everyone has a fair shot at earning success. That very American notion is being threatened by President Obama’s desire for government controlled equality and sweeping changes that aim to put Washington in charge of determining your opportunity. Rather than pushing for equality of outcomes, we need to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to succeed. There is a ladder of success in America, not built by Washington, but by hard work, responsibility and the initiative of the people of our country. So, instead of talking about a fair share or spending time trying to push those at the top down, elected leaders in Washington should be trying to ensure that everyone has a fair shot and the opportunity to earn success up the ladder rather than meeting in the middle.”

  • Sunflow

    Disclosure to short on the insider act
    The disclosure period is to short. Congress “should be required to file forms a few days after every trade, as executives must,” as was stated in the original act. The reporting of securities transactions should reveal to the public, hidden information that is happening now, not some historical record of things gone past, at least as timely, as confidential corporate information.

    Five days
    An article in the Wall Street Journal suggested transactions over $5,000.00 be reported in five days. Brian Baird who originated the Stock act said, “Really it should be 48 hours.” We are not trying to get something on congress people; we are trying to make public the secret information used by congress for their own personal trades, soon after they make the trades.

    Real time
    The way congress gets away with everything, is reporting it to late for anyone to do anything about it. Disclosure should be in real time, or the same two days like everybody else that falls under the insider trading laws, to substitute a philosophy of full disclosure for the current one of caveat emptor. We can’t know what is in someone’s head or what they knew when they did something. But if it is promptly reported constituents can decide for themselves, and their vote will be unappealable.

    Congress made laws making insider-trading illegal for the private sector and exempted itself by avoiding prompt reporting requirements. The insider-trading loophole, that they give themselves is that they use time to hinder procession and cover things up. The SEC cannot have adequate enforcement without prompt disclosure. People calling for longer disclosure times appear to need more time to cover corrupt activities, and to destroy evidence.

    Public interest
    A policy requiring more timely and complete reporting of congressional security transactions is in the public interest. Reporting requirements similar to those imposed on corporate insiders should be used for helping voters evaluate the behavior of their Representatives in terms of the pursuit of personal profit versus obligations to the public interest.

    Members of Congress and legislative staffers are immune from enforcement of insider-trading laws, and are taking advantage of their positions to the public’s detriment. The SEC is helpless to prevent it because Congress refuses prompt disclosure of there trading activities and they can hide evidence behind the Speech or Debate Clause. The current laws under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and under federal statutes prohibiting mail fraud or wire fraud, already apply to members of Congress. And could be used if the SEC could get current information.

    Double standard
    Robert Khuzami, director of the enforcement division at the Securities and Exchange Commission, pointed out that congressional investments in ETFs, options and mutual funds based on inside information aren’t covered under the House bill, nor is tipping off outside sources.

    The Senate bill S.1903 – STOCK bill is much better with its, “trust and confidence,” but it still allows congress to by puts and calls, options and stocks, all day long without reporting anything, as long as each individual trade is under $1,000.00. The sponsors of the STOCK Act are convinced that, it is perfectly legal, to trade securities based on congressional information in spite of the fact that the secret use of nonpublic government information defrauds the government and its citizens. The prohibition against insider trading should apply to congressional knowledge in the same manner that it applies to other market-moving information that is both material and nonpublic.

  • MC


    After reviewing your dishonest and disrespectful rant concerning “Obama Acknowledges Congressional Insider Trading”, I found your words just as ridiculous as what you tried to describe what our President missed.

    Instead of offering a non-partisan review on what the President was undoubtedly threatening you decided to tie the president into what you know is nothing more but Congressional stealing.

    You decided to focus the article on President Obama like he’s the one that practicing Congressional Insider Trading”.

    Pull your head out of ass and stop writing “garbage” for the purpose of partisan ass kissing.

    You ended the article with 4 lines concerning the subject matter.

    The rest of the article is filled with nothing more but your personal “rant” about Mr. Obama.

    Why even mention at the conclusion of the article “BOMBSHELL”, if you only wrote 4 damn lines concerning Congressional Insider Trading.

    Personally, it’s Americans like yourself who are leading this great nation over a cliff.

    You can’t even write a BOMBSHELL story without even writing about your delusional views.

    Citizen of America

    • LD


      Thanks for writing. I am truly appreciative that you took the time to share your views.

      A couple of points,

      1. I am going to venture a guess that you have not been a regular reader of my blog. Why do I say that because if you were then you would know that I am an equal opportunity blogger in calling out pols from both sides of the aisle for being disingenuous and engaged in what I have coined the “Wall Street-Washington Incest”.

      2. As a followup to point 1 and in light of your remark, “You decided to focus the article on President Obama like he’s the one that practicing Congressional Insider Trading”, I would STRONGLY encourage to take the time and make the effort to review the link in the article regarding the Wall Street-Washington Incest. In a manner of speaking President Obama, staff, advisors, and friends have fed at the Wall Street trough just as those on the other side of the aisle have as well. We all pay the price for that.

      My point of the story is that President Obama is willing to vilify Congress —-and justifiably so—for the insider trading but he does not get a pass in the process.

      Thanks again for writing.

      • MC

        Larry D,

        Allow me to pass my utmost apologies for the use of my colorful language.

        I do read your articles regularly. I was stuck by your tone toward the president from who I felt was basically delivering a ‘threat” to congressional members.

        Obviously, I disagree with the majority of your findings and opinions concerning this administration and at times Wall Street.

        It is my belief you’d all have skeletons in the closet. However, just to write a story to be “mean’ isn’t what I would consider journalistic integrity.

        • LD

          Thanks for writing back.

          I respect the fact that you think my writing was intended to be mean but I do not believe my style incorporates that adjective. I hope we can agree to disagree on that point.

          I was primarily trying to highlight that our President and his closest advisors and friends are as much a part of the problem along with those in Congress from both sides of the aisle.

Recent Posts