Minnesota is drowning in fraud.

[iluvatar5150]

The key word here is 'overweighted'. There is significant risk associated with attributing that much weight to a specific sector. This is why the vast majority of hedge funds do not outperform the S&P over a period of 10 years.

A quick perusal of Pelosi's stock holdings show that she is similarly overweighted in tech.

Not at all. If the service was truly useless as you seem to imply there would be no benefit to using it. Are you arguing there is a benefit to following Pelosi's portfolio or not?

I didn't argue anything about whether or not is was worth mimicking her trades. What I've been arguing about is whether this information accurately reports her rate of return.

Other pieces such as...

The NY Post article I responded to in the link I provided in post 73.

 

[another_lost_guy]

A quick perusal of Pelosi's stock holdings show that she is similarly overweighted in tech.

I wonder if any of her foreknowledge when it came to the CHIPS act influenced her holdings in NVDA. But i guess we'll never know because democrats never accept anything unless a nonbinary guy at stanford wrote a peer reviewed paper about it. Even though her corruption goes as far back to 2008 when Visa gave her free IPO access to their stock at it's rock bottom price of $44 to influence her decision on unfavorable legislation regarding Visa

I didn't argue anything about whether or not is was worth mimicking her trades. What I've been arguing about is whether this information accurately reports her rate of return.

Might as well be one in the same in my eyes

The NY Post article I responded to in the link I provided in post 73.

I guess i will check it out but some democrats told me the NY post is fake news.

 

[NxNW]

Both can be true.

Nearly implies less.

And does so without consulting her at all?

I guess you'd have to ask him under oath.

I actually looked more into Martha Stewart and it turns out she was never actually even convicted for insider trading either. Her broker was. Congrats! You've conceded the entire argument.

Well, it all stemmed from inside information. As a member of the NYSE board, she knew what she was doing.

At least you acknowledge it wasn't an argument now.

Want much of an informative statement, either.

 

[another_lost_guy]

Nearly implies less.

Doesn't. 3 dimes are still nearly worth a quarter.

I guess you'd have to ask him under oath.

Oh really? Not according to your next post.

Well, it all stemmed from inside information. As a member of the NYSE board, she knew what she was doing.

But by your parameters you can't call someone an insider trader unless they were convicted or prosecuted because we can't read minds. But you still call Martha stewart an insider trader even though she wasn't convicted or prosecuted. Just not Pelosi, since you like Pelosi. Which means you are inconsistent with your labels and therefore concede the argument

Want much of an informative statement, either.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[NxNW]

Perhaps they should be to prevent stuff like this from happening. But Pelosi and her sycophants are against it.

Or maybe limit them to investing in mutual funds and not individual stocks.

 

[NxNW]

Doesn't. 3 dimes are still nearly worth a quarter.

No, they're worth more.

Oh really? Not according to your next post.

But by your parameters you can't call someone an insider trader unless they were convicted or prosecuted because we can't read minds. But you still call Martha stewart an insider trader even though she wasn't convicted or prosecuted.

We're splitting hairs here, I think. I was refuting your claim that it would be difficult to prosecute a public figure like Pelosi, by pointing out that Stewart was prosecuted. It was a related crime, at least.

Just not Pelosi, since you like Pelosi.

Thats an interesting assumption.

Which means you are inconsistent with your labels and therefore concede the argument

Sounds like we both misremembered the specific crime she was convicted of, but it was in the ballpark. Your claim stands refuted though.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I wonder if any of her foreknowledge when it came to the CHIPS act influenced her holdings in NVDA.

Nothing on pelositracker.app suggests anything untowards.

The CHIPS Act was signed on Aug 9, 2022 and had existed in earlier incarnations since at least 2019. Its passage was not a secret.

According to the tracker, in the 13 months prior to its passage, she made 5 transaction on NVDA: two purchasing options, two purchasing stock, and one selling stock, in that order. With the value ranges being as broad as they are, it's possible that she sold all of her stock prior to its passage. Regardless of how much she sold at that point, it would have been for a net loss since the price had dropped a bit over that year.

But i guess we'll never know because democrats never accept anything unless a nonbinary guy at stanford wrote a peer reviewed paper about it.

It's unfortunate that conservatives' standards for evidence are so low that unsourced numbers on a blog are good enough for you all.

I guess i will check it out but some democrats told me the NY post is fake news.

It was fake news. That was what I pointed in the other thread.

 

[another_lost_guy]

Or maybe limit them to investing in mutual funds and not individual stocks.

There's an idea.

No, they're worth more.

That can also be true. Buuuut it's still nearly worth a quarter

We're splitting hairs here, I think.

Just as you did in the beginning by placing so much value on conviction and prosecution in order for a claim to be valid

I was refuting your claim that it would be difficult to prosecute a public figure like Pelosi, by pointing out that Stewart was prosecuted. It was a related crime, at least.

Sounds like you're walking it back. Now that you've admitted someone can be an insider trader without being prosecuted for insider trading I feel comfortable that I've changed your mind

Thats an interesting assumption.

: )

Sounds like we both misremembered the specific crime she was convicted of, but it was in the ballpark.

I didn't misremember anything. I took you for your word and found out it was inaccurate when I dug some more

Your claim stands refuted though.

 

[another_lost_guy]

Nothing on pelositracker.app suggests anything untowards.

The CHIPS Act was signed on Aug 9, 2022 and had existed in earlier incarnations since at least 2019. Its passage was not a secret.

According to the tracker, in the 13 months prior to its passage, she made 5 transaction on NVDA: two purchasing options, two purchasing stock, and one selling stock, in that order. With the value ranges being as broad as they are, it's possible that she sold all of her stock prior to its passage. Regardless of how much she sold at that point, it would have been for a net loss since the price had dropped a bit over that year.

The speaker of the house will always have a better insight on the passing of an act than you or me. Totally immoral to trade individual stocks when an act worth over a QUARTER TRILLION dollars affects the exact stocks you're trading. Care to comment on that 2008 visa thing or are we sweepin dat under the rug

It's unfortunate that conservatives' standards for evidence are so low that unsourced numbers on a blog are good enough for you all.

The key to happiness is low expectations

It was fake news. That was what I pointed in the other thread.

New york post bad

 

[iluvatar5150]

The speaker of the house will always have a better insight on the passing of an act than you or me. Totally immoral to trade individual stocks when an act worth over a QUARTER TRILLION dollars affects the exact stocks you're trading.

Perhaps, but it wasn't the CHIPS Act that cause NVDA to skyrocket; it was the AI boom.

Care to comment on that 2008 visa thing or are we sweepin dat under the rug

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. Maybe there's something there.; maybe there isn't. I don't have any interest in defending her if there is, but I also don't take your sites' claims at face value.

 

[another_lost_guy]

Perhaps, but it wasn't the CHIPS Act that cause NVDA to skyrocket; it was the AI boom.

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. Maybe there's something there.; maybe there isn't. I don't have any interest in defending her if there is, but I also don't take your sites' claims at face value.

Cool so i wont take your sites' claims at face value and we'll walk into the sun

 

[Vambram]

It is referring to the same article as basis for the FOX article. Same authors. Same article. There is no new information.

Baloney.
Obviously, it appears that you didn't read it, but summarily dismissed it instead.

 

[rambot]

This is not a courtroom

I agree. Perhaps this report could get taken at face value.

 

[BPPLEE]

I agree. Perhaps this report could get taken at face value.

It's a report. It's not meant to meet the burden of proof in a court of law.
There will be more investigations and the billion in fraud that we are reading about is just the tip of the iceberg

 

[Say it aint so]

Baloney.
Obviously, it appears that you didn't read it, but summarily dismissed it instead.

In order to understand the source for the FOX blurb and the very same authors and article, one would have to read it.

 

[NxNW]

There's an idea.

It's a rule in some circles.

Just as you did in the beginning by placing so much value on conviction and prosecution in order for a claim to be valid

That's me quoting the Republican point of view. Though they're currently claiming that even conviction is not sufficient.

Sounds like you're walking it back. Now that you've admitted someone can be an insider trader without being prosecuted for insider trading

I didn't say that.

I feel comfortable that I've changed your mind

As long as you're comfortable.

I didn't misremember anything. I took you for your word and found out it was inaccurate when I dug some more

It was accurate enough to refute the spirit of your argument.

 

[Vambram]

In order to understand the source for the FOX blurb and the very same authors and article, one would have to read it.

I doubt you did. There's a lot more in that article than what you think.

 

[another_lost_guy]

That's me quoting the Republican point of view. Though they're currently claiming that even conviction is not sufficient.

I'm a republican and I can admit that Trump and Pelosi are both insider traders

I didn't say that.

So you DO or DO NOT think martha stewart is an inside trader? Allow me to steelman this argument here because youre being slippery

As long as you're comfortable.

Well no because if you changed your mind and say martha stewart is not an inside trader that changes things

It was accurate enough to refute the spirit of your argument.

Stop wasting my time man what is this even? I can't believe atheists will say something like this while not believing in God

 

[NxNW]

So you DO or DO NOT think martha stewart is an inside trader? Allow me to steelman this argument here because youre being slippery

She's a public figure who is a convicted felon, which you seemed to think is a difficult combination.

Pelosi has not even been charged with any felonies, much less convicted. Everything that's been posted is pure speculation based on incomplete information.

 

[another_lost_guy]

She's a public figure who is a convicted felon, which you seemed to think is a difficult combination.

Pelosi has not even been charged with any felonies, much less convicted. Everything that's been posted is pure speculation based on incomplete information.

Again with the slipperiness. I don't care, man. Just answer the question.