tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33399132.post4153816532270472948..comments2024-03-04T08:09:21.453-08:00Comments on Richard's Real Estate and Urban Economics Blog: David Barker writes that Congress is indeed subject to insider trading lawsRichard Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02161226214739034402noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33399132.post-20361361344028455972011-11-15T12:24:55.132-08:002011-11-15T12:24:55.132-08:00This was on Freakonomics a few months ago, referen...This was on Freakonomics a few months ago, referencing a recent paper looking at investment returns of congressmen: <br /><br />http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/05/25/politics-pays-evidence-of-insider-trading-among-congressmen/Kurt Paulsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17736596114412475784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33399132.post-73838064997749160552011-11-15T10:41:29.375-08:002011-11-15T10:41:29.375-08:00I think the author is right. SEC rule 10b5-2 is b...I think the author is right. SEC rule 10b5-2 is broadly written, dealing with "the purchase or sale of securities on the basis of, or the communication of, material nonpublic information misappropriated in breach of a duty of trust or confidence."<br /><br />The rule is short, and you can find it here:<br /><br />http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule10b5-2.html<br /><br />From scanning the article, it seems to come down to questions of whether:<br /><br />* The SEC would pursue civil actions, and <br />* The DOJ would pursue criminal actions.<br /><br />I'm not optimistic, but it might take trying one or two egregious cases to make it all stop.David Merkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05073877918072914309noreply@blogger.com