It’s worth noting that the lawmakers tracked by the fund also hold shares in many of the same stocks that are popular with hedge funds. This has led to the fund’s impressive performance, despite the ongoing scrutiny of lawmakers’ stock trades.
If you can’t even take the time to read your own article and make sure it actually supports your point, why should I take your position on anything as being informed?
I’m not allowed to use the source you brought because it’s not credible enough.
…
…
Um, anyways:
The Unusual Whales Democratic ETF (BATS:NANC), in a nod to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has seen a 30% surge since its inception on Feb. 7, 2023. This growth surpasses the 24% gain of the S&P 500 during the same period, reported Business Insider.
It’s not even Pelosi’s “own personal stock index”, it’s an independent index based off publicly disclosed trades made by members of congress, and it’s done well for one year (yeah, that absolutely could be a coincidence). It’s not even hard to find evidence to support your position, and I’m not even particularly disagreeing with you! Congress is openly corrupt! You just really, clearly, did not read your source. It directly refutes all the claims you’re making here.
Okay, sure, I’m not allowed to use the source you brought because it’s not credible enough.
Not what I said. Read my comment again.
It’s not even Pelosi’s “own personal stock index”
It’s named after her for a reason. Don’t be fatuous, Jeffrey.
publicly disclosed trades made by members of congress
Which is largely insider trading in the many cases where they pass or even get told in advance of legislation that affects stocks. It’s technically legal because Congress is above the law when it comes to insider trading, but it shouldn’t be.
done well for one year (yeah, that absolutely could be a coincidence
Pelosi and other congressional insiders have been “doing well” for DECADES before that index existed.
It’s not even hard to find evidence to support your position, and I’m not even particularly disagreeing with you!
So you’re just wasting both of our time to teach me a lesson about source selection?
I hadn’t had my coffee yet, ok? I promise to be more thorough next time, Mr Ombudsman.
your source. It directly refutes all the claims you’re making here.
Nope. Just because it makes invalid arguments to try and explain it away doesn’t mean that it succeeds.
God, how many times have you told me to fuck off now, five? Six? Enough that my partner recognizes your username. Just… start reading your damn sources. You’re better than this, and even if you don’t know that, I do. You’re a decent person, you screwed up your source on a topic that’s more complex than most of the reporting on it tells you, and I called you out on it. Take a deep breath, take the L, move on. Neither of us are going to survive the next four years if we let rational discourse devolve to this state. For what it’s worth, I’m sorry I was a dick in calling out your credibility because of one dud link. That was petty of me.
If you can’t even take the time to read your own article and make sure it actually supports your point, why should I take your position on anything as being informed?
That’s the subjective spin of Business Insider. That’s them trying to justify it because they’re very much in favor of it.
I don’t have to agree with the subjective parts to share it for the factual parts.
If you can’t tell spin from relevant information, why should I take your position on anything as being informed?
I’m not allowed to use the source you brought because it’s not credible enough.
…
…
Um, anyways:
It’s not even Pelosi’s “own personal stock index”, it’s an independent index based off publicly disclosed trades made by members of congress, and it’s done well for one year (yeah, that absolutely could be a coincidence). It’s not even hard to find evidence to support your position, and I’m not even particularly disagreeing with you! Congress is openly corrupt! You just really, clearly, did not read your source. It directly refutes all the claims you’re making here.
Not what I said. Read my comment again.
It’s named after her for a reason. Don’t be fatuous, Jeffrey.
Which is largely insider trading in the many cases where they pass or even get told in advance of legislation that affects stocks. It’s technically legal because Congress is above the law when it comes to insider trading, but it shouldn’t be.
Pelosi and other congressional insiders have been “doing well” for DECADES before that index existed.
So you’re just wasting both of our time to teach me a lesson about source selection?
I hadn’t had my coffee yet, ok? I promise to be more thorough next time, Mr Ombudsman.
Nope. Just because it makes invalid arguments to try and explain it away doesn’t mean that it succeeds.
Do… you want to drink some more coffee and maybe try this again?
No. Fuck off.
God, how many times have you told me to fuck off now, five? Six? Enough that my partner recognizes your username. Just… start reading your damn sources. You’re better than this, and even if you don’t know that, I do. You’re a decent person, you screwed up your source on a topic that’s more complex than most of the reporting on it tells you, and I called you out on it. Take a deep breath, take the L, move on. Neither of us are going to survive the next four years if we let rational discourse devolve to this state. For what it’s worth, I’m sorry I was a dick in calling out your credibility because of one dud link. That was petty of me.
Apology accepted, as long as you prove your sincerity by leaving me alone.
Acceptance accepted then, I suppose! Have a good day.