Revealed: Romney Campaign’s Attempts to Deny Paul Ryan’s Insider Trading Don't Add Up
First of all, the Romney campaign’s claim that the transactions were index trades is not consistent with what’s in the original disclosure reports. AlterNet discussed the controversy with money and politics expert Thomas Ferguson, who has written extensively on the bailout. He explained, “Ryan did own some index-based securities, but they stand out in the summaries. They are different from the many trades Ryan was making in individual stocks. It is perfectly obvious that he sold shares in Wachovia, Citigroup and J. P. Morgan on September 18 and he bought shares in Paulson’s old firm, Goldman Sachs, on the same day. If these were index trades, what’s on the form is nonsense.”
Citing accounts from congressional circles , Ferguson explains that Paulson had been told by the White House not to discuss the darkening situation with Congress. But sometime between 2:30 and 3pm on September 18, Paulson finally spoke with then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. He told her that a very bad situation had developed, and that it could involve something much worse than the failure of a giant bank, possibly even a broad collapse of the whole economy. Pelosi immediately demanded that Paulson come over and brief congressional leaders. He agreed. Ferguson reports that his sources say the meeting did indeed begin after markets closed. But he also notes that word of the meeting circulated to the leaders well before markets closed at 4pm.
Ryan dumped the bad banks stock and shifted into Goldman Sachs, and this was an individual trade, which had nothing to do with "Russell 1000" or any other index fund.
BTW love these statistics (I'll paraphrase here):
- Congress, from 1993-1998, US senators were beating the market by 12 percentage points a year on average.
- Corporate insiders only beat the market by a measly 5 percent.
- Typical households, in contrast, underperformed by 1.4 percent.
Isn't that how Las Vegas casinos know you are cheating - when you win too much?