I don’t think it’s useful to continue this conversation anymore if you have not read the paper.

Do your readings or ask your classmates for a note.

In other words, it’s not just a good trader finding good stocks.
The benefit came from the firms whose performance they can influence.

No it does not. Authors find
1. leaders’ trading activities predicts future regulatory behaviors (Investigations, hearings).
2. leaders are also more likely to vote for/against bills that benefit/harm firms they bought
3.firm purchased by leaders experienced significant increase in federal contract

No.
1. The empirical test compares person A and B who are similar in age, party, tenure, etc.
2. They had similar returns in the past. So similar social connections/market knowledge.
3. After person A gain a leadership position, A had higher return than B.

‘’we distinguish between corporate news likely known in advance by company executives (e.g., dividend increases) and those arising from external or unpredictable events (e.g., lawsuits), we find that only the former are anticipated by leaders’ trades.’’

“We find that leaders’ stock purchases/sales reliably forecast a higher incidence of positive/negative corporate news over the following
year[…] the same individuals did not exhibit this predictive ability prior to becoming leaders.”
Without wiretapping everyone, this is what data can tell.

Person A asks broker to buy stock X. How would a broker know if that decision is driven by insider information or something else? Why should a broker ask a client “why do you want to buy this”?

1. Sample is limited due to data availability.
2. I don’t think any other data on private investors collect demographics information (or would be legal to share private transactional-level data).
3. It referenced other research showing congress members’ returns are higher than market average.

6. Paul Pelosi worked in finance/ knows people. Such private connections did not change at the SAME TIME as Pelosi became leader.
7. If the Pelosi family benefitted from such connections, their portfolios WOULD HAVE BEEN better BEFORE she assumed office.
But data says no. They only did better AFTER

4. The difference in return occurred only AFTER assuming leadership position.
5. Unless EVERY leader’s family/social connection/market knowledge also dramatically changed at EXACTLY the same time as their position change, one cannot attribute the difference to these “could be” reasons.

1. Data covers 1995-2021. Your example is at most one data point.
2. Comparison is between leaders/non-leaders with matching tenure, party, chamber, sex, and age.
3. Their portfolios behave the SAME before assuming leadership position, so existing industry/family connections, did not matter.

Home Depo certainly avoided pissing off people on the right, but at the cost of losing customers on the left 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

Seems like companies need to figure out the “median” customer’s political stance now. future marketing/PR office hires may require a degree in political science 🫣🫣

There are speculations about them sharing parking area security videos etc but unconfirmed.
Also, they didn’t need to “sacrifice business to protect anyone”. A strongly worded statement, even if just for PR purposes, probably would have saved them from the boycott. Yet here they are 🤷‍♀️

反过来说经常“高浓度”表达也会导致她们语言情绪贬值。比如整天I love you 挂在嘴上的，这价值就稀释了，旁人听了也不会上心。
我遇到的类似的人都是思维简单。不完全是缺高等教育。就是平时脑子里没什么事，只能单线运转。比如一想到要旅游了满脑子就只有这一件事，别的都想不到🤷‍♀️

分享欲强、喜欢说自己的私事的还能忍，我觉得至少比东亚大爷大妈到处刺探别人的好😂🤪

MAGA Christian evangelical 也会说美国世风日下人际关系淡漠。只是他们期望的“政通人和/国泰民安”的情景（white dominant Christian nation)和我们期望的不是一回事🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️
再者很多人政治认知混乱，政策preference没有逻辑一致性。比如之前AOC问卷过她的支持者，结果很多投她的选民也投了Trump，理由是“you both fight for the little guys” 🫣🤷‍♀️除了目瞪口呆还说什么

the *lack* of response/action (e.g. no official statement condemning ICE kidnapping workers on their property) is enough reason for local residents to be angry at Home Depot