Trading bot that buys stocks bought by politicians is up 20% since May 2022
A trading bot that mimics U.S. politicians’ disclosed stock trades is reportedly up about 20% since May 2022, prompting debate over whether this represents real, exploitable edge or just noise in a rising market. Commenters question the short backtest period, data lags of up to 45 days in congressional disclosures, and the lack of comparison to broad index funds, while others focus on the ethics of lawmakers trading at all and call for stricter rules such as mandatory index investing or blind trusts. Many argue that even the appearance of insider advantage is corrosive, regardless of whether Congress actually outperforms the market over the long term.
Meta discussion about HN and link formatting
- Some comments focus on site UX: wanting thread links (threads.net) displayed similarly to Twitter, with usernames visible alongside titles.
- Discussion of using “@username” as informal etiquette on HN despite having no technical mention feature; some note it’s still useful for clarity and for manual/scripted searches by moderators.
Data sources and disclosure mechanics
- Multiple commenters share the official House and Senate financial disclosure portals as the raw data sources.
- Disclosures are required only for trades above a threshold and must be filed within roughly 30–45 days of the transaction.
- The exact trade date is not always easy to infer; often one only knows that a trade happened within a multi‑week window.
- Some trades are hand‑filed, making them harder to parse and currently underrepresented in some datasets.
- There is a legal notice restricting certain “commercial” uses of the disclosure data; unclear to commenters whether using it to pick stocks or build funds is prohibited.
Performance claims and statistical skepticism
- The bot’s ~20% gain since May 2022 is repeatedly compared to benchmarks: estimates for S&P 500 total return in the same window range from ~9% to ~18%, and QQQ is said to be up ~31%.
- Several note the backtest is short (about 3 years), ends in early 2023, and omits the 2023 bull market, making it easy to cherry-pick favorable intervals.
- Others point out missing risk metrics (volatility, beta, Sharpe ratio), arguing a raw “+20%” is not meaningful without risk context.
- Some say a persistent 2% edge would be huge, but over such a short sample it may just be noise.
Feasibility of copying politicians’ trades
- The substantial reporting delay (≈1–1.5 months) makes real‑time shadowing difficult; any edge might be gone by disclosure.
- Skeptics argue that if a simple public strategy worked, hedge funds and HFT firms would have already arbitraged it away.
- Others suggest there could be measurable “announcement effects” around disclosure dates, which is testable but not shown here.
Insider trading, ethics, and reform ideas
- Many see elected officials actively trading individual stocks as a serious conflict of interest, regardless of proven alpha.
- Some claim evidence of consistent outperformance by politicians is weak; others share suspicious case studies of well‑timed trades.
- Proposed reforms include:
- Banning individual stock ownership for politicians and forcing use of broad index funds or national “economy‑tracking” funds.
- Mandatory blind trusts or forced liquidation upon taking office (sometimes suggested without tax penalty).
- Extending or harmonizing insider‑trading‑style restrictions so politicians face rules similar to bankers, C‑suites, and some federal employees.
- Counterarguments worry that rigid restrictions could distort markets, incentivize protectionism toward index constituents, or fail to eliminate more subtle forms of corruption.
Broader trust and political implications
- Several emphasize that even the appearance of insider advantage is corrosive, teaching the public that “this is how the game is played.”
- Others argue bigger governance problems include constant fundraising, campaign finance, and structural incentives, with stock trading just one symptom.