Are you alleging that Nancy Pelosi invested in Databricks, a private company without a fluctuating share price, because she learned that they would soon release a small, fairly middling LLM that probably won't move the needle in any meaningful way?
Are you suggesting that Nancy Pelosi, who consistently beats the market through obvious insider trading for years in a row, bought a share in Databricks without any insider info? Possible, yet unlikely is my opinion.
PS: "without a fluctuating share price" is non-sense. Just because the share is of a private company, doesn't mean its price can't fluctuate. Why would anybody buy shares in private companies if the price couldn't fluctuate? What would be the point?
I'm not a lawyer and this isn't investment advice so don't sue me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure this qualifies as insider trading in the way that would be illegal for public markets.
Aren't most investors in private companies privy to information that isn't entirely public?
I can see how this feels a bit different because DataBricks might be the size where it might trade with a decent amount of liquidity, but certainly in smaller rounds it's got to be pretty normal.
Maybe if she bought it secondary and the person from whom she purchased the shares was witheld this information they could sue?
She (and many other senators and other government employees) are very obviously and consistently beating the market as well as beating most investment funds.
There's only 1 explanation for this: they're getting inside info from lobbyists and such.
I don't care whether that's currently illegal or not. I don't care whether other types of investors also engage in that same practice. I just think that that's extremely wrong and corrupt and it blows my mind that both the US government and people think that this is totally OK (or don't know about it, which is even worse).
