Nominal returns are only 11% more compared to a riskless VOO for the past 5 years. But NANC expense ratio is 0.74% per year while VOO is 0.03% per year. Every year, NANC would have to return an additional 0.7% just to break even with VOO, not accounting for the additional risk.
So we're looking at 11% - 3.5% = 7.5% real return over 5 years, or roughly 1.5% per year. I'll easily recommend passing on this one.
What's the barrier? Is the fund closed to new investors, or does it require a very large initial investment and/or years of "exemplary donations" to the Democratic party?
The fact that Nancy Pelosi became the meme for congress members trading stocks is more political than anything. The actual top performing congressional portfolios never make as much news. Pelosi doesn’t make as many trades as other members like Marjorie Taylor Green, who gets a free pass for some reason.
And everyone ignores the fact that her husband is a professional in the finance and venture capital world. Investing is literally his job.
Anyway, if you want to track her trades there are ETFs to do it. It’s not an exclusive investment thing. If you’re in the US you could buy them from your broker right now.
There are also countless sites that will push the Nancy Pelosi portfolio to your inbox, but they’re universally spammy and almost always pushing some other agenda too.
As a rule: If they’re focused specifically on Nancy Pelosi and not looking at top congressional trades as a whole, they’re more interested in pushing a political content than financial content.
Oh, and it’s important to know that you can’t actually track congressional portfolios in real time. The disclosures are delayed so you can only track them after the fact. If you believe they’re front-running insider info then the changes may have happened before you could possibly get the signal to buy or sell.
It looks like she buys and holds, unlikely nancy. And it looks like she bought some AMD which had great returns (oh how I wish I bought it) and held it.
MTG gets a pass because she’s relatively new and mostly irrelevant. She’s also not on the side you expect to be better about avoiding shading money schemes given all of the public positioning.
One smacks of hypocrisy while the other is a dirt bag behaving exactly as expected.
Huh? Are you saying that Pelosi is a worse person because MTG is a worse person? I don't get the logic.
Given the situation (that it's unfortunately legal for them to do this) I don't blame either one for taking money left on the table. Why forgo a financial windfall, who benefits by that? The voters should back candidates who will change the law, and then we can talk about criminality and not selective hypocrisy outrage.
