In the business, even the appearance of impropriety is damaging. People who work in finance aren't allowed to trade the same stocks as their company is trading, whether they have any inside info or not. The assumption is that simply by being close to a source of information, you are compromised. The same restrictions should apply to those close to government. By being family, he is compromised by default.

▲

danielmarkbruce a day ago | parent | next [-]

Wrong. People who work in finance (I spent years there) are allowed to trade stocks their company is trading. There is a process to get approval. The equities division at an IB might be trading every single name in the S&P500. If you sit in the investment banking division and that division isn't doing anything related to a name, you are likely to get approval.

In this case, the idea that Cantor can't do something because the former head is now in a government job is crazy. No one "in the business" thinks Cantor is suddenly hobbled.

▲

Ajakks a day ago | parent | next [-]

Oh - so the kid went out and he got permission to do this?

Where is that? Who approved his request?

▲

Calavar a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> In this case, the idea that Cantor can't do something because the former head is now in a government job is crazy. No one "in the business" thinks Cantor is suddenly hobbled.

That's not the idea, and it almost seems like a straw man to be honest. The actual idea is that the current head of Cantor can't do something because he's a direct relative of a high ranking government official whose powers and job duties present a conflict of interest for this specific set of transactions.

▲

danielmarkbruce a day ago | parent [-]

Cantor Fitzgerald is an investment bank. Rather than claim a straw man, think about what they do and how it interacts with the administration. Everything they do is heavily regulated. If they couldn't do anything that gave an appearance of a conflict, they literally couldn't do a single thing that makes up their business and would be hobbled.

▲

anang a day ago | parent | next [-]

I think a lot of people feel like people who have one foot in a heavy regulated industry shouldn't have their other foot in the regulatory body that regulates that industry.

▲

Calavar 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If they couldn't do anything that gave an appearance of a conflict

This time I won't say maybe - that's a straw man.

I never said Cantor shouldn't be able to do anything that even gives the appearance of a conflict. Or anything even close to that really.

As you said yourself further up the thread, investments of investment bank employees are highly regulated. And not only employees themselves, but also their immediate family members.

Yet that same level of legal regulation doesn't apply to immediate relatives of government officials. We've seen frequently with spouses and children of congressmen, and now we're seeing it with the son of a cabinet member. Yes, this may technically be legal, but legal does not equate to just and desirable. This reads to me like a serious loophole in the law that needs to be closed.

	▲	danielmarkbruce 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are just out of your depth in this area. You don't understand what Cantor has done here, you don't understand what Howard can or cannot do in his role. Howard Lutnick's positions have been directly opposite of what Cantor has bet will happen. Cantor has 10 or 12 thousand employees and is constantly doing all manner of things. Howard has no power over the supreme court. His son is the chairman, he's miles away from being in the weeds on what specific things they do. He isn't going to be comped like crazy as the chairman. There is no conflict. There is only the appearance of one and it only appears that way to people who don't understand the situation.

▲

hvb2 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Rather than claim a straw man, think about what they do and how it interacts with the administration.

Uh, essentially betting against a policy your former head put in place isn't a typical thing?

You would absolutely steer clear of this. There's plenty of other things they could be doing, no?

Just to make the point. This is such a typical thing investment banks do, that (especially) they are the ones doing it and nobody else?

	▲	danielmarkbruce a day ago \| parent [-]
		It's an investment bank. They have a million things going on, sometimes counter to each other.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

yunohn a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Almost all companies issuing stock to employees also ban them and their family members and fellow house residents from trading in the same stock to avoid insider style improprieties and the SEC has frequently prosecuted such cases. Wild that congress and WH staff have zero such restrictions even in 2026!

	▲	danielmarkbruce a day ago \| parent [-]
		Nope, wrong. Most companies have black out dates around earnings releases. Otherwise, good to go. (and/or have an explicit approval workflow that effectively does the above).

▲

lenerdenator a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> In the business, even the appearance of impropriety is damaging.

It was damaging.

In 2015.

And then for a bit between 2021 and 2024.

Now it's not again.

You have to enforce these sorts of gentlemen's agreements. Just saying "it's damaging" isn't enough to actually make it damaging.

▲

gruez a day ago | parent | prev [-]

>People who work in finance aren't allowed to trade the same stocks as their company is trading, whether they have any inside info or not

But the supreme court is a separate branch of government from the executive, so the analogy doesn't really hold. To claim otherwise would require Lutnick playing some 4d chess where he's publicly pro tariffs, but secretly anti-tariffs and was sandbagging the government's legal defense (can he even do that?), all the while not tipping Trump or the MAGA base off for being disloyal.