I suspect they're sophisticated enough to turn something like an "index fund of what the people in charge buy" into a profit by making sure the timing of the reporting makes it more profitable for them.
Since the reporting isn't instantaneous, they of course also have insider knowledge of their own trades and that those trades would influence markets and when. They could screw around with the timing of trades to give misleading stories, like selling off a bunch of stuff just before they file a report and then buying it after their action tanks the price.
But a virtual index fund that tracked their purchases and sales to make a record of how well Senators do in the stock market compared to an index fund (which I believe are also run by well informed people)? That might shame them into changing the rules if it looks bad. Of course, I don't know enough to say they aren't behaving themselves.
Some cases that look suspicious might, when taken as a whole with their other trades, average out and make clear that they lose money even when they have insider knowledge that they will lose money. Somehow I doubt that, but if it's truly a blind trust or an independent fund it should be true and would increase faith in our elected officials to see hard data for.
You can fix that by coupling their trades with the "index fund", so their bid/ask for X shares at price $Y is combined with some # of shares of the common fund proportional to shares held by all members. Then the trade is executed atomically and we get the same price.
Since the reporting isn't instantaneous, they of course also have insider knowledge of their own trades and that those trades would influence markets and when. They could screw around with the timing of trades to give misleading stories, like selling off a bunch of stuff just before they file a report and then buying it after their action tanks the price.
But a virtual index fund that tracked their purchases and sales to make a record of how well Senators do in the stock market compared to an index fund (which I believe are also run by well informed people)? That might shame them into changing the rules if it looks bad. Of course, I don't know enough to say they aren't behaving themselves.
Some cases that look suspicious might, when taken as a whole with their other trades, average out and make clear that they lose money even when they have insider knowledge that they will lose money. Somehow I doubt that, but if it's truly a blind trust or an independent fund it should be true and would increase faith in our elected officials to see hard data for.