- His disclosures, both from his final year in Congress and his time as Minnesota governor, also show no mutual funds, bonds, private equities, or other securities.
- No book deals or speaking fees or crypto or racehorse interests.
- Not even real estate. The couple sold their Mankato, Minnesota, home after moving into the governor’s mansion, for below the $315k asking price).
You must log in or register to comment.
This seems unwise. Does he not have any significant savings or is he letting inflation devalue his savings? I don’t think a politician should invest in specific companies but I also don’t think owning shares of an index fund creates any conflict of interest. It would simply be an investment in American prosperity.
Edit: I suppose insider trading isn’t impossible even with index funds if, for example, a politician finds out about federal interest rate changes before the rest of the market does. However, that sort of speculation is pretty clearly distinguishable from buying and holding shares of an index fund as a long-term investment.
Double pension from military service and teachers union.
He’s good.
Even then he should have some savings. Is he never going to buy anything expensive or have some emergency he needs to pay to fix? Living paycheck to paycheck isn’t great even if the paycheck is actually a pension payment.
The disclosure says they sold their house for 300k before moving into the governors mansion.
Having 3 pensions (army +teacher+congress) that I would guess net around 100k/yr, 300k in the bank and a 125k/yr governor salary puts you in a pretty good spot in the US economic system. He might even have a 4th governor pension coming, and if he gets the VP spot, a 5th.
Even without the 300k or the governor’s job, it’s pretty easy to get 6 figure loans when you have a guaranteed 100kish coming in each year.
I’d say his financial state is very, very healthy.
I’m not saying that he’s poor. I’m saying that if he has significant savings (and he does) then they should be invested in something. There’s a good reason why wealthy people don’t keep their money in a savings account.
I’m not saying that he’s poor.
Lol. The man has 300k in the bank and likely 227k/yr in income, half of which is guaranteed, and you refer to him as “not poor.” How kind of you to consider an American with better finances than maybe 230 million other Americans as “not poor.”
The reason people invest is to have enough steady income to fund their lifestyles. It looks like his family has already done that entirely through pensions. Why should he take even minimal risk to gain something that he clearly doesn’t want or need?
I think most of the stock market would cease to exist if every American had a 100k/yr pensions like Governor walz does. In fact, I know this is true, because 401k were designed to kill pensions in order to force more people into the stock market, making rich people richer.
Either way, sometimes people with “plenty” don’t care about “plenty more.” Man was already handing out full size chocolate bars and hot cocoa to trick or treaters. What else could he want?
227k/yr is an upper-middle class income. It’s about as much as a doctor in a relatively low-paid specialty earns, and while it is enough to live comfortably and securely while saving for the future, it isn’t enough to never have to think about money again.
What I’ve been saying is that even if Walz doesn’t want more money than he already has, he should still have savings and he should invest those savings to avoid having them gradually become worthless because of inflation. Inflation means a guaranteed loss for those unwilling to take a even a minimal risk. There’s a difference between being modest and being wasteful. Taking that guaranteed loss rather than that minimal risk is wasteful.
You are absolutely disconnected from the average American life if you think 227k/year, 300k in the bank, and at least 100k/yr of GUARENTEED INCOME is an amount of money where you need to worry about living comfortably in Minnisota.
Should he park his 300k in some low yield bonds? Sure. That might make him 10k/yr instead of the 3k/yr he’s likely making in a savings account.
Is the amount of money he’s “losing” matter when he clearly has all of his families needs met long term matter with zero risk? No.
Maybe he doesn’t want to be wealthy but only wants to live comfortably? It’s not a common way of living, but it’s far from unimaginable.
If someone doesn’t intend to live beyond reasonable means and has an emergency fund and income that will last until they die, they don’t need to invest in anything. Money doesn’t follow you into the grave, and wealth accumulation ror the sake of wealth accumulation benefits nobody.
Investment isn’t necessarily about the accumulation of wealth. You need $1.33 today to have the same purchasing power you had with $1.00 ten years ago, so unless your total return on investment has been 33% or more over the last ten years, you have effectively lost money. You could get that rate of return with very low-risk investments like Treasury bonds.
But, again, why bother throwing away his good image of being a politician without anything incentivizing self-interests when he’s already set for life? If the guy lives another 25 years, and assuming the value of his $200k/year pension stays the same while the purchasing power of it is reduced to 1/1.332.5 (or about 50%), he effectively gets the equivalent of $100k a year in today’s money. That’s still going to be plenty to live comfortably.
Also should get a congressional pension and maybe a gubernatorial one.
Dude has like 4 income streams already. Seems like that’s enough for him.
Pensions
Yup, the old school retirement system before forcing everyone to play at the stock market casino.
We should pay our politicians in war bonds. I can’t think of any ways in which this could go wrong
*Fortunate Son fades in*
These disclosures generally exempt disclosing mortgages for your primary residence, market indexed funds, sector funds, and depending on the circumstances, employer retirement accounts. The idea is to identify conflicts of interest, not total assets. Owning Apple stock might bias you towards Apple, but owning shares of an indexed fund doesn’t.
pensions are essentially stocks in most cases
The money to find pensions may come from stocks or other investments, but the recipient of the pension doesn’t control those investments right? They just get the payout
Correct.
Which becomes an issue if the pension manager doesn’t properly account for market downturns etc…
Oh sure. But from a “does Tim Walz own stock” standpoint, I think it’s still justified to say “no” even if he has a pension that is backed by stocks.
That’s a pretty severe stretch. And not at all what people mean when they ask if someone owns stock.
That’s like saying someone is a landlord if they invest in REIT…
Right, I was refuting the original comment I replied to, which said that pensions are essentially the same as stocks.
Sorry I misread your comment the first time!
Carry on
Axios - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Axios:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/07/tim-walz-vp-pick-investment-portfolio#
Holy shit. The man’s practically a saint. All the best to him, I hope Kamala takes him to the top, because that’s where he needs to be.
No I’m afraid the DNC will crush him.
This is something I can get behind for a politician
On one hand that’s good. On the other hand that’s a concerning approach to financial management
It seems like that was more of a gesture when he took office than a financial strategy.
He’s completely set with pensions. And I am unsure if index funds were specifically ruled out. The article doesn’t really detail his wealth, and there’s no way someone with his intelligence and pragmatism has completely bungled his finances.
His disclosures, both from his final year in Congress and his time as Minnesota governor, also show no mutual funds, bonds, private equities, or other securities.
I guess that should cover index funds too?
Yeah, he’s never going to go hungry or want for medical care for the rest of his life. Like it or not, successful politicians are financially above us peons.
It’s gonna shock you to find out he’s a huge proponent of sharing wealth and not hoarding it.
Good, I still would expect him to have retirement plans and the financial habits to achieve them. He’s nearing that age and once he finishes with politics should probably be looking at that.
Fortunately others have mentioned he has government pensions, which are a good financial plan for those who have access to them.
He will be fine, with his teachers pension, and his national guard pension, and his congressional pension, and his governor’s pension, and probably his vice president pension.
Why? I assume he’s got money in the bank and will have a government pension.
Some people don’t need to hoard as much wealth as possible, if he’s got enough to live comfortably with his family I don’t see the need to hold a ton of investments.
He has at least 2 pensions. I think congresspeople and governors probably get something too.
I’m gonna be honest sometimes I forget the government still provides pensions. I hear “no financial investments” and my brain goes to “no retirement money” because amongst many people I know that’s what that means. I don’t want my politicians to be rich or money obsessed, but I personally prefer prudent politicians. If I hear that a politician makes enough to save and chooses not to without having other financial strategies to handle retirement then I worry about how they will approach the government coffers. Not in a “spending our money on welfare” sense, but in a spending our welfare and infrastructure money that should be used as an investment in our country’s present and future on something stupid like corporate tax cuts.
And yes I get the irony there, but to me my first thought really was “oh does he not think about his own future?”
Also bonds really shouldn’t be treated like stocks. We want Americans buying bonds. They’re a literal financial investment in this country. If people stop buying American bonds get a passport now because that means they don’t trust this country is so good for it they can offer mediocre returns because the money is all but certain.
I suppose one might imagine the risk that if he doesn’t have “enough” wealth personally, he will be more susceptible to bribes. The steelman version is that he doesn’t care about money that much.
I think the bigger concern for those unaware he has a pension is that he’s bad at his finances, and possibly even a spendthrift. But with knowledge that he’s set with pensions then it makes perfect sense. I still probably would invest if I had a pension because I know how bad not doing so went for many people in the late 20th century, but especially when done out of conviction and to display unwillingness to be bribed as a politician it’s something I respect.
Yes there seem to be a lot of people of the position that having retirement investments = hoarding wealth…but the majority of us don’t get pensions and not having retirement accounts of any kind under those circumstances is horrible financial strategy if you want to do anything other than subsist after retiring.
Exactly. I’m happy to pay taxes into social safety nets, and I understand that I’m probably approaching an income where I should be paying more in than I expect to get out. But my 401k and mutual funds aren’t wealth hoarding, they’re me acknowledging the system I live in and not betting my future on things drastically improving in the next 30 years.
My financial goals are to have a little to leave to my loved ones or charity once my wife and I pass on assuming we grow quite old.
But yeah with my family history and occupational risk of cancer I’m not risking everything on the hopes that there’s a social safety net before I’m unable to work
Only concerning to those who control the capital (and the plebs that have been convinced that one day they will be in that position, and when that happens, they’d have reason to be concerned. Any day now).
Not everyone puts the same value on the accumulation of material things (including wealth). In fact, there are many of us who are only really interested in having the means to live a comfortable life and provide for our families.
Everything beyond that is unnecessary to us, and we find the constant, dogged pursuit of wealth at all costs, and the pure avarice that is borne (on a massive, planetary scale) because of it, to be abhorrent.
How can we trust him to look out for the interests of the capitalist class?
Everyone has a price. For example, I sold my soul to a friend in highschool in exchange for a stick of gum.
Guy like Tom Walz? Probably about 13 sticks of gum
Are you the friend that sold me his soul in high school for gum? Cause I still got it.
Keep it. Damn thing was holding me back
Gross, a used soul!?
What’s JD Vance’s price then? A harem full of couches?
Nah that’s just the hypermasculinism that’s taken over the GQP.
A “real man” has to spread his legs wide. It’s alpha body language. He needs to make sure all the other men can both see and smell his genitals.
A simple day at the furniture store with Daddy Trump would suffice. Or a VHS of the '90s Flipper movie
I knew a guy in high school who did this once. Now i’m questioning if I know you.
Everyone knows someone like me! Friendly and unstable
The republicans at a loss on how to attack this guy and he is just rolling them and their ideas. Kamala must be thrilled.
she looked very happy when he was speaking at the events. he’s very good at stump speeches so he kind of makes up for her in that regard. she’s not that bad either by the way; much better than she used to be 4 years ago that’s for sure. but he has a certain extra energy in his speeches that upstages her a bit, but i don’t think in a bad way.
It’s funny that they were worried about Shapiro being chosen. They seemed to be relieved she went with Walz. But I thought I saw Shapiro had a former aide that was accused of sexually harassment. I wonder if that’s part of the reason he wasn’t chosen, Republicans would be able to use that against him.
Yeah, I don’t know of anything specific, but the vibes I got from the days leading up to the decision (and then the decision itself), was that they found dirt, or at least something the right would turn into “dirt,” while vetting Shapiro.
I’ve got basically nothing to back that up, just the impression that I got.
Vance is attempting to attack him for “stolen valor,” implying Walz retired from his 20 year service (as a Sergeant Major) just before the war in Iraq happened, calling Walz a coward.
Let’s ask Donald Trump where he was when the US issued the draft for Vietnam.
The response to which is to tell people Vance is lying about how the military works. Leadership changes over rather frequently in a unit. His time was up and it was either get a new sgm slot in a different place or retire. The choice to deploy with the unit wasn’t there.
You know what really bothers me @JDVance, is when you attack a fellow veterans military service. I respect your service and the service of @GovTimWalz and all of those honorably discharged. He was eligible for retirement after 24 years and submitted his retirement paperwork before his unit received orders (or even warning orders) to deploy and then he continued his service as a member of congress. If they needed him to stay in his unit there is a mechanism called, “stop-loss.” Look it up. As a corporal with 4yrs of service, I highly doubt the USMC, “asked,” you to go to Iraq. They most likely, “ordered” you to go to Iraq and had you refused, you would have been thrown in the brig. Release your military record to prove the USMC, “asked” you to go. “Raise your hand if you want to go to Iraq.” It’s laughable to those of us who have served. If you win, you are next in line to be Commander in Chief and need to earn the respect of all who serve, and this is not how you do it.
https://x.com/StationCDRKelly/status/1821329527429329315
Yeah. Us veterans need to come out hard. Every time the GOP swift boats someone it cheapens all of us.
There is currently a minor attack about his, (long ago), DUI with a photo of his mugshot. But the man has long publicly owned up to it. And he learned his lesson from it and no longer drinks alcohol at all.
In fact, he signed a bill that allows for purging of certain legal records for others due to his experience in life.
Wow. Does that mean politics is his main job? Like full time?
I didn’t knew the US still has politicians like that. Most of the other clowns there seem like they treat politics as a minor side hassle.
Hustle?
Kind of works both ways doesn’t it
I looked at his open secrets page, and his biggest contributes are like 5k, and an association of orthopedic surgeons was at the top of the list.
I’m honestly still shocked we got someone this “clean”
I know this is me being unhinged, but when they’re that clean, I get stuck on wondering what they might be hiding. I think I’m broken, I can’t accept the possibility that he might just be a good dude.
I think I’m broken
Not broken, just jaded
He did speak at an AIPAC conference, but that was like 2010 or 2011.
And while he was a little to pro-Israel at first, he’s changed course somewhat. And publicly commented on the “uncommitted” protest vote in his state and said it’s a sign that we need to listen to voters.
And hell, after Biden just being open to a dialog makes this guy seem amazing.
Still happy to have him on the ticket. But even if it was Bernie/AOC, I’d still criticize them, if the only pressure on Dems is to go to the right, we can’t blame anyone else when the party keeps going right
This fucked up world breeds cynicism just as easily as it does sociopaths.
I think that might just be the limit for campaign contributions. Not sure.
$5,000 was the most he asked for when he did a fundraiser for the Harris campaign on Monday
The incredibly high cost of running for President means that he’ll be asking for more now though. Stinks that we have the system we do.
where’s he gonna live after he retires from politics though
In a house perhaps?
That’s insane.
Like, no 401k or Roth IRA? Dang. I’m fuckin hard.
He did 20 some years in the reserves or guard.
That means he has tsp money, it’s the government 401k essentially.
I mean, he might not, but it’s incredibly rare not to have tsp especially after 20+ years of service.
TSP contributions for the uniformed services didn’t start until 2001, it’s optional, and he only would have had deductions when paid for his training periods or any activation periods. The disclosures say no stocks or bonds, and TSP’s investment are only in stocks and bonds.
I have tsp after four years in the early aughts
I pulled mine out when I ETS’ed and rolled it into an ETF.
Not having retirement savings of some kind would be…not great.
But as someone else said, if he has military pension, that may be good enough.
Also Teacher’s Pension
And from his 12 years in congress.
How many pensions does this guy have? I’ll trade all my stocks for just one pension lol
And military pension.
edit I totally spaced on the orginal comment mentioning the military pension. No regrets.
Plus a pension for teachers, too!
Isn’t he a veteran? As then he will get a military pension as well!
In fact, I think it stacks with his teachers’ pension, which he gets as well!
Pansions galore!
Their only investment assets appear to be via state pensions, including teacher pensions.
He also retired from the Army, and likely has a pension from that too.
If I could retire without needing to know the difference between ETFs and mutual funds, I would be soooo happy
If you’re under 42 you can always grease the gears of war and join the military. Fat pension and great healthcare!
Big caveat you can’t be disabled at all
But you can end up that way!
Not if you want the great healthcare
Oh yeah it’s a great career for the aspiring disabled, just not for the disabled with aspirations
Great healthcare while you’re in it.
Once you come back, you can go eat shit and die as far as the VA is concerned.
Best healthcare in the world won’t help little Jimmy when he loses his legs
Pensions are still indexed to the stock market in a way, it’s just someone else who’s controlling it for you. And I guess there is meant to be an extra protection of “the government says this is your money, even if they bungle their investment.” How that works in the real world, I’m unsure. I imagine lots of days in court.
There are issues that come with pensions, all of which could be easily solved if the will was there. But it’s not, so they’re real issues unfortunately. See: Chris Christie fucking over NJ State Workers (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/nyregion/christie-wont-be-forced-to-make-pension-payments.html
Many (most? Not sure) government employees at the state or local level don’t receive pensions anymore
I’m shocked he doesn’t have an IRA (unless that doesn’t count). Given his previous jobs, it passes the smell test that he doesn’t have a 401k.
I’m sure his pensions are invested in a wide range of stocks and bonds, but he doesn’t directly hold them.
Military/feds have TSP, it’s essentially a 401k.
If he was 20+ years military reserve he’s got a lot in there. I think he started in 1981 tho. And I’m not 100% sure how long tsp has been happening
Introduced in the late 90’s if I recall correctly. He should the the older pension that guaranteed income.
He was in the Army National Guard, so would have received those benefits when activated, which he was for short periods aside from normal training requirements, but wouldn’t have as much as you’d think since he only was paid when training or activated. Also, contributions for uniformed service members began in 2001. Also also, it’s optional.
And pension funds are generally invested broadly enough that the only way a politician could “game” them is to just improve the economy as a whole. Which is like, one of the main things people want their elected officials to do.
He’s just like us 🥺
His teacher’s pension realistically is invested in something, but he has zero control over it. He just gets what he’s owed
These disclosures are usually intended to address conflicts of interest and often exempt disclosing mortgages on your primary residence, market index funds, certain types of pensions, etc.
This guy is the real deal and everything, but I wouldn’t begrudge him what I have for myself, which is some investments in broad index funds, mainly. Something to rely on when I finally fuck off from the office.
Don’t forget he’s a former teacher and career military, he’s got some pensions going
Have fun choosing when to retire based on whether the stock market recently crashed.
I knew 3 people who had to put off their retirements around 2009 so the market could recover.
I’m planning to retire at age 60, so in an absolute worst case scenario I’ll be able to put it off a few years.
It’s as if you’ve never heard of asset allocation.
Ah yes, the thing the average working class person needs to understand in order to retire.
Bro, your choice. I find it quite odd that you’re unable to see the wisdom of holding assets that appreciate with time.
It’s not especially hard to grasp these concepts. I’m teaching them to my 10-year old.
I guess the people whose income hasn’t kept up with productivity should be spending the money they don’t have on assets that appreciate with time instead of taking advantage of employer 401k matching. Great advice!
By your own admission, you know 3 people with retirement accounts. I’m not talking about people without a single dollar of discretionary income, and nor were you - at least not before you engaged in this discussion, in defense of what is clearly a dogmatic view.
Why don’t we stop this, you go your way, I’ll go mine.
By your own admission, you know 3 people with retirement accounts.
I knew three people with retirement accounts who wanted to retire around 2009.
I also know a lot of other people with a wide variety of retirement accounts, pensions, and other investments. I have savings in IRAs, 401k, and will receive both state and federal retirement payments.
But since you apparently think I can only know the things I mentioned this is clearly unproductive.
There are targeted retirement funds that target a retirement year and slowly transition from stocks into bonds/less risky positions as that date approaches. Those are generally a better idea for retirement savings than broader market funds for the reason you described.
And it’s not like retirement immediately liquidates your 401k. There’s just some minimum that you need to take out per year which isn’t very high. Roth IRA’s don’t have a minimum distrust requirement until after the death of the owner.
Pensions avoided each person needing to individually make all those choices by centralizing the same thing into an efficiently managed centralized process with rrliable results. The only thing splitting it up by individuals did was increase the overhead on retirements to funnel the money to the wealthy while allowing the elderly to be blamed for not taking care of their own retirement.
I agree, 401ks are stupid and were invented as more of a tax loophole for the wealthy than as an every-man’s retirement fund. But they’re cheaper for business so that’s what we’re stuck with.
That’s not what I was talking about at all, though. I was just pointing out that if you have enough money to save for retirement, there are ways to relatively easily invest and grow your money while still mitigating risk and staying mostly hands-off.
Fun fact about pensions. At their height, only about 45% of private-sector workers actually had a pension. Having one was undoubtedly better, on average, than having a 401k today. But they weren’t the utopian retirement solution that we (including myself) like to pretend they were. A majority of the population didn’t benefit from them at all, and the less-fortunate were essentially in the same or worse spot as they’re in today.
At their height, only about 45% of private-sector workers actually had a pension.
Yeah, but while the number of employees who have acess to retirement options (68%) is higher, the number who chose to participate (51%) isn’t significantly higher as of 2021. This probably includes some crappy options not nearly on par with pensions.
Another problem is the shift from pensions to personal options is also used by conservstives to say we don’t really need social security. Honestly I would rather change social security to have a higher payout rate and collect more for it by removing the cap and collecting it from businesses based on sales/business income (not just profits). That would balance out the jobs being lost to automation while tying retirement to the economy as a whole. With a solid guaranteed level of retirement income the option to save up would not be a necessity to actually retire.
I don’t either. I own hundreds! Ba dum bum.
I don’t think hes dumb, so the other explanation is that he’s wealthy enough that he doesn’t need to play the game and can do this to make a statement. Sounds like a nice place to be frankly. For the rest of us, having any money left over at all for saving and saving it in a way that is not utilizing etfs or index funds is just letting a bank extract market profits off your money at your expense. If you’re not playing in the rat race I hope you have a real dull axe to grind, because you are simply opting out of what the world basically expects your finances to do.
I don’t have any investments because the only investments that reliably make money are with awful companies.
Respect that a lot. I don’t like a lot of companies too but can’t afford to sacrifice my money / life for family to stick it to them.
Do what ya gotta do.
Actually most of us work for a living and don’t have the luxury of having enough money for investments to be practical in the first place, but I guess you can pretend it’s necessary to get by if it makes you feel better about it.
I make a median amount by working a lot. Median is median, “most of us” just mean you don’t understand stats. Most people have some savings. I’m not swimming in any pool of gold coins, but anyone with any savings at all can put it in investments. 61%.of Americans invest in stocks. Mr. Walz chooses not to and does it to make a statement as a politician. He represents the minority by doing this,. Not the majority. I respect that, but he can afford to do that. I can’t. If you’re not investing at all because you are not able to save anything, I hope things turn around for you soon… That would put you in the minority, not “most of us”. If you have savings and are not investing it’s either being foolish with money or having an agenda like Mr. Walz. That disuades you from doing so.
And of that 61%, only a third are directly investing. The rest get it as part of their compensation package for their work, which they can’t benefit from without penalty until retirement. Additionally, it skews heavily by race. It’s 66% of white families, but only 39% of black families and 28 percent of hispanic families. The amount invested follows similar trends.
I like the guy but isn’t the Occams Razor answer that the guy making $127k/year with no mortgage DOES have investments of some kind, they’re just in his wife’s name or not reported for some reason?
Gonna need some evidence to suggest that there might be unreported items instead of just assuming that there must be something just because.
It’s the Trumpy way to try to argue or make a point. Just throw shit against the wall and see what sticks.
You could have literally looked a bit into to see that neither him or his wife have any investments of any kind aside from pensions, instead of writing something like this.
Most of it’s probably landing in a high yield savings account. Some people want money for the sake of wanting more money, other people just wanna pay off their mortgage early, throw everything on autopay, and never stress about that aspect ever again
This is some bullshit. He invests heavily into private pensions, which invest heavily in the stock market.
This is like saying you don’t invest in the stock market because you have a 401k. You’re still absolutely invested in the stock market even if it’s index funds recommended by your plan administrator. Your net worth dips every time the market dips.
At least he’s not in a position to buy or sell individual stocks, but he’s still got his finances tied up in the health of the overall market, and depending on the pension funds, potentially tilted towards specific industries.
I still like the guy, and think this is an improvement over other politicians, but we need to speak honestly about it.
Hi, I respectuflly disagree. The reason this is significant is becuase he isn’t influenced due to his ownership in any stocks. Of course he, like anyone else, is concerned about the overall state of the economy.
Its also different from a 401k which is a defined contribution plan. In a defined contribution plan, account holder makes their own investment choices but are often limited in those choices. Their account balance will go up and down based on total contributions and market returns.
A pension is a defined benefit plan. In a defined benefit plan, the participant doesn’t have an account that goes up and down based on market fluctuations. Their benefit is defined regardless of these fluctuations. The onus is on the employer to ensure that the plan is correctly funded which is a result of market conditions and ‘employer only’ contributions to the plan.
The fact that someone else manages it is entirely the point. In a 401k a politician can insider trade, in a pension they typically can not.
You make a great point, and the title of the article is misleading at best, really just plain wrong IMHO. But the title also doesn’t state he isn’t invested in the stock market, only that he doesn’t own any individual company stock.
Personally, I think this version is the most fair way for politicians. On one hand, any investment for them gives them incentive to put market health (money) over their constituents. On the other hand, investing in a 401k or mutual fund is something everyone should do, how else will you afford retirement?
