Left wing hypocrisy

Teflon Don

Teflon Don

I'm back baby
The left constantly comes here bemoaning the rich and their ill gotten gains

Yet, never once has any of them said a word about Nancy Pelosi getting an over 16,000% return on her investments while in Congress. She has outperformed the S&P 500 by a massive amount.

Instead of fighting to raise peoples taxes, why didn't she just dole out investment advice so everyone could make the same returns as she has?

I am sure the leftists will just throw out insults but not address the issue.
 
Guess what?

pelosi-attack-2-ht-ps-220127_1674842046643_hpEmbed_23x13.jpg



Nancy and Paul Pelosi's stock trades — disclosed under congressional rules and executed by Paul, a venture capitalist — have delivered extraordinary returns over the past decade, far surpassing broad market benchmarks and even legendary investors like Warren Buffett.

Since mid-2014, a strategy mirroring their disclosed trades has generated cumulative returns exceeding 700% (with some trackers reporting 816% or more), compared to about 230-260% for the S&P 500 over the same period.

This translates to annualized returns of roughly 22-30%, versus 12-13% for the S&P 500.

In recent years, the outperformance has been even more pronounced:

2023: +65% (vs. S&P 500 +24%)

2024: +54% to +71% (vs. S&P 500 +25%)

Their portfolio beat nearly every large hedge fund in 2024 (which averaged ~10.7%) and outperformed Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway by margins of 2-3x in multiple years.

The strategy relies heavily on leveraged call options in mega-cap tech (Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Broadcom, Palo Alto Networks), bought during dips and held through explosive growth — especially AI-driven rallies.

This concentrated, high-conviction approach in the best-performing sector explains much of the edge, but the timing is uncanny: entries often precede major policy tailwinds (e.g., chip subsidies) or earnings blowouts.

Statistically, sustaining this over hundreds of trades defies random chance.

One analysis of 182 trades found a ~75% win rate with average gains of 23% — a combination with probability under 1 in 10 million if picks were truly random.

Even adjusting for tech-sector beta and option leverage, the consistent alpha (excess return) places their track record in the top 0.01% of all investors, professional or otherwise.

In short, the odds of achieving these results through pure luck or public information alone are astronomically low — effectively zero for practical purposes.

The performance is so extreme that it has fueled widespread suspicion of informational advantages.


200.gif


https://x.com/i/grok/share/VECkTS9aALr0DzmYqDqUtA5ZY
 
Yet, never once has any of them said a word about Nancy Pelosi getting an over 16,000% return on her investments while in Congress. She has outperformed the S&P 500 by a massive amountNo, the claim is not true—it's a significant exaggeration with no supporting evidence from financial tracking sites, fact-checks, or disclosures.
Nancy Pelosi (primarily through her husband Paul's trades, which must be disclosed under her name due to the STOCK Act) has indeed generated strong investment returns, often outperforming the S&P 500. Trackers like Quiver Quantitative, Unusual Whales, and Autopilot show her portfolio's cumulative returns over the past decade ranging from about 700% to 838% (beating the S&P 500's ~256% by 441–581 percentage points). Annual highlights include 54–71% gains in 2024 (vs. S&P 500's ~25%) and 65% in 2023. Her net worth has grown from ~$3 million in 1987 (when she entered Congress) to estimates of $255–$278 million today, driven by tech stocks/options (e.g., Nvidia, Apple, Broadcom) and real estate.
A 16,000% return would imply turning $1 into $160 (or her early portfolio into trillions), which doesn't align with any data. One recent article mentioned her stock portfolio growing "around 17,000 percent" over nearly four decades, but this appears to be hyperbolic or misstated—no primary trackers confirm it, and it's not reflected in net worth calculations.
As for "never once has any of them said a word" (implying Republicans/conservatives ignore it): This is false. Her trades have faced widespread bipartisan criticism, including from Republicans like Sen. Josh Hawley (who introduced the PELOSI Act to ban congressional stock trading) and former President Trump (who called for investigations into her possible insider trading). Conservative media (e.g., Washington Times, Daily Caller) and commentators routinely highlight her gains as evidence of insider advantages or conflicts. Even left-leaning figures like Jon Stewart have mocked it.
Her success has sparked ETFs (e.g., NANC), apps, and trackers with millions of followers, plus ongoing debates over banning stock trading in Congress—far from silence. While impressive, returns stem from leveraged options in high-growth tech, not proven insider info (though suspicions persist due to timing with legislation).

@Grok
 
Teflon Don said:
The left constantly comes here bemoaning the rich and their ill gotten gains

Yet, never once has any of them said a word about Nancy Pelosi getting an over 16,000% return on her investments while in Congress. She has outperformed the S&P 500 by a massive amount.

Instead of fighting to raise peoples taxes, why didn't she just dole out investment advice so everyone could make the same returns as she has?

I am sure the leftists will just throw out insults but not address the issue.
Click to expand...
She was Speaker of the House, bitch. Not an investment counselor. Her gains were not “ill gotten”. They were made through her and her husband’s investments.

Unlike your cult leader, cunt, she has disclosed her assets. She has not defrauded anyone of their money, either.

There’s the response to your continuing bullshit.
 
domer76 said:
She was Speaker of the House, bitch. Not an investment counselor. Her gains were not “ill gotten”. They were made through her and her husband’s investments.

Unlike your cult leader, cunt, she has disclosed her assets. She has not defrauded anyone of their money, either.

There’s the response to your continuing bullshit.
Click to expand...


Their portfolio beat nearly every large hedge fund in 2024 (which averaged ~10.7%) and outperformed Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway by margins of 2-3x in multiple years.

The strategy relies heavily on leveraged call options in mega-cap tech (Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Broadcom, Palo Alto Networks), bought during dips and held through explosive growth — especially AI-driven rallies.

This concentrated, high-conviction approach in the best-performing sector explains much of the edge, but the timing is uncanny: entries often precede major policy tailwinds (e.g., chip subsidies) or earnings blowouts.

Statistically, sustaining this over hundreds of trades defies random chance.

One analysis of 182 trades found a ~75% win rate with average gains of 23% — a combination with probability under 1 in 10 million if picks were truly random.

Even adjusting for tech-sector beta and option leverage, the consistent alpha (excess return) places their track record in the top 0.01% of all investors, professional or otherwise.

In short, the odds of achieving these results through pure luck or public information alone are astronomically low — effectively zero for practical purposes.
 
AProudLefty said:
Yet, never once has any of them said a word about Nancy Pelosi getting an over 16,000% return on her investments while in Congress. She has outperformed the S&P 500 by a massive amountNo, the claim is not true—it's a significant exaggeration with no supporting evidence from financial tracking sites, fact-checks, or disclosures.
Nancy Pelosi (primarily through her husband Paul's trades, which must be disclosed under her name due to the STOCK Act) has indeed generated strong investment returns, often outperforming the S&P 500. Trackers like Quiver Quantitative, Unusual Whales, and Autopilot show her portfolio's cumulative returns over the past decade ranging from about 700% to 838% (beating the S&P 500's ~256% by 441–581 percentage points). Annual highlights include 54–71% gains in 2024 (vs. S&P 500's ~25%) and 65% in 2023. Her net worth has grown from ~$3 million in 1987 (when she entered Congress) to estimates of $255–$278 million today, driven by tech stocks/options (e.g., Nvidia, Apple, Broadcom) and real estate.
A 16,000% return would imply turning $1 into $160 (or her early portfolio into trillions), which doesn't align with any data. One recent article mentioned her stock portfolio growing "around 17,000 percent" over nearly four decades, but this appears to be hyperbolic or misstated—no primary trackers confirm it, and it's not reflected in net worth calculations.
As for "never once has any of them said a word" (implying Republicans/conservatives ignore it): This is false. Her trades have faced widespread bipartisan criticism, including from Republicans like Sen. Josh Hawley (who introduced the PELOSI Act to ban congressional stock trading) and former President Trump (who called for investigations into her possible insider trading). Conservative media (e.g., Washington Times, Daily Caller) and commentators routinely highlight her gains as evidence of insider advantages or conflicts. Even left-leaning figures like Jon Stewart have mocked it.
Her success has sparked ETFs (e.g., NANC), apps, and trackers with millions of followers, plus ongoing debates over banning stock trading in Congress—far from silence. While impressive, returns stem from leveraged options in high-growth tech, not proven insider info (though suspicions persist due to timing with legislation).

@Grok
Click to expand...
Let me ask you lefty, is the sky blue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top