Check out the tidbit on virtual coins...
Moderator: Aitrus
Re: Check out the tidbit on virtual coins...
“Agency ethics officials should therefore analyze whether their employees’ official duties would have an effect on the value of their virtual currency, just as they would any other property held for investment or the production of income,”
How as a govt. employee will/can I have effect on the value of cryptocurrency?
How as a govt. employee will/can I have effect on the value of cryptocurrency?
2019: Ignore everything that Mr. Imperfect says. Just roll the dice, will probably do better.
2020: Did Mr. Imperfect hack my fantasy account?
2021: My fantasy account got COVID.
2020: Did Mr. Imperfect hack my fantasy account?
2021: My fantasy account got COVID.
Re: Check out the tidbit on virtual coins...
Any agency that deals with money, banking sectors of the economy, or in regulation of commerce could theoretically fall under this. An employee could, out of self-interest due to crypto holdings, take actions - or not perform actions required of their job - that would help or hinder crypto values. In theory, anyway.
Example: somebody at the SEC who has crypto holdings has in his power to publish or withhold a report that negatively reflects on the technical security and long term viability of Bitcoin. That person could bury or slow-walk the report to delay publishing in order to have time to sell his holdings before the report becomes news. Then the report goes public and Bitcoin takes a hit, but the SEC employee is spared that hit due to his actions.
If you work for Treasury, SEC, FTC, Commerce, FDIC, FBI or any other investigating agency looking an entity that has enough crypto holdings to affect the market price, Bureau of Public Debt, NCUA, Comptroller of Currency, etc. then it would make sense. This provision could affect a lot of agencies and offices.
It's a good practice, and the policy is already in place anyway for other areas regarding conflicts of interest. This just acknowledges that times are changing, and new ways of investing need to be taken into account for ethics reasons. I think it's a non-issue.
Example: somebody at the SEC who has crypto holdings has in his power to publish or withhold a report that negatively reflects on the technical security and long term viability of Bitcoin. That person could bury or slow-walk the report to delay publishing in order to have time to sell his holdings before the report becomes news. Then the report goes public and Bitcoin takes a hit, but the SEC employee is spared that hit due to his actions.
If you work for Treasury, SEC, FTC, Commerce, FDIC, FBI or any other investigating agency looking an entity that has enough crypto holdings to affect the market price, Bureau of Public Debt, NCUA, Comptroller of Currency, etc. then it would make sense. This provision could affect a lot of agencies and offices.
It's a good practice, and the policy is already in place anyway for other areas regarding conflicts of interest. This just acknowledges that times are changing, and new ways of investing need to be taken into account for ethics reasons. I think it's a non-issue.
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
Support the site by purchasing a membership at TSPCalc! https://tspcalc.com
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
Support the site by purchasing a membership at TSPCalc! https://tspcalc.com
Re: Check out the tidbit on virtual coins...
I agree with Aitrus...it really should not matter. Most employee holdings in cryptos would probably not matter, i.e., considered a de minimus amount. I think you would need to have a significant amount ($25K+) before they may ask for additional info if you even have to file a OGE Financial Disclosure for your position.
-
- Posts: 353
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:38 pm
Re: Check out the tidbit on virtual coins...
It doesn't matter if you in your GOV position can affect the price the price of a stock, it is the public's perception that every GOV employee of a particular agency will have insider information that enables them to profit from trading stock securities regulated by that agency. The FAA, for instance, prohibits the purchase of any company that has to do with aviation, including electronic equipment. Their ban list even includes GE (only 10% of GE is aviation related).
The OGE financial disclosure form is just to prove that each Federal employee is following the ethics rules, the dollar amount is unimportant, just that you're not benefiting from any stock from the banned list. Since crypto currencies are now labelled as investments, the same as stocks, they are now included on the financial disclosure form. Crypto currencies obviously won't be on every agency's ban list, but I do wonder what is on the the SEC prohibited list.
The OGE financial disclosure form is just to prove that each Federal employee is following the ethics rules, the dollar amount is unimportant, just that you're not benefiting from any stock from the banned list. Since crypto currencies are now labelled as investments, the same as stocks, they are now included on the financial disclosure form. Crypto currencies obviously won't be on every agency's ban list, but I do wonder what is on the the SEC prohibited list.
mo meng, mo ching (which loosely means: no money, no life)
Fund Prices2024-04-18
Fund | Price | Day | YTD |
G | $18.19 | 0.01% | 1.27% |
F | $18.62 | -0.30% | -3.14% |
C | $78.45 | -0.21% | 5.50% |
S | $76.12 | -0.20% | -1.27% |
I | $40.67 | 0.02% | 1.21% |
L2065 | $15.58 | -0.13% | 3.04% |
L2060 | $15.58 | -0.13% | 3.04% |
L2055 | $15.58 | -0.13% | 3.04% |
L2050 | $31.35 | -0.13% | 2.44% |
L2045 | $14.32 | -0.12% | 2.35% |
L2040 | $52.37 | -0.11% | 2.29% |
L2035 | $13.85 | -0.10% | 2.21% |
L2030 | $46.21 | -0.09% | 2.15% |
L2025 | $12.93 | -0.05% | 1.72% |
Linc | $25.28 | -0.04% | 1.51% |