House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, has a knack for picking winning stocks. His foresight and good fortune have many questioning the ethics of it all.
A disclosure released Thursday revealed that the Pelosis spent as much as $3 million in call options for several blue-chip stocks going into 2022, Mediate reported. Just last week, Nancy Pelosi defended lawmakers’ ability to hold stock despite their proximity to the levers of the financial markets.
The Pelosis invested heavily in tech companies, including Salesforce.com call options up to $1.25 million with a strike price of $210 and Alphabet, Google’s parent company, for up to $1 million at a strike price of $2,000, according to Fox Business. Other investments include the Roblox Corporation and Micron Technology.
Paul Pelosi also bet on Disney, buying 50 call options for up to $250,000 of the Walt Disney Company, with the strike price of $130 expiring Sept. 16, 2022. The strike price is agreed upon by the buyer by a certain date but carries no obligation to make the purchases.
While purchasing options can be risky, investors find it can be more lucrative with less cash tied up than purchasing the stocks outright. It’s also a useful tool for those who can prophetically predict what will happen next in the market, something Paul Pelosi is infamous for.
For instance, he purchased call options for Alphabet in February 2020 but exercised them June 18, just a week after the House Judiciary Committee limited the powers of Big Tech. Similarly, he somehow timed a $1.95 million Microsoft call option days before the company locked in a military contract worth $22 billion.
Paul Pelosi also happened to pick up Tesla calls to the tune of $1 million just prior to the Biden administration’s announcement that it would replace government fleets with electric vehicles. Though all of the purchases were made in Paul Pelosi’s name, this kind of prescience smacks of more than just good luck for someone married to the third most powerful person in the nation.
Lawmakers have so much inside knowledge and influence that it doesn’t seem right to allow them to invest privately. Even if these lucrative transactions were all a fortunate coincidence, the appearance of such impropriety should be enough to bar this kind of behavior.