In partnership with

Learn from this investor’s $100m mistake

In 2010, a Grammy-winning artist passed on investing $200K in an emerging real estate disruptor. That stake could be worth $100+ million today.

One year later, another real estate disruptor, Zillow, went public. This time, everyday investors had regrets, missing pre-IPO gains.

Now, a new real estate innovator, Pacaso – founded by a former Zillow exec – is disrupting a $1.3T market. And unlike the others, you can invest in Pacaso as a private company.

Pacaso’s co-ownership model has generated $1B+ in luxury home sales and service fees, earned $110M+ in gross profits to date, and received backing from the same VCs behind Uber, Venmo, and eBay. They even reserved the Nasdaq ticker PCSO.

Invest for $2.90/Share

_{Paid advertisement for Pacaso’s Regulation A offering. Read the offering circular at invest.pacaso.com. Reserving a ticker symbol is not a guarantee that the company will go public. Listing on the NASDAQ is subject to approvals.}

When Politicians Get Lucky: The Greene & Donalds Trading Stories

How two Congress members made perfect trades right before earnings announcements

The Problem Everyone Knows But Nobody Talks About

Your senator probably made more money in the stock market last month than you did all year.

And it's completely legal.

While you're trying to figure out if Apple will beat earnings, members of Congress are sitting in briefings about trade policy, defense contracts, and regulatory changes. Then they go home and trade stocks.

Some get really, really lucky with their timing.

Marjorie Taylor Greene's Perfect PepsiCo Play

The Trade That Made Everyone Look Twice

On July 15, 2025, Marjorie Taylor Greene bought PepsiCo stock. She spent somewhere between $8,000 and $15,000.

Two days later, PepsiCo announced earnings that crushed expectations.

The stock jumped 8% almost immediately. Greene made money while most people were still figuring out what happened.

She filed her disclosure seven days after the trade. By then, the good news was already public.

Why This Matters

Look, people get lucky with stocks all the time. But Greene has made dozens of these trades. The timing keeps being... interesting.

She buys before good news. She sells before bad news. Over and over.

Either she's the luckiest person in Washington, or something else is going on.

The Numbers Don't Lie

Source: Congressional trading disclosures

Byron Donalds and the Amphenol Jackpot

When Perfect Timing Pays Off Big

Byron Donalds had never bought Amphenol stock before April 10, 2025.

But on that day, he decided it was time. He bought shares worth up to $15,000.

Thirteen days later, Amphenol reported earnings that blew everyone away:

• Sales up 48% year-over-year

• Earnings per share up 58%

• Order book looking strong

The stock went crazy. Up 33% in the short term. Some reports say it hit 46% gains from his purchase price.

The Disclosure Game

Donalds didn't tell anyone about this trade for six weeks.

By the time his disclosure hit the public records, the stock had already made its big move. Regular investors who might want to follow congressional trades? They were way too late.

This happens all the time. The STOCK Act was supposed to fix this. It didn't.

What $15,000 Became

If Donalds put in the maximum $15,000 and the stock really did go up 46%, he made about $6,900 in less than two weeks.

Not bad for a day's work.

The Pattern Everyone Sees

It's Not Just These Two

Greene and Donalds aren't unique. They're just the latest examples.

Members of Congress consistently outperform the market. Some studies show they beat professional fund managers.

How? Well, that's the question everyone's asking but nobody wants to answer directly.

The Timing Problem

Here's what keeps happening:

1. Politician makes a trade

2. Big news hits the company (earnings, contracts, regulatory changes)

3. Stock moves exactly the way the politician bet

4. Disclosure comes weeks later

5. Public finds out after all the money's been made

Rinse and repeat.

Trading Comparison: Greene vs. Donalds

Why These Might Still Be Smart Plays

Here's the thing nobody wants to admit: Greene and Donalds might have picked good companies for the right reasons.

PepsiCo isn't some random penny stock. It's a dividend aristocrat with steady cash flow and global brand recognition. The company has been adapting to health trends and expanding internationally. Even without perfect timing, it's the kind of stock that belongs in long-term portfolios.

Amphenol makes connectors and cables for everything from smartphones to military equipment. With the push toward electric vehicles, 5G networks, and data centers, demand for their products keeps growing. The 48% sales jump wasn't pure luck - it reflected real business fundamentals.

So yeah, the timing was suspicious. But the underlying investment thesis? Solid.

Sometimes following congressional trades works not because of insider information, but because politicians (or their advisors) actually know how to pick decent companies. They have resources, research teams, and access to industry experts.

The question isn't whether these are good stocks. The question is whether politicians should be able to trade them at all.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not investment advice, legal advice, or financial advice. The information presented is based on publicly available congressional trading disclosures and market data.

We make no allegations of illegal activity or insider trading by any individuals mentioned. All trades discussed were legally disclosed in accordance with current congressional reporting requirements.

Stock trading involves risk and past performance does not guarantee future results. The timing of trades and market movements described may be coincidental.

This content expresses opinions and observations about public information and should not be considered as accusations of wrongdoing. Readers should conduct their own research and consult with qualified professionals before making any financial decisions.

Individual results may vary. No representation is made that any account will achieve profits or losses similar to those discussed.