Home › Topics › Government › Government ethics › Public office and private gain › Public office should not be usable for priv… › Barring members of Congress and the preside… › Media: Ziobrowski, Cheng, Boyd and Ziobrowski, Abnormal Returns fr…
Media
Ziobrowski, Cheng, Boyd and Ziobrowski, Abnormal Returns from the Common Stock Investments of the U.S. Senate (2004) 0.50
| Where to find it | Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 39(4), 661 to 676 | |
| Belief Y | Barring members of Congress and the president from owning or trading individual stocks would reduce the use of public office for private gain. | Truth 0.50 |
Beliefs this work bears on
| # | Belief | Bears | Belief's truth |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Barring members of Congress and the president from owning or trading individual stocks would reduce the use of public office for private gain. What it shows: Senators earned abnormal returns on their stock purchases in the 1990s. | supports | 0.50 |
The beliefs that cite this work, which way it bears on each, and what it shows there. A work earns its place by what it changes; whether it deserved to is argued below.
Quality ArgumentsHow media is scored →
Reasons to agree that the work makes its case well
| # | Reason (pattern) | Truth | Conf | Link | Imp | Uniq | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Primary sourcesBuilt from the Senate's own disclosure filings rather than from secondary summaries. | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | +0.00 |
| 2 | Well reasonedCalendar-time portfolio analysis against matched benchmarks is the standard method for the question. | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | +0.00 |
Reasons to disagree
| # | Reason (pattern) | Truth | Conf | Link | Imp | Uniq | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | One-sidedIt reports the buy portfolio's abnormal returns and says much less about the sell side. | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | -0.00 |
| 2 | Errors of factDisclosure ranges rather than exact amounts force assumptions about position size that the paper cannot verify. | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | -0.00 |
Total agree 0.00 · total disagree 0.00 · quality score 0.50
Quality is craft: is the work accurate, well reasoned and well made? Reasons here are about the work itself, never about whether the belief it speaks to is true.
Impact Arguments
Reasons to agree that the work has shaped the debate
| # | Reason (pattern) | Truth | Conf | Link | Imp | Uniq | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Widely citedIt is the citation behind nearly every subsequent claim about congressional trading. | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | +0.00 |
| 2 | Shaped policyIt was cited repeatedly in the debate that produced the STOCK Act. | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | +0.00 |
Reasons to disagree
| # | Reason (pattern) | Truth | Conf | Link | Imp | Uniq | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Preaching to the convertedIts readership is finance academics and advocates who had already reached the conclusion. | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | -0.00 |
Total agree 0.00 · total disagree 0.00 · impact score 0.50
Impact is reach: has the work changed what people think, say or do about the topic? Reasons here are about influence, never about quality; a bad book can be influential.
Check table
| 1 | The work | Ziobrowski, Cheng, Boyd and Ziobrowski, Abnormal Returns from the Common Stock Investments of the U.S. Senate (2004) |
| 2 | Type | Study |
| 3 | What it claims about the belief | Senators earned abnormal returns on their stock purchases in the 1990s. |
| 4 | Computed quality | 0.50 from 2 reason(s) to agree and 2 to disagree |
| 5 | Computed impact | 0.50 from 2 reason(s) to agree and 1 to disagree |
| 6 | Bottom line, typed by the author after the tables above | The foundational study for the trading-advantage argument, and its period is now a generation old. |
The five steps, answered from the pages above. Only the one-sentence bridge and the bottom line are typed.
DefinitionsThe full explanation →
- Quality: this page's truth score. Impact: the second score below. Y's page shows both on the work's row and multiplies them by Bears (a Type Media linkage page) and Imp (the work's importance page).
- Truth of what the work says is not scored here: each finding it reports gets its own page in the Evidence Ledger.
Where This Page Is Used
| Page | Table | As | Its truth |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barring members of Congress and the president from owning or trading individual stocks would reduce the use of public office for private gain. | media | a row | 0.50 |
Every page that reads this one. One claim, one home, every use visible.
Scoring EngineTruth scores →
| Quantity | Value | How |
|---|---|---|
| Reasons to agree, total | 0.00 | sum of the agree side |
| Reasons to disagree, total | 0.00 | sum of the disagree side |
| Quality score | 0.50 | (agree + weight x starting point) / (agree + disagree + weight), starting point 0.50, weight 1.00 |
| Impact score | 0.50 | the same rule applied to the impact table |
| ReasonRank | 0.0000 | how much of the site depends on this page: rank 1951 of 2173. The share of a walk that starts at the 162 beliefs and steps to the pages they read, with a 0.85 chance of stepping on each time |
| Work value | 0.0000 | ReasonRank x (1 - confidence): how much settling this page would be worth to everything above it |
| Completeness | yes | at least one scored reason on each side (an importance page: at least one interest; an interest page: both readings filled) |
Cite this page Ziobrowski, Cheng, Boyd and Ziobrowski, Abnormal Returns from the Common Stock Investments of the U.S. Senate (2004). Idea Stock Exchange, media page ziobrowski-cheng-boyd-ziobrowski, truth 0.50, confidence 29%, revision 42c8344 of 2026-10-04. The revision is what makes this quotable: these numbers move as the argument is worked on, and rebuilding that revision reproduces them exactly.
Every number on this page as data: ziobrowski-cheng-boyd-ziobrowski.json. Constants: K = 1 · UNARG = 0.5 · DEFLINK = 1 · DEFIMP = 0.5 · DEFUNIQ = 1. A reason placed under a conclusion is presumed relevant until a linkage page says otherwise; the burden is on the challenger. The neutral start for importance, the wiki's own rule.
Every value here is computed from the tables above at build time. Nothing is typed.