A new story from CNBC's Fast Money

CNBC's Fast Money


Next. The consumer showing some muscle has retail and discretionary stocks head north, but can the rally continue the traders weigh in next. Plus, congressional question marks, lawmakers, trading bank stocks amid last month's turmoil, and it's raising a few eyebrows. The moves they made during the recent financial practice, you're watching fast money, live from the NASDAQ market site in Times Square. We're back right after this. Really? Welcome back to fast money. Another check on markets so they stocks fairly muted ahead of tomorrow's CPI printed out climbing nearly a hundred points. It's 8th positive session in 9, the NASDAQ dropping nearly half a percent. The S&P down by less than a hundredth of a percent basically unchanged, our friend Carter Braxton worth pointing out in a note, a short time ago that the S&P today is literally his favorite term, a pair of twos. And he adds that going back to 1970 and the more than 12,800 trading sessions, the S&P has finished unchanged just 29 times. That's less than one quarter of 1%. Meantime, some discretionary and retail stocks gaming steam, Ralph Lauren, Newell Brands, pool corp all up big and CarMax leading the group up nearly 10% after reporting earnings this morning. Tim, less than a quarter of a percent of the time, the S&P finishes unchanged. Maybe that tells you just how I don't know on the wire it is in terms of the CPI and the PPI reports coming out. Yeah, well, and retail sales also on Friday. So there's a lot of important data this week on top of bank earnings. And I can understand the pair of twos, especially because nobody thought it was going to be here. But I just feel like that this market has given you a lot of opportunities to trade. So, you know, if you're black jacks a higher kind of velocity game than poker, I mean, you know, you sometimes you throw your hands, you know, the cards back down and you wait for the next round to be dealt. Pardon the Kenny Rogers, I guess was the gambler? I don't know. So sorry for all the poker metaphors here. I just feel like, but you started it. I think you have a case here where this is a market that that's probably why it's interesting because people have continued to think that the market can't go higher. Meanwhile, back to this breadth conversation and everyone's been right about the reasons for mega cap tech outperforming. It's been a safety trade. God pointed out the absurdity of Microsoft and chat GPT and what that means right here and now. But before all this happened in SVB, the breadth of the market was outstanding. You saw industrials outperforming transports outperforming even emerging markets outperforming resources certainly energy. That got derailed by SVB. If we're starting to put some of that in the rearview mirror, I think we can have the kind of breadth that we actually had before. All right, coming up trouble trading out of D.C. lawmakers making moves in regional bank names amid last month's financial failures, the details on that story next. Plus, the sun seems to be shining on crypto winter will the search continue or is another crypto crush on the horizon. Don't go anywhere more fast money in two. Welcome back to fast money. The Wall Street Journal first reporting that as Silicon Valley bank was collapsing, a number of lawmakers who are working to deal with the crisis were also trading some of the bank stocks in the eye of the storm, representative Nicole malliotakis, a Republican from New York bought stock in New York community Bancorp, just two days before one of its subsidiaries agreed to take over signature banks deposits. Malliotakis had discussed signatures closure with regulators prior to her purchase of NYCB stock, a representative for the congresswoman told CNBC that quote the financial adviser who manages the congresswoman's portfolio made the recommendation to purchase, I want to know who that financial adviser is. That's pretty good advice. Representative Earl blumenauer, Democrat from Oregon disclosed three bank trades as part of his spouse's retirement portfolio. On March 9th, the day before SVB failed, they bought shares of SVB and sold shares of Bank of America on March 20th. They sold shares of first republic, luminar is a co sponsor of legislation to tighten restrictions on financial firms. And then there is representative John Curtis, a Republican from Utah. He sold shares of first republic and Bank of America on March 16th, those trades were made under a joint fund owned by Curtis and his wife, CNBC has confirmed these trades, but not received comments from representative Illumina or Curtis. So should we be outraged? That lawmakers who are setting policy for in this case, the banks. And have insight into their operations that we may not have are trading these stocks. Let's dive into that with Kate Kelly, New York Times money and influence reporter in Washington and a CNBC contributor Kate. Great to see you again, great to have you on this topic. You know, I read this article this morning. I'm sure many Americans did and just were absolutely outraged, that this is, this happened, that this is able to happen. Yeah, Melissa, what's interesting here is that this is perfectly legal, as far as we know. The stock act of 2012 is the main piece of legislation that governs kind of member stock trading and disclosures. And so they've disclosed as they need to. They've made it clear what they did and when. And that is sort of the end of their responsibilities. Of course, they're not allowed to insider trade. None of us are, and the stock act reminded members of that. But you know, I engaged in a 6 months investigation of congressional stock trading last year with two colleagues here at the times. And we found that nearly a 5th of the Congress and Senate over a three year period had engaged in this type of trading, which is to say trading that arguably could have been related to what they were doing in Congress. Maybe they were on a committee taking care of the financial sector that they were trading bank stocks. In this case, it happens that neither blume in our normal attack is nor Curtis is on a relevant banking committee. But you can see other touch points here. Legislation in the one case discussions with New York regulators about what was going to happen to a New York charter bank in the other. Is there any what is the remedy for this if anything Kate? Do these guys get a slap on the wrist? I mean, is that it? They won't get anything other than perhaps the headline risk that we're contributing to with this discussion, right? Because again, as far as we know in the absence of other sort of damaging facts, which we don't have, this is perfectly legal. Now, there are legislative fixes that have been under discussion for years in Congress and in the Senate. And some of them have been re initiated in the new Congress this year. One pretty well known one is co sponsored by Abigail spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, and chip Roy Republican of Texas. And they essentially would ban members from engaging in any sort of trading. They would want people to be in a qualified blind trust and not transact in individual securities nor allow their immediate family members to do that. A lot of members of Congress think that sort of a maneuver is too extreme. So perhaps we'll see a sort of compromise deal at some point where maybe the disclosure time frame is tightened up right now. It's 30 days with like a grace period of 15, maybe that would get shorter. Maybe there would be some limitations put, but not a blanket ban. But so far, there has not been the political will to do this that I've seen. Kate, it's Karen. Thanks so much for being on. So you said at the top that they are, you know, the insider trading laws still apply, but are they immune from an investigation into whether there was insider trading? I mean, some of this looks so bad to talk about, oh, I made the trade on the recommendation of my adviser of my adviser. Maybe I should do my adviser. They still made the trade and baby, but you said to your adviser, hey, something good's going to happen in YB. What should I do? I think the adviser may be an attempt to say this was sort of done at arm's length. It wasn't my idea, it was my adviser's idea. And when we did this investigation last year, we talked to something like a hundred congressional

Coming up next