gain

Lewis Crocker: ‘So much to gain from Paro fight’, says Belfast’s IBF welterweight champion

Belfast’s IBF world welterweight champion Lewis Crocker says he hopes that a victory over Australian Liam Paro in his next fight can open the door to a unification bout with another belt holder in the division.

Crocker is set to defend his title in Australia, with May the likely month for the contest and the Queensland city of Townsville seeming like the probable venue.

The 29-year-old won the title with a split decision verdict over Paddy Donovan at Belfast’s Windsor Park in September and his team had hoped to stage the defence against mandatory challenger Paro back in his home city.

However, with no agreement reached between both parties, the matter was resolved by a purse bid with No Limit outbidding Crocker’s promoter Matchroom by $27,000 (£20,000).

When asked by BBC Sport NI’s Thomas Kane where he hoped a potential win over Paro could lead, Crocker replied: “The biggest fight possible. Unification, which is something I feel I deserve if I get through Paro.

“You look at the names in the division as well, everything’s massive. You have Garcia [Ryan, WBC champion], Haney [Devin, WBO holder], Rolly [Rolando Romero, WBA champion] and Benn [currently ranked number one challenger by the WBC] there so there’s so much to gain from this fight for the winner.

“Any of the big boys because it will be easy to make. We all want a unification in the division, we all want to become undisputed.”

Source link

Discover Lawmakers’ Investment Disclosures and Gain Market Insights

Key Takeaways

  • The STOCK Act requires public disclosure of securities trades by Congress members.
  • Disclosures can be accessed through government websites and third-party databases.
  • Democratic-tracking ETF outperformed Republican-tracking ETF since February 2023.
  • ETFs face trading and information delays due to disclosure rules.
  • Both ETFs have a high expense ratio of 0.74%.

Curious about where lawmakers invest their money? Politicians’ investment choices often attract attention because of their unique position in shaping policy. In fact, a 2024 report by the trading platform Unusual Whales found that more than 20 members of Congress earned nearly double the S&P 500’s average gain.

Thanks to the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, the public can see what members of Congress are investing in. But how do you actually find this information? And what can it tell you about market trends or potential conflicts of interest

What Is the STOCK Act and Why Does It Matter?

The STOCK Act was passed in 2012 following high-profile reports of lawmakers making well-timed trades around major economic events, such as the 2008 financial crisis. It was designed to boost transparency and restore public trust. The law requires members of Congress and senior federal officials to disclose any securities transaction over $1,000 within 45 days of the trade. These disclosures cover politicians, as well as their spouses and dependent children.

It’s important to note that insider trading by members of Congress is prohibited under federal securities law, just like it is for everyone else. The STOCK Act reaffirmed this prohibition and made clear that lawmakers can’t use nonpublic information gained through their official duties for personal financial gain. However, proving insider trading requires demonstrating that someone knowingly used material, nonpublic information. That’s a high legal bar, which is one reason there haven’t yet been any prosecutions under the STOCK Act.

After reported outsized gains by senior White House officials and members of Congress just before major tariff announcements in April 2025, the push to ban securities trading altogether by those in Congress gained new momentum, with Senators Mark Kelly and Jon Ossoff reintroducing their Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act in May 2025.

How To Access Congressional Stock Trade Information

So, how can you get information on what politicians are buying and selling? Here are several options:

  • Official disclosure portals: The U.S. House of Representatives and Senate both maintain searchable online databases. Here, you can look up individual lawmakers’ financial disclosures, including all reported stock trades. Just enter a name, date, or transaction type, and you’ll find detailed records.
  • Third-Party Trackers: Several third-party tools have emerged to make tracking even easier. Sites like Smart Insider, Quiver Quantitative, and InsiderFinance aggregate and analyze congressional disclosures, letting you search by politician, stock, or sector. These platforms often highlight recent trades, show which lawmakers are most active, and even track the performance of stocks favored by Congress.

Key Considerations for Using Data on Congressional Stock Trades

Congressional trades are disclosed after the fact—often 45 days later or more—so you’re seeing moves that may already be reflected in prices. In 2023, Business Insider identified 78 members of Congress who violated the law, highlighting enforcement gaps. As such, you should treat these disclosures as just one piece of your research puzzle, not a shortcut to guaranteed profits or market timing.

In addition, not every politician is an expert investor, and many hold portfolios riskier than most professionals would recommend. Following these trades too closely can expose you to unnecessary volatility or lead you to overlook your own financial goals. Always balance congressional data with your personal risk tolerance, time horizon, and a diversified investment approach.

Tip

Two exchange-traded funds (ETFs) now let you mirror congressional trades—the Democratic-focused NANC and Republican-focused GOP. Since launching in February 2023, the Democratic ETF has significantly outperformed with a 58.9% return compared with the Republican ETF’s 30.2% return. Both funds charge a high expense ratio (0.74%) and face trading and information delays since trades aren’t disclosed for up to 90 days after they occur.

The Bottom Line

The STOCK Act provides important access to what lawmakers are buying and selling. While tracking these moves can offer insights into emerging sectors or companies that may be in the regulatory spotlight, remember that disclosure delays and enforcement gaps limit the practical value for investment timing.

The real story here may be transparency itself. As public pressure mounts for stricter rules or outright trading bans, these disclosures serve more as a window into potential conflicts of interest than a reliable investment strategy.

Source link

Assessing national redistricting fight as midterm vote begins

Donald Trump has never been one to play by the rules.

Whether it’s stiffing contractors as a real estate developer, defying court orders he doesn’t like as president or leveraging the Oval Office to vastly inflate his family’s fortune, Trump’s guiding principle can be distilled to a simple, unswerving calculation: What’s in it for me?

Trump is no student of history. He’s famously allergic to books. But he knows enough to know that midterm elections like the one in November have, with few exceptions, been ugly for the party holding the presidency.

With control of the House — and Trump’s virtually unchecked authority — dangling by a gossamer thread, he reckoned correctly that Republicans were all but certain to lose power this fall unless something unusual happened.

So he effectively broke the rules.

Normally, the redrawing of the country’s congressional districts takes place once every 10 years, following the census and accounting for population changes over the previous decade. Instead, Trump prevailed upon the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, to throw out the state’s political map and refashion congressional lines to wipe out Democrats and boost GOP chances of winning as many as five additional House seats.

The intention was to create a bit of breathing room, as Democrats need a gain of just three seats to seize control of the House.

In relatively short order, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, responded with his own partisan gerrymander. He rallied voters to pass a tit-for-tat ballot measure, Proposition 50, which revised the state’s political map to wipe out Republicans and boost Democratic prospects of winning as many as five additional seats.

Then came the deluge.

In more than a dozen states, lawmakers looked at ways to tinker with their congressional maps to lift their candidates, stick it to the other party and gain House seats in November.

Some of those efforts continue, including in Virginia where, as in California, voters are being asked to amend the state Constitution to let majority Democrats redraw political lines ahead of the midterm. A special election is set for April 21.

But as the first ballots of 2026 are cast on Tuesday — in Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas — the broad contours of the House map have become clearer, along with the result of all those partisan machinations. The likely upshot is a nationwide partisan shift of fewer than a handful of seats.

The independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which has a sterling decades-long record of election forecasting, said the most probable outcome is a wash. “At the end of the day,” said Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, “this doesn’t really benefit either party in a real way.”

Well.

That was a lot of wasted time and energy.

Let’s take a quick spin through the map and the math, knowing that, of course, there are no election guarantees.

In Texas, for instance, new House districts were drawn assuming Latinos would back Republican candidates by the same large percentage they supported Trump in 2024. But that’s become much less certain, given the backlash against his draconian immigration enforcement policies; numerous polls show a significant falloff in Latino support for the president, which could hurt GOP candidates up and down the ballot.

But suppose Texas Republicans gain five seats as hoped for and California Democrats pick up the five seats they’ve hand-crafted. The result would be no net change.

Elsewhere, under the best case for each party, a gain of four Democratic House seats in Virginia would be offset by a gain of four Republican House seats in Florida.

That leaves a smattering of partisan gains here and there. A combined pickup of four or so Republican seats in Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri could be mostly offset by Democratic gains of a seat apiece in New York, Maryland and Utah.

(The latter is not a result of legislative high jinks, but rather a judge throwing out the gerrymandered map passed by Utah Republicans, who ignored a voter-approved ballot measure intended to prevent such heavy-handed partisanship. A newly created district, contained entirely within Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, seems certain to go Democrats’ way in November.)

In short, it’s easy to characterize the political exertions of Trump, Abbott, Newsom and others as so much sound and fury producing, at bottom, little to nothing.

But that’s not necessarily so.

The campaign surrounding Proposition 50 delivered a huge political boost to Newsom, shoring up his standing with Democrats, significantly raising his profile across the country and, not least for his 2028 presidential hopes, helping the governor build a significant nationwide fundraising base.

In crimson-colored Indiana, Republicans refused to buckle under tremendous pressure from Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other party leaders, rejecting an effort to redraw the state’s congressional map and give the GOP a hold on all nine House seats. That showed even Trump’s Svengali-like hold on his party has its limits.

But the biggest impact is also the most corrosive.

By redrawing political lines to predetermine the outcome of House races, politicians rendered many of their voters irrelevant and obsolete. Millions of Democrats in Texas, Republicans in California and partisans in other states have been effectively disenfranchised, their voices rendered mute. Their ballots spindled and nullified.

In short, the politicians — starting with Trump — extended a big middle finger to a large portion of the American electorate.

Is it any wonder, then, so many voters hold politicians and our political system in contempt?

Source link