Congress Nailed the Timing on UNH — Can Retail Traders Still Catch Up?

• Members of Congress disclosed
• This has reignited debate about whether lawmakers should be allowed to trade stocks at all.
• Nancy Pelosi’s household net worth
• History shows lawmakers’ portfolios tend to outperform—raising eyebrows about “inside knowledge.”
• Traders wonder:

The Perfectly Timed Trade

On August 4th, a disclosure revealed that Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene bought shares of UnitedHealth Group. Eleven days later, the stock bounced hard, rewarding her timing with the kind of precision most traders only dream of.

Coincidence? Maybe.
Suspicious? Definitely.
Funny? Without question.

Because while the rest of us are pouring over charts, squinting at technical indicators, and debating if CPI data will crush or fuel our positions, members of Congress seem to trade with the confidence of someone who already knows the ending to the movie.

And it’s not just UNH. Similar patterns have played out in tech, defense, energy—you name it. If you’ve ever wondered what it would look like if the people who make the rules also played the game, well, this is it.

Congress and the Market: A Love Story

It might shock some readers to know that members of Congress are not only allowed to buy and sell stocks, but many of them actively do so. In fact, platforms like QuiverQuant and Capitol Trades exist almost entirely to track these transactions.

And the results? They’re… impressive. Studies have shown that Congressional trades routinely outperform the broader market. Suddenly that old saying “don’t fight the Fed” feels like it needs a sequel: “don’t fade Congress.”

If you’ve ever thought to yourself, “Hey, maybe I’m just bad at trading,” the truth might be harsher: you’re just not writing legislation that directly affects the companies you’re trading.

The Pelosi Portfolio Problem

Nancy Pelosi’s name is practically synonymous with this conversation. Her household’s net worth has been estimated north of $100 million, and much of that wealth has come from stock trading—particularly in tech companies that just so happen to be affected by congressional policy decisions.

To put it in perspective: her annual Speaker salary was around $223,500. A tidy sum, sure, but nowhere near enough to explain the growth of her fortune. Unless, of course, you factor in decades of well-timed trades in companies like Tesla, Nvidia, and Microsoft.

Pelosi isn’t alone, though. Across the aisle, lawmakers from both parties boast seven-, eight-, even nine-figure net worths. If politics is supposedly “public service,” then someone forgot to tell their brokerage accounts.

Is It Ethical?

Here’s where the humor stops feeling funny. Because the question is simple:
Should people who have direct influence over policies—healthcare regulations, defense contracts, antitrust reviews—be allowed to profit from trading those very companies?

It’s like letting the referees in the NBA place bets on the game they’re officiating. Even if they swear it’s fair, the optics are terrible.

The STOCK Act of 2012 was supposed to bring transparency, requiring members of Congress to disclose trades. But it didn’t stop them from trading—it just meant the rest of us could watch in real time as they “coincidentally” bought Lockheed Martin before a defense budget increase, or scooped up Google stock before hearings on AI regulation.

Transparency is nice, sure. But fairness? That’s still missing in action.

Are We Early, or Are We Always Late?

For traders reading this, the takeaway is less about moral philosophy and more about practical reality. Congress bought UnitedHealth before the pop. The pop has happened. Now what?

You could chase the move and hope momentum carries it further. Or you could step back, recognize that Congress already got the best seat in the house, and wait for the next disclosure. Because if history tells us anything, another “coincidental” trade is always around the corner.

At the end of the day, it leaves retail traders in a strange spot:

• Early?
• On time?
• Late?

My Game Plan on UNH

Now let’s cut through the noise and talk trading. UnitedHealth’s rebound was impressive, but chasing after Congress has already rung the register isn’t my style. Instead, I’ll be waiting for a dip.

The stock is still fundamentally strong—healthcare demand, insurance dominance, and steady cash flow make it a name worth owning over the long haul. So while Congress may have grabbed a nice short-term win, I’m eyeing a longer-view long position on UNH if we pull back into value.

Think of it this way: Congress might have nailed the timing on this leg, but there’s plenty of game left to play. And I’d rather take my shot when the odds line up than jump in just because lawmakers caught a bounce.

Final Thought: The Joke’s On Us

The irony is rich. We debate whether to scalp a few points on an index future while Congress quietly drops disclosures that would make hedge fund managers jealous. And they do it all while calling themselves “public servants.”

The reality is this: if Congress keeps winning the timing game, maybe it’s not because they’re smarter traders—it’s because they’re playing with information we’ll never see in real time.

And that means the joke isn’t just on the market. The joke’s on us.

Errol Coleman appears on the tastylive network shows Today’s Assignment and Trades on the Go.

For live daily programming, market news and commentary, visit tastylive or the YouTube channels tastylive (for options traders), and #tastyliveTrending for stocks, futures, forex & macro. 

Trade with a better broker, open a tastytrade account today. tastylive Inc. and tastytrade Inc. are separate but affiliated companies.