Walk a $15M PTR disclosure through the analytical lens.
Same lens you'd apply to a 13F or Form 4 — applied to a Member of Congress's $15M Apple sale. Structured for CPE-eligible self-study (NASBA approval pending).
analysis — applied to a real $15M sale.
Members of Congress file PTRs under the within 45 days of any reportable trade. The disclosure shape is similar in spirit to a or — a primary public-source filing that anchors patterns you apply to client portfolios. We'll walk one row through a consistent analytical lens and capture each finding on a per-step audit trail.
The lens, applied to the disclosure.
Four analytical signals per row: (proximity of trade date to filed date, relative to the 45-day STOCK Act window), position size relative to the investor's own history (typical / larger / outsized), sector momentum (the sector ETF's 7-day return at the trade date), and (other investors in the visible universe trading the same ticker within a 7-day band). Each is a finding a fiduciary-review pass would flag — none is a recommendation.
What we can see
- Filed 30 days after the trade — within the normal disclosure window.
- A cluster of 3 other tracked investors traded AAPL that week — worth a look.
- Since this trade, AAPL is up about 15.89%.
- Nancy Pelosi has traded AAPL 2 times in the past year.
Questions to investigate
- Several different investors traded AAPL the same week. Are they on the same committee? Same party? Is there a common story they would all see?
- AAPL has moved meaningfully since this trade. What part of the thesis played out (or did not)?
As a Congressional member subject to STOCK Act disclosure, Nancy Pelosi is trimming technology exposure — reducing weight in AI/software names.
Sector returns are equal-weighted across this investor's disclosed buys over 24 months; SPY is the same-period benchmark. Educational use only — not advice.
Counterfactual: holding $100 of Apple through the trade window.
Historical results only. The deterministic $100 frame is useful as a client-conversation counterfactual — what would have happened to a held position, after the fact. Never as forward guidance. The number is observation, not prediction.
Historical results only. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This isn't a recommendation — it's the shape of the bet, after the fact.
The next two steps are interactive — you walk the trade and decide before you see what they did.
That part is free. We just need an account so we can keep your paper trades and your reasoning tied together. No card. No daily emails unless you ask for them.
Create a free account →