I can not make sense of the article. It says Paul Pelosi exercised call options and that the difference between market price and strike price is all profit.
WFT? How does that make any sense?
Is the author simply misunderstanding and/or spinning a yarn? Did Paul Pelosi tell him what his cost basis was? Probably a bunch of BS assumptions being made to make the story appear more exciting.
In Pelosi's case, the call options he'd previously bought for Alphabet (which were due to expire the day of his purchase) allowed him to buy it at $1,200 a share while the shares closed that day just over $2,500, a difference that accounted for his profit.
And what's this talk about exercising an option being a 'profit'?