What I also don't get about the cap proposal -- traditional IRAs already have a tax-free contribution limit per year, so what would the cap change?
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Monday, 6 May 2013 15:06 (eleven years ago) link
again he has not written '66 pieces for forbes', forbes allows basically anyone to start a forbes blog
― iatee, Monday, 6 May 2013 15:07 (eleven years ago) link
the seeking alpha of money magazines
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Monday, 6 May 2013 15:09 (eleven years ago) link
Don't care about a Forbes blog, or the W, Post editorial re a Forbes blog, here's the USA Today(!):
The president's proposed budget would cap IRAs and other retirement plans at $3 million, but it could fall below that in future years.
It's not easy to get more than $3 million in a retirement account, which includes IRAs, 401(k) and 403(b) plans. Currently, the cap would affect just 0.03% of retirement accounts, says the Employee Benefit Research Institute.
But despite the above:
Capping IRA could deter savings without helping reduce the deficit, Ronald O'Hanley, president of Asset Management and Corporate Services at Fidelity Investments, argued at a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Wednesday. Most retirement programs are tax deferrals, not tax breaks, he argues: Savers pay taxes when they withdraw. "Not only will such a proposal further challenge retirement savings, it will not generate additional revenue," he says.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/04/10/presidents-budget-plan-iras-cap/2071529/
Sure buddy.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 6 May 2013 15:30 (eleven years ago) link
http://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/141013/goldman-sachs-hires-particle-physicist-from-the-large-hadron-collider/
― 乒乓, Thursday, 16 May 2013 12:08 (eleven years ago) link
New rules to regulate derivatives, adopted last week by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, are a victory for Wall Street
That's from the New York Times
http://truth-out.org/video/item/16500-banks-win-big-as-regulators-refuse-to-rein-in-700-trillion-derivatives-market
A discussion of it from elsewhere
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 22 May 2013 15:06 (eleven years ago) link
Upthread there are comments from Hurting 2 and others about how you can't charge Wall Street folks for actions that are not crimes.
This won't help:
May 24 New York Times
DEALBOOK Banks' Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills By ERIC LIPTON and BEN PROTESS In a sign of Wall Street's resurgent influence in Washington, bank lobbyists are aiding lawmakers in drafting legislation that softens financial regulations
― curmudgeon, Friday, 24 May 2013 14:02 (eleven years ago) link
'lobbyists help draft bills' is not a news story
― iatee, Friday, 24 May 2013 14:06 (eleven years ago) link
It's news to the extent that the details go counter to the Obama and Democratic party PR meme re enforcement of Dodd-Frank (yep I know its only been pr and never really true). I was gonna add that myself, but it's worth mentioning how its still going on, business as usual, although that's no surprise either.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 24 May 2013 14:16 (eleven years ago) link
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/banks-lobbyists-help-in-drafting-financial-bills/
One bill that sailed through the House Financial Services Committee this month — over the objections of the Treasury Department — was essentially Citigroup’s, according to e-mails reviewed by The New York Times. The bill would exempt broad swathes of trades from new regulation.
― iatee, Friday, 24 May 2013 14:19 (eleven years ago) link
do you know what that means
it means absolutely nothing because the bill will not be passed
Representative Maxine Waters, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, was among the few Democrats opposing the change, echoing the concerns of consumer groups.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 24 May 2013 14:28 (eleven years ago) link
A watered-down compromise version that will satisfy Wall Street may pass though
― curmudgeon, Friday, 24 May 2013 14:29 (eleven years ago) link
Grassley said in a statement late Wednesday he had not heard from the White House about Comey's nomination but said Comey possessed a lot of important experience on national security issues.
"But, if he's nominated, he would have to answer questions about his recent work in the hedge fund industry," Grassley said. "The administration's efforts to criminally prosecute Wall Street for its part in the economic downturn have been abysmal, and his agency would have to help build the case against some of his colleagues."
Senator Grassley, man of the people
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 30 May 2013 13:47 (eleven years ago) link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/31/join-wall-street-save-the-world/?hpid=z1
Hedge fund types who give large chunks of their salary to fighting malaria and other charities
― curmudgeon, Friday, 31 May 2013 19:06 (ten years ago) link
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_06/dim_prospects_for_brownvitter045192.php
Bipartisan tougher regulation for big banks not likely to go anywhere
― curmudgeon, Monday, 10 June 2013 18:33 (ten years ago) link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/alexis-goldstein-the-intimidate-the-ctfc-act/2013/06/12/18451f48-d374-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html?hpid=z2
So derivatives experts, is this Occupy guy's guest editorial regarding a derivatives bill wrong?
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 12 June 2013 18:14 (ten years ago) link
Occupy person
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 12 June 2013 18:15 (ten years ago) link
that basically makes sense. iirc lots of components of bank operations are in london instead of e.g. ny because of different regulations. including, especially, the ability to take something you've gotten as a swap from someone else, and in turn engage in a swap with it, etc. so that big pools of capital can be generated from just swapping the same things back and forth.
― stefon taylor swiftboat (s.clover), Thursday, 13 June 2013 12:01 (ten years ago) link
We're doomed
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 13 June 2013 14:46 (ten years ago) link
here's the paper i was thinking of on this stuff. singh has done lots of follow-on research too. gotta love the term 'rehypothication'!
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.cfm?sk=24075.0
― stefon taylor swiftboat (s.clover), Thursday, 13 June 2013 19:42 (ten years ago) link
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/swap-jurisdiction-certainty-act-house-cross-border
More on House efforts to weaken financial oversight
― curmudgeon, Friday, 14 June 2013 14:38 (ten years ago) link
man wall street today is just like "STIMULUS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!"
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Thursday, 20 June 2013 19:21 (ten years ago) link
one of my cousins is a hedge fund manager of a rather influential euro fund.
so much so, that the bonus he received a few years back was worthy of press attention ..
so, a few inquiries within the family boundaries revealed that he hated the crap he was involved in and that he wanted to pack it all in and do good with his ill gotten gained fortune.
well, 5 years later.
he's still f*cking us all over and picking up his bonuses ..
― mark e, Thursday, 20 June 2013 19:27 (ten years ago) link
the only people who walk away from hedge fund bonuses is no one
― now is not the time for motorboating (dandydonweiner), Thursday, 20 June 2013 19:31 (ten years ago) link
imo hedge fund managers "fuck us all over" less than big banks.
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Thursday, 20 June 2013 19:33 (ten years ago) link
the ones I know aren't intent on fucking anyone over, unless you count the way that they validate their management fees.
The ones I know usually say things like, "Yes, the compensation in our industry is borderline embarrassing. Everyone is overpaid."
Aww shucks.
― now is not the time for motorboating (dandydonweiner), Thursday, 20 June 2013 19:35 (ten years ago) link
if anything, they fuck over their own rich clients
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Thursday, 20 June 2013 19:37 (ten years ago) link
the guys I know would probably agree, but only in the context of "we make them shitloads of money and they fully agree to our terms"
― now is not the time for motorboating (dandydonweiner), Thursday, 20 June 2013 19:43 (ten years ago) link
or, as like to call that, blame it on the client for being stupid
― now is not the time for motorboating (dandydonweiner), Thursday, 20 June 2013 19:44 (ten years ago) link
thing is my cousin is genuinely a good man.he has a big heart and is not the oliver stone cliche.and given my insight, he clearly is at war with his inner world.but he has a certain financial demand now (wife, staff, kids, private schools etc in that order), and so has to maintain a certain level of lifestyle.so, while his world may look special from the outside, give me the stress free lifestyle that i have built up instead anyday.despite the stupid bonus, poor f*cker has it tuff.seriously.i like being 'normal'
― mark e, Thursday, 20 June 2013 19:45 (ten years ago) link
all the demands you speak of were choices. if he has it tough, it was not imposed on him and his staying with his previous choices is still largely elective. (not the kids, tho)
― Aimless, Thursday, 20 June 2013 19:59 (ten years ago) link
@aimless : totally ..
for all the blood connection i have to him, i have little sympathy for the path he has chosen ..
― mark e, Thursday, 20 June 2013 20:53 (ten years ago) link
sometimes a person builds his own prison and then loses the key -- not the most sympathetic case when the prison has jacuzzi hot tubs and 5,000 square foot loft-style cells, but still, a person can get himself on a path and have trouble getting off
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Thursday, 20 June 2013 21:17 (ten years ago) link
NY Dems and others tring to weaken the law again
Recently, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Gillibrand and four other Democratic senators wrote to the Treasury secretary, Jacob Lew, seeking his help in shelving crucial “cross-border” guidelines on derivatives from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The guidance makes it clear that numerous new derivatives rules under the Dodd-Frank law apply to foreign affiliates of American banks and to foreign banks operating in the United States.
Without strong cross-border rules, derivatives regulation will be meaningless because big American banks that dominate the global market in derivatives will simply engage in risky trades and rank speculation abroad. When those risks and wagers go wrong, American institutions and American taxpayers will be on the hook — again.... Mr. Schumer, Ms. Gillibrand and their four colleagues are not only going against lawmakers in their own party, most of whom have resisted attempts to delay the cross-border rules. They are also going against the cause of reform, lobbying for delays that would derail the law.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 5 July 2013 14:44 (ten years ago) link
trying.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 5 July 2013 14:45 (ten years ago) link
constituent service is not dead
― Aimless, Friday, 5 July 2013 17:51 (ten years ago) link
Exactly; and some constituents get better service than others.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 5 July 2013 18:32 (ten years ago) link
Oh, those quotes above are from a NY Times piece btw
― curmudgeon, Friday, 5 July 2013 18:33 (ten years ago) link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dodd-frank-executive-pay-rule-still-in-limbo-amid-pushback-from-corporate-america/2013/07/06/94a8c9e0-d793-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_singlePage.html
The provision required companies to disclose how much more their chief executives made than other employees. All the agency had to do was write a rule telling firms how to comply.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 8 July 2013 15:23 (ten years ago) link
that would be a massively meaningless and ineffectual rule anyway
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Monday, 8 July 2013 16:28 (ten years ago) link
You buy the reasoning that the companies oppose it? Information to the public is good even if it alone won't change anything.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 8 July 2013 16:56 (ten years ago) link
Advocates contest the notion that calculating the ratio is impractical. “That’s absurd. It’s not that complicated,’’ said Lisa Donner, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform, an umbrella group of organizations pushing for the pay ratio. She accused the SEC of “bowing” to industry lobbyists and ”slow-walking” the issue.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 8 July 2013 17:04 (ten years ago) link
With conservative dominated courts blocking rules that could be effective (see below), at least providing further information on pay ratio seems to be all that's left
A federal appeals court in the District in July 2011 blocked the SEC’s “proxy access” rule, a requirement under the Dodd-Frank law that would have made it easier for shareholders to oust members of corporate boards and nominate new ones.
In a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, the court blasted the SEC for failing to fully consider the economic impact of the regulation. The decision cast a pall, forcing the agency to devote far more time to analyzing the costs of its proposals, including the pay ratio.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 8 July 2013 17:46 (ten years ago) link
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/regulators-seek-stiffer-bank-rules-on-capital/?ref=business
Wow, we will eventually see after the 60 day comment period and whatever else whether this will hold.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 10 July 2013 14:24 (ten years ago) link
― curmudgeon, Monday, 8 July 2013 16:56 (2 days ago) Permalink
I don't see it as providing all that much "information." The CEO's total compensation is already publicly disclosed. The median employee's compensation --the bottom part of the ratio -- isn't, but it's not going to vary that widely from huge company to huge company.
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 10 July 2013 15:08 (ten years ago) link
So why do you think the big corporations so engaged in opposing this? They just don't want to do the math needed to calculate the ratio? Or do they just automatically oppose anything Congress wants them to do.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 10 July 2013 15:42 (ten years ago) link
tbf probably because it has bad optics for them, which I guess is maybe part of the idea -- give people another stick to beat them with. There's already the say-on-pay provision in effect (non-binding shareholder vote approving/disapproving executive pay) which I think is more useful.
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 10 July 2013 15:51 (ten years ago) link
they oppose this for the same reason the gun lobby opposes sensible and harmless stuff
― iatee, Wednesday, 10 July 2013 15:53 (ten years ago) link