RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Email
HomeMadoff Ruling: More Reason Not to Trust Wall Street or Washington
Posted by Larry Doyle on March 1st, 2010 1:03 PM |
On the heels of my commentary this morning addressing why Harry Markopolos feels America’s citizens should not trust the government, we receive more fuel for the fire.
The timing of this release is truly uncanny:
MADOFF JUDGE’S RULING REDUCES PROTECTIONS AGAINST PONZI SCHEMES FOR ALL SECURITIES INVESTORS
Judge rules SIPC does not have to insure every account up to $500,000, shifts burden of Madoff losses to American taxpayer. (more…)
Madoff Investors Suing SIPC
Posted by Larry Doyle on February 24th, 2010 2:39 PM |
You can rest assured that the powers that be on Wall Street would just as soon have the Madoff saga over. The Madoff scam perpetrated on investors is an ugly reminder of the non-existent financial regulatory system during the better part of the last twenty years.
I also believe many in Washington also might like to see the Madoff saga quietly pass by. The failures of the SEC, FINRA, and SIPC in this greatest of scams are an ugly reminder of the Wall Street-Washington incest.
Well, while many of the incestuous partners would like to turn the page, there remains a lot of filth that still needs to be cleaned up and a lot of individuals and institutions that need to be held to account. (more…)
New York Times’ Thomas Friedman: “We Have to Demand the Truth”
Posted by Larry Doyle on February 22nd, 2010 6:05 AM |
Without the truth, we are mere slaves to a corrupt system and will never control or master our destiny.
I don’t write this premise whimsically nor do I accept it as a given. The fact is, our forefathers are rolling over in their graves right now given the fatuous culture our society has not only tolerated but promoted. I continually call for the pursuit of truth, transparency and integrity while navigating the economic landscape for the very reason that without these virtues we are doomed as a nation.
High five to AL for pointing out that none other than Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times drills this very point in writing, The Fat Lady Has Sung. Whether you agree with Friedman’s politics is immaterial. (more…)
WSJ Hits Mary Schapiro Hard on ‘Say on Pay’ but That’s Only Tip of the Iceberg
Posted by Larry Doyle on February 20th, 2010 11:58 AM |
The target on SEC Chair Mary Schapiro’s back is getting larger and gaining more focus. How so?
The lead editorial in this weekend’s edition of The Wall Street Journal goes after Schapiro hard in writing, Mary Schapiro’s Say on Pay. While the editorial leads with the ongoing battle Schapiro and the SEC are having with Bank of America’s lack of disclosure during its merger with Merrill Lynch, the Journal quickly turns the tables on Ms. Schapiro and addresses the lack of disclosure at Ms. Schapiro’s former haunt, FINRA.
Come to papa.
Regular readers of Sense on Cents are well aware of how consistently and steadily I have been banging this FINRA drum. It is long past due that America is truly introduced to Wall Street’s self-regulatory organization, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). (more…)
Paul Volcker Talks ‘Sense on Cents’
Posted by Larry Doyle on February 13th, 2010 2:52 PM |
Paul Volcker
What will the future of Wall Street hold? No man is attracting more attention regarding that very question than former Fed Chair Paul Volcker. What might the Volcker Rule mean for Wall Street? For those with an interest in the global economy and markets, Volcker provided an extensive interview recently to the Financial Times.
In this interview, the former Fed chair talks more ‘sense on cents’ than anybody I have come across since launching this blog a year ago. I STRONGLY recommend reading it and saving it. Volcker’s interview will serve as a fabulous reference map as we collectively navigate our economic landscape.
Paul Volcker is seen as one of the wise men of American public life. As chairman of the Federal Reserve under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan he subdued inflation, for which he is lauded today, although it was controversial at the time. After President Obama’s election, Mr Volcker was made chairman of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, a position which initially seemed largely ceremonial. But Mr Volcker returned to the centre of financial and economic debate last month when Mr Obama endorsed his proposed separation of commercial banking and proprietary trading, a plan dubbed the “Volcker Rule”. (more…)
Toyota:Wall Street as NHTSA:SEC/FINRA
Posted by Larry Doyle on February 12th, 2010 10:35 AM |
When regulators are in bed with industry, bad things happen. When regulators actually go to work for the industry, then really bad things happen.
Evidence of this dynamic on Wall Street is overwhelming. Yet, don’t think that Wall Street has a monopoly on this incest. Bloomberg highlights that incestuous activity has also played out in the disaster encompassing Toyota. Bloomberg reports, Regulators Hired by Toyota Helped Halt Investigations:
Former regulators hired by Toyota Motor Corp. helped end at least four U.S. investigations of unintended acceleration by company vehicles in the last decade, warding off possible recalls, court and government records show. (more…)
Proprietary Trading Did Bring Down Wall Street
Posted by Larry Doyle on February 3rd, 2010 12:37 PM |
The Wall Street lobby in all its glory is fighting tooth and nail to defend its turf from the volley launched by former Fed Chair Paul Volcker. Recall that the newly designated Volcker Rule, if implemented, would disallow proprietary activities from those institutions taking consumer deposits. This implementation would effectively reinstitute the Glass-Steagall Act which was rescinded in 1999.
The proprietary activities most often highlighted by those in the banking community are investment and trading activity within private equity, hedge fund and prop trading desks. The banks are screaming that these activities should not and need not be separated from their overall operations because these activities did not cause our economic crisis. They would be correct on one hand, but how convenient that their definition of proprietary is not truly comprehensive. How so? (more…)
The Best of Wall Street
Posted by Larry Doyle on December 23rd, 2009 9:39 AM |
Regular readers of Sense on Cents are well aware that I have not been bashful to call out the financial industry whenever or wherever I thought it was deficient. Those deficiencies have been on the regulatory front, investor protection, abusive sales practices, questionable accounting, and more. Although these shortcomings have been highlighted in the midst of the recent economic crisis, the fact is many of them have been prevalent for a protracted period. In light of that, I am often asked the question as to why I pursued a career on Wall Street? How could I reconcile working within an industry that perpetuated such shortcomings?
My answer to those who ask such questions is the following:
1. In the course of day to day activities, the rank and file on Wall Street are not truly impacted by the overarching financial regulatory system. That system clearly has a major influence on the industry, but for those who kept their nose clean the regulators were a non-event.
From my current perch, I have a dramatically different view of the regulators and am happy to expose their shortcomings.
2. I loved the challenge of the industry! How could I utilize my intellect along with my instincts to assess how the market would move? This challenge was a daily event and was unbelievably stimulating.
3. The single greatest factor which drove my career and why I loved working on Wall Street was the competition. Regardless of where I was working at the time, I so badly wanted to compete and beat my counterparts at the other shops. How did this competition play out? I wanted to develop relationships with institutional customers so that whenever they had business to transact, they felt compelled to engage me. The competition was the daily adrenaline. There was nothing like it. The competition and results were only rewarding from the standpoint that my core values of honesty and integrity were never compromised.
I loved it.
LD
British Taxman Whacks ‘The City’
Posted by Larry Doyle on December 9th, 2009 9:04 AM |
You’re a mean one, Mr. Grinch…!!
Are British bankers headed to the pub early today to drown their sorrows? Little doubt, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling (British equivalent to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner) announced that year-end bonus pools for British banks will be hit with a one-time, top line tax of 50%!! Ouch!!
Bloomberg provides a brief synopsis this morning in writing, Darling Levies 50% Tax on U.K. Bank Bonuses Above 25,000 Pounds:
Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling said he will impose a one-time 50 percent tax on banks for all bonus payments of more than 25,000 pounds ($41,000).
The tax, effective from today until April 5, will be levied as a surcharge on the employer. It will apply to all banks and building societies operating in the U.K., including subsidiaries of foreign banks.
The Treasury estimates the tax will raise about 500 million pounds and affect about 20,000 bankers.
What does this mean? Take 50% off the top line of the bonus pool and then distribute the balance. Those bonus proceeds are then subject to the U.K.’s current tax rates, the maximum of which is right now 40%.
Add it all up and the effective tax rate for the majority of the bankers impacted is between 65 and 70%!!
What does the crowd in Washington and on Wall Street think about that?
While I am not one for increasing taxes, the fact is the British banks and the U.S. banks were saved by the taxpayers. This tax is merely a return of some of the taxpayers’ money.
While the bankers will view Darling as Mr. Grinch, do you think the unemployed laborer in the U.K. or here in America has any real sympathy for those in the City or on Wall Street?
Would the crowd in Washington have the stones to impose a similar one-time hit on Wall Street?
LD
Can One Earn an Honest Living on Wall Street?
Posted by Larry Doyle on November 13th, 2009 8:29 AM |
You have the reputation you deserve.
While there are certainly instances where individuals are misunderstood or situations that are construed differently, a reputation is neither determined nor changed based upon one event. A reputation is ultimately a compilation of data points. That data does not belie what some individuals and industries may like to project.
That said, an industry’s reputation can often be largely determined by the high profile and influential behaviors of a small subset, especially if that minority is not properly regulated. Such is the world of Wall Street.
Does the fact that Wall Street has an awful reputation implicate a majority or even a significant percentage of individuals in this industry as being morally bankrupt? That is not the Wall Street on which I worked for 23 years. To that end, I take serious exception to an article written by Bloomberg’s Alice Schroeder, Wall Street Makes It Hard to Earn a Legal Living. Ms. Schroeder writes:
A group of university students I spoke to recently asked if it was possible to make a living on Wall Street without compromising your values. I had to tell them no.
How uncanny. I spoke to a group of college students last evening at my alma mater, College of the Holy Cross, and I shared with them the exact opposite. I highlighted that embracing core values and spreading them was both necessary and possible for developing a long-term, successful career.
I will readily admit that questionable trade practices – if not outright fraud – have grown on Wall Street over the years. There was certainly plenty of this activity when I went to Wall Street in the early ’80s and there will be thirty years from now.
The problem is not and never has been the industry. The problem is and always will be the individual.
I would maintain that people who seemingly forsake values and principles for profit most likely never had many values or principles in the first place. Do people go bad? Of course. Can people be reformed? Of course. Do people rationalize behaviors in terms of ‘everybody else is doing it?’ All the time. Does this mean that one can’t earn an honest and legal living on Wall Street? Please, anything but.
There will always be bad seeds in every pot. To deal with those, it is imperative that the regulatory crowd is beyond reproach and aggressive. On that front, I will readily admit that Wall Street regulation has been exceptionally deficient.
In light of all this, can one earn a legal living on Wall Street? The overwhelming population on Wall Street is doing it everyday . . . and that message comes from one who is willing to call Wall Street out for all its shortcomings.
High five to RG for bringing this article to my attention. Now you want to talk about principled and upstanding, RG and all the Gs are exactly that.
Comments, questions, constructive criticism always appreciated.
LD
