Posted by Marc Hodak on July 7, 2010 under Politics | 
From today’s news, regarding how far down the income scale that tax increases are going to hit:
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, said he didn’t think there was “any magic” in $250,000. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noted “you could go lower … why not $200,000? With the debt and deficit we have, you can’t make promises to people.”
Se. Feinstein, who voted for Medicare expansion and ObamaCare, did not intend irony.
Posted by Marc Hodak on under Economics, Patterns without intention |
The first approach is counting on government to do it from the center, as reported a few weeks back:
Don’t laugh, but Uncle Sam wants to teach you how to manage your money.
Tucked into the new financial-overhaul bill that Congress is working to finish is a new Office of Financial Literacy to help consumers learn about savings, debt and credit scores.
There is an obvious irony in a debt-laden, budget-challenged government offering financial education. But there is a deeper problem: While nearly everyone agrees that Americans of all ages and income levels could be more financially astute, no one has a good plan for making it happen.
(Raising my hand.) Oh, I have a great idea! Choose me! Choose me!
Why not just ask all those government run schools to teach financial literacy alongside reading, writing, and math, and before inorganic chemistry and trigonometry. If a school really wants to go whole hog, they have only to look at a great example of what works.
Posted by Marc Hodak on under Regulation without regulators |
The WSJ comes up with a story about a novel idea;
Even before a financial-regulatory overhaul takes effect, some big investors are imposing their own rules on risk.
Several public and corporate pension funds are curtailing or revisiting their use of derivatives out of concern for hidden risks they may carry. In Oklahoma, a public pension fund replaced Pacific Investment Management Co., led by well-known investor William Gross, as one of its bond-fund managers, citing the risks of its use of derivatives whose values couldn’t be cross-checked in audits.
In other words, big investors are actually looking for ways to account for risk as well as returns in their investing strategy–without the government forcing them to do it!
For those of us with finance training, which you’d think any major fund could afford and would consider a prerequisite to opening their doors, accounting for risk seems like a logical step rather than a great leap. Reviewing one’s risk management in the aftermath of a financial crisis would seem like something your parents wouldn’t need to remind you about. If the Okies don’t understand what Bill Gross is doing, they should get out of his fund (or hire a Wharton grad who gets this stuff, or both).
In my mind, the real headline would be, “Major investment fund does not change its M.O. after financial crisis.” The would be the story of the only two financial firms not affected by the pending financial reform bill.
