File Under: Who Didn't See This Coming

#51
#51
mmmmm, the article only mentions two specificis, banking and mortgage. I don't see any mention of stock brokerages, for example.
 
#52
#52
BigPapaVol said:
All market bubbles tend to work this way. Remember the tech bubble? Who's fault was that? Regulators?
Click to expand...

clearly it was the fault of the executives that cashed out their stock options for millions and left joe sixpack with nothing in the end.
 
#53
#53
lawgator1 said:
mmmmm, the article only mentions two specificis, banking and mortgage. I don't see any mention of stock brokerages, for example.
Click to expand...
did you miss the opening sentence? The financial services industry is the target and this is the opening salvo.
 
#55
#55
OrangeEmpire said:
Yeah, blame the evil business person! Barney had nothing to do with it!

barney-frank-chutzpah.jpg
Click to expand...

OE you know full well that Barney would never be in bed with Fannie Mae. He would choose Freddie Mac every time
 
#57
#57
BigPapaVol said:
did you miss the opening sentence? The financial services industry is the target and this is the opening salvo.
Click to expand...


I saw what the lead was, yes. And then I read the actual facts of the story. Not surprisingly they don't really match up very well.
 
#58
#58
lawgator1 said:
I saw what the lead was, yes. And then I read the actual facts of the story. Not surprisingly they don't really match up very well.
Click to expand...

Then the story doesn't reflect reality. The idiot and all of his minions have villified Wall St. From day 1.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#60
#60
volinbham said:
Well I was wrong when I suggested you could read. The article is about the banking industry. It also mentions that the mortgage industry might be included.
Click to expand...

Sometimes could read and did read are about as different as can read and can't read.
 
#63
#63
lawgator1 said:
mmmmm, the article only mentions two specificis, banking and mortgage. I don't see any mention of stock brokerages, for example.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me you think this doesn't apply to Wall Street?

Did you really read the article? Did you see the graphic showing "Wall Street Bonuses"? Did you read the part about firms receiving TARP money already having their bonuses capped as an example of what is in store. Did you read the part where this will be rolled out along side the other regulatory changes to the financial markets. Do you think the word "bank" means simply a deposit/loan style bank? Most importantly do you think they would worry about compensation only for "banks" and possibly mortgage companies while leaving Wall Street alone? :blink:
 
#64
#64
volinbham said:
Are you telling me you think this doesn't apply to Wall Street?

Did you really read the article? Did you see the graphic showing "Wall Street Bonuses"? Did you read the part about firms receiving TARP money already having their bonuses capped as an example of what is in store. Did you read the part where this will be rolled out along side the other regulatory changes to the financial markets. Do you think the word "bank" means simply a deposit/loan style bank? Most importantly do you think they would worry about compensation only for "banks" and possibly mortgage companies while leaving Wall Street alone? :blink:
Click to expand...


I said a couple of times above that the theory does not bother me as much as it does you, though based on your posts it seems to me that your primary concern is one of how it will be put in place in practice and whether it will be more expansive than what is public, at this point.

I'd like to see it before making that judgment. But I can understand why people would view this as potentially too broad, just as I would ask that they acknowledge that, in theory, it has the potential to be a decent idea.

Until we see what is proposed, its just histronics on both sides.
 
#65
#65
lawgator1 said:
I said a couple of times above that the theory does not bother me as much as it does you, though based on your posts it seems to me that your primary concern is one of how it will be put in place in practice and whether it will be more expansive than what is public, at this point.

My primary concern is NOT how it will be put in practice - it is that it would be put in practice at all. Also, I think the article clearly states that this would be across the financial services sector not just "banks" as you suggest. (I think your definition of bank is too narrow).

I'd like to see it before making that judgment. But I can understand why people would view this as potentially too broad, just as I would ask that they acknowledge that, in theory, it has the potential to be a decent idea.

What is your argument against the government regulating the compensation of lawyers? doctors? teachers?

Until we see what is proposed, its just histronics on both sides.
Click to expand...

I see virtually no merit to the idea however implemented. Put the power in the hands of the owners of the company. Alternatively, let the government regulate the pay of all sectors. Certainly there are incentives in the pay of lawyers that don't result in "optimum" decisions (whatever that means) - why not regulate their compensation?
 
#66
#66
volinbham said:
I see virtually no merit to the idea however implemented. Put the power in the hands of the owners of the company. Alternatively, let the government regulate the pay of all sectors. Certainly there are incentives in the pay of lawyers that don't result in "optimum" decisions (whatever that means) - why not regulate their compensation?
Click to expand...

Lawyers are indeed a pure transaction cost, as are banks and other financial service providers. And while one could certainly make an argument that individual lawyers have been making way too much money, they are regulated by the state bars, only. And the state bars cap and limit fees. Florida, for example, has limits on contingency cases.

I just don't think that translates well to the context of this. For one thing, lawyers' fees are capped in that environemt of personal injury suits, which is what has everyone so pissed at them -- me included.

(Doctor charges to get capped by Medicare and Medicaid, which is fairly signfiicant part of any doc's practice.)
 
#67
#67
I would argue that the incentive structure for many lawyers encourages short-term revenue maximization. Shouldn't the government tell law firms how to pay their lawyers?
 
#68
#68
volinbham said:
I would argue that the incentive structure for many lawyers encourages short-term revenue maximization. Shouldn't the government tell law firms how to pay their lawyers?
Click to expand...


Link?

We already have pretty good proof of that in mortgage industry.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top