Financial News

[southsider2k5]

So you admit that your entire "It's clearly gone up faster under Sarb-Ox" point is BS?

 

Not at all. You have clearly kept changing the underlying numbers to make yours finally fit. Hence all of the different charting.

[Balta1701]

Not at all. You have clearly kept changing the underlying numbers to make yours finally fit. Hence all of the different charting.

I see, so your answer works in all circumstances and doesn't need to be supported or backed up. You just know it's true. It has to be, because you don't like that particular bill. I can't pick and choose the graph which shows that things pretty much track the S&P, but you can pick the version which ignores the S&P runup after 2005 to prove your point, and that's ok, because the bill is bad.

 

If I've changed numbers to "make mine finally fit"...you haven't presented any numbers at all, you just picked a particular version of the ones I presented that happens to work with the story you want to tell in the event that you ignore everything after 2005.

[southsider2k5]

I see, so your answer works in all circumstances and doesn't need to be supported or backed up. You just know it's true. It has to be, because you don't like that particular bill. I can't pick and choose the graph which shows that things pretty much track the S&P, but you can pick the version which ignores the S&P runup after 2005 to prove your point, and that's ok, because the bill is bad.

 

Right. I won't listen to the CEO's at all from these situations. I'll trust the manipulated data of the left instead.

[Balta1701]

Right. I won't listen to the CEO's at all from these situations. I'll trust the manipulated data of the left instead.

I see...so anecdotes from Republican VotingCEO's who you decide count are the only ones that count.

 

I'm going to go laugh this one off.

[NorthSideSox72]

OK look, there is no doubt that executive salaries at large firms in the US are going up faster than the salaries of the average worker. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

 

But here is what no one is saying - what do you want do about it? And what are the full consequences of those actions?

 

[southsider2k5]

I see...so anecdotes from Republican VotingCEO's who you decide count are the only ones that count.

 

I'm going to go laugh this one off.

 

The funny thing is you don't see the irony of your statement at all. Again, not really surprised, and more upset I wasted more time in one of your inane arguments that you stalked me into, again.

[Balta1701]

OK look, there is no doubt that executive salaries at large firms in the US are going up faster than the salaries of the average worker. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

 

But here is what no one is saying - what do you want do about it? And what are the full consequences of those actions?

Well...I'd actually say its hard to argue there would be "Seriously negative consequences" to just about anything done in that vein if it was actually successful. I must say...this one is actually a hard one to deal with. You've got this "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" setup on corporate boards and in the government that really has been built up to protect this system...no board will vote down a compensation package because the person they vote against will then act against everyone else's compensation.

 

I'm open to ideas of how to restructure the corporate voting process/corporate board process to deal with this without government fiat...but that's sort of how we got to Sarbanes-Oxley. Otherwise...I'm not sure how you can deal with this issue without mandatory caps.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well...I'd actually say its hard to argue there would be "Seriously negative consequences" to just about anything done in that vein if it was actually successful. I must say...this one is actually a hard one to deal with. You've got this "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" setup on corporate boards and in the government that really has been built up to protect this system...no board will vote down a compensation package because the person they vote against will then act against everyone else's compensation.

 

I'm open to ideas of how to restructure the corporate voting process/corporate board process to deal with this without government fiat...but that's sort of how we got to Sarbanes-Oxley. Otherwise...I'm not sure how you can deal with this issue without mandatory caps.

A few things they could do, that might not entirely fix it but might help, would be to put power more onto the individual shareholders (this is for public companies of course). Such as...

 

--Require all shareholder voting events to be provided online and free to shareholders

--Further detail in reporting all salaries and compensation for all execs plus top 1% of compensated employees regardless of position (this is being done to an extent already)

--Force approval of all severance packages over a certain amount to go to shareholders for approval first

--Force approval for any material increase (say >5%) in compensation of execs and rainmakers that are not direct percentages of newly created revenue streams from shareholders

--For any TARP recipients who have not yet paid back in full, salary increases capped at COLA for execs and rainmakers

 

That could be a start. I would not want to put the caps on non-TARP firms, as I feel that sets a dangerous precedent. But if they had to get bailed out, until they pay back with interest, they are at the taxpayers' mercy.

 

[Balta1701]

A few things they could do, that might not entirely fix it but might help, would be to put power more onto the individual shareholders (this is for public companies of course). Such as...

 

--Require all shareholder voting events to be provided online and free to shareholders

--Further detail in reporting all salaries and compensation for all execs plus top 1% of compensated employees regardless of position (this is being done to an extent already)

--Force approval of all severance packages over a certain amount to go to shareholders for approval first

--Force approval for any material increase (say >5%) in compensation of execs and rainmakers that are not direct percentages of newly created revenue streams from shareholders

--For any TARP recipients who have not yet paid back in full, salary increases capped at COLA for execs and rainmakers

 

That could be a start. I would not want to put the caps on non-TARP firms, as I feel that sets a dangerous precedent. But if they had to get bailed out, until they pay back with interest, they are at the taxpayers' mercy.

I see what you're saying in not wanting to put caps on non-TARP firms...but I think that out of your list...the more likely an option is to be effective, the closer to a cap it becomes. Some version of direct shareholder approval is a decent step, but I for example am not going to get the option to vote against salaries due to my retirement account, since I'm holding funds and not individual stocks, right? That still keeps the system isolated from people outside wall street...the power in that case gets transferred more to big mutual funds and retirement systems, which are already neck deep in this mess.

[NorthSideSox72]

I see what you're saying in not wanting to put caps on non-TARP firms...but I think that out of your list...the more likely an option is to be effective, the closer to a cap it becomes. Some version of direct shareholder approval is a decent step, but I for example am not going to get the option to vote against salaries due to my retirement account, since I'm holding funds and not individual stocks, right? That still keeps the system isolated from people outside wall street...the power in that case gets transferred more to big mutual funds and retirement systems, which are already neck deep in this mess.

In the case of a mutual fund, I believe the fund administrator acts as a default proxy on the shares. That could also be legislatively changed however.

 

[StrangeSox]

Because different people from different walks of life will have had a completely different experience to report, be it that they were poor and made it big, or they were multi-millionairs that lost everything, or they struggled and failed and/or struggled and made it big and are now giving back.

 

My point is, just because something worked or didn't work for 1 guy/gal that holds up some smarmy sign designed to go with or against the grain of the movement at hand, doesn't mean it will/won't or hasn't worked for another individual. Also note, *YOU IN SPECIFIC* will only agree with the ones that support your side in this, and that goes for everyone here, myself included. That doesn't mean it's right just because you agree with it. Note, however, it also doesn't mean it's wrong just because it agrees with you.

 

You guys love to say/use the word "anecdotal", well...each and every one of those signs these self-obsessed morons taking pictures of themselves holding for a few minutes for "Internets fame" are all anecdotal.

 

Scratch that. My point is, these signs are dumb. All of them.

 

I'm now positive that you did not get his point.

[StrangeSox]

Because if you want to go down the line and include all of the things that corporations do pay, it is significant. Instead they are focused on one tax that doesn't tell the whole story, just like the 53% argument. If it is wrong there, it is wrong for Occupy.

 

"I am the 99%" is not about (solely or mainly) corporate tax rates.

[StrangeSox]

Right. I won't listen to the CEO's at all from these situations. I'll trust the manipulated data of the left instead.

 

How frequently are CEO's performing data-gathering and analysis of average employee pay vs. CEO pay? Or actually analyzing the data to see if SOX has had economy-wide impacts vs. solely from their own viewpoint?

[Y2HH]

I'm now positive that you did not get his point.

 

And I'm positive there is no point in talking to you, but I still do.

 

Honestly, it took me until just now to realize it was the same person holding up those pictures since 85% of one of those images is a piece of paper and you can't really see a face. You're post make it sound like you found two random pictures as perfect examples of what you felt both sides were saying. Thanks for making that so clear by using 2 separate posts, after the other 50,000 posts I've seen on the internet of people holding up similar pictures at that time, I kinda stopped looking at faces just to see what retarded s*** they had to say.

 

Probably why I didn't get the point from the get go, and the subsequent 50 posts you made where you could have easily cleared it up instead of being that douche we all knew in 4th grade that points and laughs at you when you don't get a joke rather than f***ing explaining it. So in short, thanks for making me feel like the other douche everyone in class is now laughing at.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

I already explained to Balta that those first two were drunk posts! It's someone I know from other internet forums

 

The message in both of his letters is addressing how every one of these "53%" letters is a list of how s*** their life is and how hard they have to bust their ass just to get by, teetering on the edge of disaster if just one thing goes wrong, and that these are somehow supposed to be a defense of or support for our current economic situation. It's meant as a response to the "99%" stuff (which may or may not be a good slogan), but I'm baffled by how easy it seems for the "1%" to pit the rest of the 99% against themselves.

[Y2HH]

I already explained to Balta that those first two were drunk posts! It's someone I know from other internet forums

 

The message in both of his letters is addressing how every one of these "53%" letters is a list of how s*** their life is and how hard they have to bust their ass just to get by, teetering on the edge of disaster if just one thing goes wrong, and that these are somehow supposed to be a defense of or support for our current economic situation. It's meant as a response to the "99%" stuff (which may or may not be a good slogan), but I'm baffled by how easy it seems for the "1%" to pit the rest of the 99% against themselves.

 

Well, that's pretty easy because many of us don't see the 99% in the same regard. For example, I'm happy with my middle class job and my middle class life, and I'm doing well enough to support my family/bills/mortgage on a single income with no debt -- so while I'm not a part of that 1% -- I'm perfectly happy where I am. I live within my means, and I'm happy doing so. So, in short, I don't want to be lumped in with the 99% who believe they're being treated unfairly. As far as I'm concerned, they can stop "assuming" that I want to be classified as a 99%er along with them as I find it to be arrogant presumption.

 

That's why it's so easy to pit the "99%" against each other.

 

And no, it's not because the ultra rich have "brainwashed me", because I don't see it the way the rest of the "99%" movement does. Perhaps it's because I feel I have exactly what I deserve to have, and that the amount of work I put in to get it makes sense to me. I KNOW I could have worked harder, I simply chose to live a quiet life, get married, and concentrate on my family versus working 15 hour days in an attempt to be "rich".

Edited October 20, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

yabut plenty of people do work 15 hours a day just to get by, not live a relatively comfortable middle class life. That's the message in these 53% pics, "my life is so tough," but it's some sort of a defense of our large and growing wealth/income inequalities.

[Y2HH]

yabut plenty of people do work 15 hours a day just to get by, not live a relatively comfortable middle class life. That's the message in these 53% pics, "my life is so tough," but it's some sort of a defense of our large and growing wealth/income inequalities.

 

And they are free to consider themselves part of that "99%". That doesn't mean I have too.

 

Some people have an issue with the income inequalities. I don't. I simply have a different opinion, maybe based on different values. But whatever the case may be, it doesn't make me stupid, nor does it make me "brainwashed" by the rich. I guess I just don't dwell on the "unfair". Is it fair that someone like Paris Hilton was born to the right parents and is, because of that, a billionaire? Some people think so, others don't. Personally, I don't think fairness has anything to do with it.

 

What I find annoying is that I sympathize with their movement, and I'm glad I live in a country where such protests are fairly peaceful, versus other nations simply shooting live rounds into the sea of protestors. The part I find annoying is that when I share my opinion in that I don't agree it has anything to do with fair, and that I'm fine with what I have, that I'm called "dumb" or "brainwashed" by the 1%, as if it was their right to pass such a judgement.

[StrangeSox]

I don't put you in the RedState "53%" category fwiw.

 

I don't know how you cannot have an issue with income inequalities while at the same time being sympathetic with their movement, though.

[Y2HH]

I don't put you in the RedState "53%" category fwiw.

 

I don't know how you cannot have an issue with income inequalities while at the same time being sympathetic with their movement, though.

 

It's kind of hard to explain without an in-depth back and forth conversation...but I do. I'd be able to explain my position better in person than on a forum. I think the big thing is this isn't cut and dry like the "99%" try to make it sound. I'm sure if they did better in life and were in my position, they'd probably view this from the sideline I'm standing on, versus the one their standing on. Now, the complex part comes into why didn't they do better? Was it because of social circumstance? Or was it because they were drinking and getting laid in high school, and decided partying was more important than thinking about their futures? I don't know. Each case would probably get a different reaction from me in terms of my being sympathetic to them, or not being sympathetic at all. The way they make it sound on the streets is that it doesn't matter what their stories are, they should all be making the same amount of money anyway.

 

Are *some* CEO's and other executives pay out of order? Sure. Does that mean I believe they should be forced to share it? No.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Y2HH

[southsider2k5]

For once, I am not sure what I think about this...

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...oWhatsNewsThird

 

By NICK TIMIRAOS

 

The reeling housing market has come to this: To shore it up, two Senators are preparing to introduce a bipartisan bill Thursday that would give residence visas to foreigners who spend at least $500,000 to buy houses in the U.S.

 

The provision is part of a larger package of immigration measures, co-authored by Sens. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Mike Lee (R., Utah), designed to spur more foreign investment in the U.S.

 

Supporters of the bill, co-authored by Sen. Charles Schumer, say it would help make up for American buyers who are holding back.

 

Foreigners have accounted for a growing share of home purchases in South Florida, Southern California, Arizona and other hard-hit markets. Chinese and Canadian buyers, among others, are taking advantage not only of big declines in U.S. home prices and reduced competition from Americans but also of favorable foreign exchange rates.

 

WSJ's Nick Timiraos details a proposed plan in which foreigners who spend $500,000 in cash on U.S. real estate would be given visas. Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

 

To fuel this demand, the proposed measure would offer visas to any foreigner making a cash investment of at least $500,000 on residential real-estate—a single-family house, condo or townhouse. Applicants can spend the entire amount on one house or spend as little as $250,000 on a residence and invest the rest in other residential real estate, which can be rented out.

 

The measure would complement existing visa programs that allow foreigners to enter the U.S. if they invest in new businesses that create jobs. Backers believe the initiative would help soak up an excess supply of inventory when many would-be American home buyers are holding back because they're concerned about their jobs or because they would have to take a big loss to sell their current house.

 

"This is a way to create more demand without costing the federal government a nickel," Sen. Schumer said in an interview.

 

International buyers accounted for around $82 billion in U.S. residential real-estate sales for the year ending in March, up from $66 billion during the previous year period, according to data from the National Association of Realtors. Foreign buyers accounted for at least 5.5% of all home sales in Miami and 4.3% of Phoenix home sales during the month of July, according to MDA DataQuick.

 

Foreigners immigrating to the U.S. with the new visa wouldn't be able to work here unless they obtained a regular work visa through the normal process. They'd be allowed to bring a spouse and any children under the age of 18 but they wouldn't be able to stay in the country legally on the new visa once they sold their properties.

 

The provision would create visas that are separate from current programs so as to not displace anyone waiting for other visas. There would be no cap on the home-buyer visa program.

 

Over the past year, Canadians accounted for one quarter of foreign home buyers, and buyers from China, Mexico, Great Britain, and India accounted for another quarter, according to the National Association of Realtors. For buyers from some countries, restrictive immigration rules are "a deterrent to purchase here, for sure," says Sally Daley, a real-estate agent in Vero Beach, Fla. She estimates that around one-third of her sales this year have gone to foreigners, an all-time high.

 

"Without them, we would be stagnant," says Ms. Daley. "They're hiring contractors, buying furniture, and they're also helping the market correct by getting inventory whittled down."

 

In March, Harry Morrison, a Canadian from Lakefield, Ontario, bought a four-bedroom vacation home in a gated community in Vero Beach. "House prices were going down, and the exchange rate was quite favorable," said Mr. Morrison, who first bought a home there from Ms. Daley four years ago.

 

While a special visa would allow Canadian buyers like Mr. Morrison to spend more time in the U.S., he said he isn't sure "what other benefit a visa would give me."

 

The idea has some high-profile supporters, including Warren Buffett, who this summer floated the idea of encouraging more "rich immigrants" to buy homes. "If you wanted to change your immigration policy so that you let 500,000 families in but they have to have a significant net worth and everything, you'd solve things very quickly," Mr. Buffett said in an August interview with PBS's Charlie Rose.

 

The measure could also help turn around buyer psychology, said mortgage-bond pioneer Lewis Ranieri. He said the program represented "triage" for a housing market that needs more fixes, even modest ones.

 

But other industry executives greeted the proposal with skepticism. Foreign buyers "don't need an incentive" to buy homes, said Richard Smith, chief executive of Realogy Corp., which owns the Coldwell Banker and Century 21 real-estate brands. "We have a lot of Americans who are willing to buy. We just have to fix the economy."

 

The measure may have a more targeted effect in exclusive markets like San Marino, Calif., that have become popular with foreigners. Easier immigration rules could be "tremendous" because of the difficulty many Chinese buyers have in obtaining visas, says Maggie Navarro, a local real-estate agent.

 

Ms. Navarro recently sold a home for $1.67 million, around 8% above the asking price, to a Chinese national who works in the mining industry. She says nearly every listing she's put on the market in San Marino "has had at least one full price cash offer from a buyer from mainland China."

 

Corrections & Amplifications

Harry Morrison bought a four-bedroom vacation home in Vero Beach in March. He first bought a home there four years ago from Sally Daley, a local real-estate agent. An earlier version of this story incorrectly said Ms. Daley sold the four-bedroom home to Mr. Morrison in March.

 

Write to Nick Timiraos at [email protected]

[kapkomet]

How frequently are CEO's performing data-gathering and analysis of average employee pay vs. CEO pay? Or actually analyzing the data to see if SOX has had economy-wide impacts vs. solely from their own viewpoint?

 

 

It is actually required by law now. Thank you DoddyFranky.

[Y2HH]

Hey, look at that, Preckwinkle asking for MORE fee hikes and taxes...

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10...x-increase-part

 

Like I've said all along -- the Bush tax cuts simply moved from the feds to the locals...our taxes did nothing but go UP, UP and UP again DESPITE federal taxes being "low".

Edited October 25, 2011 by Y2HH

[NorthSideSox72]

Hey, look at that, Preckwinkle asking for MORE fee hikes and taxes...

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10...x-increase-part

 

Like I've said all along -- the Bush tax cuts simply moved from the feds to the locals...our taxes did nothing but go UP, UP and UP again DESPITE federal taxes being "low".

I know this won't go over well, but here goes... I've been watching what Preckwinkle, and also Emmanuel have been doing, pretty closely. And I have to say, just as I was with Rahm, I'm OK with Preckwinkle adding more fees. Why you ask? Because they have both been making real, actual cuts, and taking real, actual action to clean up the budget of the city and county. I know we're all so jaded that it is hard to believe that, but if you keep up on what they are doing, amazingly enough, they are doing what they said they would do. So I'm OK with them saying, look, we cut all these hundreds or millions, and in the case of Preckwinkle she also cut back another chunk of the Stroger tax and has on the books to eliminate it by 2013. But we're in such a hole that we still need to fill part of it, and here is the least painful way to do so.

 

I'd be ecstatic of the people at the state level were taking it as seriously as the city and county are right now.

 

[bmags]

Those are all fairly productive tax increases.