Category Archives: markets

Another Reason to Rescind Chevron Defense

Posted on by
Reply

As The Wall Street Journal‘s editors put it in their editorial last Tuesday, nothing is stopping the

Securities and Exchange Commission and prosecutors from finding [regulatory] meaning in statutory penumbras.

Now the SEC is manufacturing a rule based on nothing but the æther in SEC Chairman Gary Gensler’s mind. Gensler has hailed into court a pharmaceutical company employee for the “insider trading” crime of trading in options on the stock shares of another pharmaceutical company, a company about which the man had no insider information at all. Not a whit.

Gensler, however, in plumbing the depths of his shadowy æther, has claimed to have found something in a penumbra of Federal law and Court decisions regarding insider trading. The man he’s charging knew from an employee-broadcast email from his company’s CEO that his company might be about to be acquired by another company—not the company in which our man did his trading.

Poof—Gensler has waved his hands and conjured an insider trading beef centered on no insider trading information at all. As the WSJ noted,

Federal law doesn’t explicitly ban trading on confidential information. But courts have said that insiders defraud companies by “misappropriating” private information for personal gain.

It’s in the phantasmal penumbra of “private information” that Gensler has conjured his offense: private information in one company (not even that private, it was a company-wide email that revealed the potential for an acquisition of the employee’s company) casts a shadow over other, Gensler-unspecified, companies, and so brings those other companies into the reach of one company’s allegedly private information.

And this, regarding those chimeric penumbras[1] of which too many of our courts still claim to see:

If something is in a penumbral region, it is not in the text.  If it is not in the text, it does not exist ….  If it does not exist, a judge cannot rule on it.  If in the end, all a judge can do after carefully reading the text is go more than a toe’s dip into its shadows for meaning, then he must not go in: he must rule a lack of governing statute or strike the statute for vagueness, and in either event return the matter to the political branches.

And this, from Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, in denying a 2014 cert petition in Whitman v US [emphasis in the original]:

Only the legislature may define crimes and fix punishments. Congress cannot, through ambiguity, effectively leave that function to the courts—much less to the administrative bureaucracy[.]

Now the Supreme Court must overrule the SEC outright, which would be much easier to do were it to also—or already have by the time this case reaches it—rescinded the Chevron Defense foolishness which subordinates, by Constitutional design, the coequal Judiciary not just to the Executive, but to Executive subordinate branches led by political appointees and peopled by unknown and faceless bureaucrats.

[1] Hines, Eric, A Conservative’s View of the American Concept of Law

India vs PRC

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece comparing the People’s Republic of China’s economic future with India’s. In the second paragraph (the semi-lede?), there’s this:

The country’s population surpassed China’s last year. More than half of Indians are under 25.

A couple of graphs from the CIA World Factbook put the two nation’s population structures in sharp relief, and at this stage of the two nations’ economic development, those structures are their future.

This is the structure of India’s population (scroll down a skosh):

This is the structure of the PRC’s population (again, scroll a tad):

India’s population of new workers is growing, so the nation’s economic capacity is capable of growing. The PRC’s population of new workers is shrinking. Not only is the PRC incapable of growing very much, economically, it’s becoming and will continue to become increasingly difficult to support its old folks, even as that portion of the nation’s population continues to grow.

You’ve Formed Your Opinion on EVs. Now Let Me Change It.

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the headline on Dan Neil’s Wall Street Journal paeon to the battery-powered car. In his piece, he acknowledges the past and current shortcomings of Electric Vehicles, but he lays those off to car company marketing rather than to actual performance.

My mind isn’t as made up as Neil’s headline implies; nevertheless, challenge accepted.

I drove a Ford Fusion Hybrid for a number of years, and it was a fine car. However, the battery price premium was enormous, and the reduction in trunk capacity to make room for the battery was just as enormous.

I replaced it with an ICE Fusion, and that car was just as peppy and responsive as the Hybrid (peppiness and responsiveness was one of Neil’s touts regarding battery-powered cars), and I had decent trunk capacity.

I’d get a Hybrid again, were the battery premium actually to come down decently.

I won’t buy a purely battery-powered car until a number of criteria are met:

  • the battery has to be chargeable to a 400-mile range in the same minimal time that I can fill my ICE gasoline tank to a 400-mile range
  • the battery premium must come down. The 14% reduction Neil claims is from a hugely high price
  • the battery’s lifetime must be at least as many years as I drive my cars, and as many miles
  • the battery must stop suffering so significantly from cold temperatures. The battery in my ICE that powers my car’s starter motor also suffers, but it only needs to crank the engine. If needs be, I can get a jump start. The EV’s battery is its motive source, and that motor can’t be jump-started; its power source must be “refueled”
  • the battery must be disposable/recyclable with far less environmental damage done or risk of damage done than is the case today

EV prices are coming down, as Neil claims? Show that after EV subsidies are stopped, and EV buyers pay actual market prices. No one should have to pay tax money because someone else bought an EV.

An Extortion Lawsuit

Posted on by
Reply

Lawyer Anthony Russo of the Florida-based Russo Firm, says his client Cynthia Kelly and “not less than 100” and perhaps even “thousands” of others have suffered horrific emotional damage.

It seems that seasonal versions of Hershey’s Reese’s chocolate-covered peanut butter candies variously depicted pumpkin shapes with the candy’s peanut butter filling showing through eyes and a mouth carved into the chocolate or football shapes with laces similarly carved. On unpeeling the wrapper, though, shocker of shockers, the chocolate coverings were intact. The bodice-ripping. The emotional rending, the fall-to-the-floor sobbing paroxisms (I exaggerate, but not by much). Lawyer Russo is suing Hershey over the riptide of emotion the nefarious company has so callously caused.

However.

Omitted in this editorial is that the Reese’s packaging also depicts a bite already taken out of the candy, exposing the peanut butter filling inside the chocolate coating—and that that depiction has been there for years.

Did the “plaintiffs” not expect to unwrap this candy and see a bite actually already taken?

Not only should the plaintiffs be sharply sanctioned for this frivolous suit, the lawyer bringing it and the firm employing him (yes, it’s his firm, but still, the firm) should be especially sharply sanctioned for being a party to this frivolous suit. Lawyers, especially, should know better.

Hershey should refuse to settle and instead crushingly defeat the lawyer and plaintiffs in open court, taking no prisoners. Let it not be over quickly, the plaintiffs and lawyer will not enjoy it, and Hershey is not their patsy. $5 million or more that the plaintiffs want and of which Russo wants his cut? Sounds about right to me. That’s what the plaintiffs, the lawyer, and the law firm should be required to pay Hershey.

Punishing Success

Posted on by
Reply

Los Angeles has decided that the successful are too successful, and they must be knocked down. To that end, the city’s government has decided to tax the sales proceeds of the wealthy’s homes at 4% on homes sold for $5-$10 million and at 5.5% on homes sold for more than $10 million. This is on top of the real estate brokers’ ordinary 6% fee, and it’s paid by the buyer. Not that that will have any impact on the seller’s ability to sell at a fair price, or anything.

LA isn’t alone in this “mansion tax” move, either. Other jurisdictions, mostly at the State level (it won’t be long before California broadens LA’s move), are doing this, also. They’re all Progressive-Democrat-run, too, all but one of them exclusively so.

  • Connecticut: 2.25% on properties surpassing $2.5 million. Progressive-Democrat Governor, Senate, House
  • District of Columbia: 1.45% on properties sold for $400,000 or more. Progressive-Democrat Governor, City Council
  • Hawaii: Marginal rates ranging from 10% to 20% for estates valued over $5.49 million. Progressive-Democrat Governor, Senate, House
  • New Jersey: 1% on real estate transactions exceeding $1 million. Progressive-Democrat Governor, Senate, House
  • New York: 1% to 3.9% on residential acquisitions of $1 million or more. Progressive-Democrat Governor, Senate, House
  • Vermont: 16% on properties valued over $5 million. Republican Governor, Progressive-Democrat Senate, House
  • Washington: Graduated rates starting at 1.28% for properties sold at a minimum of $500,000. Progressive-Democrat Governor, Senate, House

And, to repeat,

  • Los Angeles: 4% on homes sold for more than $5-$10 million and 5.5% on homes sold for more than $10 million. Progressive-Democrat Mayor, City Council

This is behavior of the green-eyed jealous politicians of the Progressive-Democratic Party: seizing the produce of success and redistributing it for their own political gain. It’s also just one more incentive for the successful to leave these jurisdictions altogether.