Tag Archives: ethics

An Activist Judge Gets It Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

DC District Senior Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ruled that

the Trump administration is legally required to secure funding for the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and that failing to do so would violate a prior court order barring the government from dismantling or shutting down the agency[.]

However.

Leave aside the fact that the question of the Trump administration funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the question of the Trump administration dismantling or shutting down the agency are distinctly separate questions.

The fact of interest here is Jackson’s mistaken ruling that Trump must fund the CFPB. He cannot. By the statute that created the CFPB, that agency is funded solely by the penalties it exacts via its enforcement actions (pay no attention to the conflict of interest behind the curtain) and from the Federal Reserve Bank, the latter which the CFPB draws from according to CFPB-determined needs (pay no attention to the doings behind this curtain, either).

The Trump administration has no control over and no capacity to produce CFPB funding. This is the sort of shenanigan in which activist judges engage, causing increased cost and delay in cleaning up prior messes.

In the “Go Figure” Category

Posted on by
Reply

New Jersey is one of several States that do not require a photo ID to vote. It’s also one of a number of States that offer reduced fare to some groups—senior citizens, military personnel, the infirm, for instance—on their mass transit systems.

Go figure:

Per Rutherford’s Shore News Network, as quoted by Fox News,

Starting January 1 [last Thursday], photo ID required for NJ Transit reduced fares but not for voting[.]

Hmm….

Activist Investor Lawsuits

Posted on by
Reply

Comerica, a regional commercial bank, has agreed to be acquired by Fifth Third Bank, a bank holding company, and HoldCo Asset Management, a serial “agitator” and a minority shareholder of Comerica, doesn’t like that decision and has gone into court to stop it.

It turns out HoldCo Asset Management didn’t like that particular deal [Comerica being acquired by Fifth Third Bancorp], arguing it undervalued Comerica. Its battle with the bank has since turned into an all-out war. The firm urged shareholders to vote against Fifth Third Bancorp’s acquisition of Comerica and sued the banks, saying it wasn’t the best option for shareholders.

The lawsuit strikes me as being entirely frivolous and motivated even more by HoldCo’s arrogance than by its greed. The value of any good or service, here the value of Comerica, is not for any third party to dictate to the participants of any exchange, here the acquisition of Comerica by Fifth Third Bank. The value of the exchange is solely what the participants, the shareholders of each of the two banks, say it is.

The two banks’ boards have agreed the deal and are recommending it to their respective shareholders (read: owners and bosses); although, the haven’t yet voted on it. It’s true enough that HoldCo is one of those shareholders, but the shareholders in their aggregate will assign with their votes the value they deem appropriate.

Minority shareholders should not be allowed to impose their minority position on the majority of a company’s shareholders. If they lose the debate over a company’s acquisition or over any other move made or proposed by the company—if the majority of shareholders at each of the two banks vote for the deal—then HoldCo’s only two legitimate recourses are to accept the outcome or sell their shares.

It’s a matter of property rights, here the rights of shareholders in their property of the shares they own of a company.

Lawsuits centered on a minority’s dislike of a company decision or proposed decision should be dismissed for lack of standing or lack of concrete harm.

Full stop.

“News” Media Arrogance Personified

Posted on by
Reply

The lede demonstrates this “news” reader and opinionator Katie Couric’s personal arrogance in presenting what she’s pleased to call “journalism.”:

Katie Couric spoke out against “bothsidesism” in news coverage and insisted people don’t want “just the facts” in the current media environment.

Yes, we do. We want, even though “news”…presenters…don’t want us to hear, all the facts, even though Couric’s presenters prefer to provide only those that suit the presenters’ predetermined narrative. We object strongly to censored presentations, a censorship and bias that’s revealed by what facts are withheld as much as by what facts are selected for reporting.

We don’t mind biased, opinionated commentary, but we expect it to be in carefully labeled opinion pieces, not opinions masqueraded as fact in what is alleged to be news reporting. And, we expect even opinionated commentary to be informed by logic and facts, not hype or hyperbole. Couric again:

So what I try to do, and what we try to do, is help people stay abreast of everything that’s happening, which is increasingly difficult given the velocity of things that are thrown at us primarily by this administration. But try to understand and give them some perspective and context and help explain in some cases why people need to be aware and concerned about some of the things that are happening in this country.

Pick one. You can’t help us “stay abreast of everything that’s happening” when you insist on no ” bothsidesism,” when you insist on only presenting one side. [T]ry to understand and give [us] some perspective and context and help explain?

This is Couric insulting our intelligence. If she had the integrity to present all of the facts, we’d be able to understand for ourselves, to see for ourselves the perspective. We’re not stupid, as she so plainly says we are. Especially when she says she tries to give us some context when, with her own words, she withholds context by presenting only those facts she’s carefully selected for presentation. That contradiction is especially insulting to our intelligence.

And there’s Couric’s precious self-importance, her velocity of things that are thrown at us as though she and her cronies are the audience of any administration’s, much less the current one’s, actions. Couldn’t be that us citizens are the audience.

This is why the so-called news media—both reporting and opinionating—are so distrusted by so many of us.

Who’s In Charge?

Posted on by
Reply

State Financial Officers Foundation CEO OJ Oleka noted in his Wall Street Journal op-ed the foolishness of Minnesota’s decision to eliminate its State Treasurer position with effect ‘way back in 2003. Supporters insisted that the position was purely clerical and so not worth the million dollars a year cost. Instead, the position’s responsibilities were scattered around to other State agencies. Oleka added

When no statewide official is clearly responsible for safeguarding public money, taxpayers pay the price.

Like with the multi-billion dollar Medicaid fraud that’s being uncovered in Minnesota. Only it’s not just the citizens of Minnesota who are paying that price; it’s all of us citizens all across these United States.

Oleka also pointed out the value of having someone in charge of watchdogging a State’s public money.

Across the states, financial officers are proving that vigilance works. Kentucky Auditor Allison Ball uncovered $800 million in wrongful Medicaid payments. North Carolina Treasurer Brad Briner found $170 million in unspent funds, while Iowa’s Roby Smith delivered a record $469 million return on investments that help fund state services.

There’s another factor here, though. Every one of those officials are Republicans.

Hmm….