Category Archives: markets

The Judicial Branch and the Law

Posted on by
Reply

In a couple of weeks, the Supreme Court will hear a case involving Federal subsidies to health coverage purchasers who bought their plans on ObamaMart instead of State exchanges. The Obamacare law limits those subsidies to purchasers via State exchanges argue the plaintiffs; the government demurs.

Some ACA critics fear the Supreme Court may hesitate to block the current subsidies because of a lack of confidence in the legislative branch in general.

Against that backdrop, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said

The current Congress is not equipped really to do anything[.]

That claim is the pseudo-logic President Barack Obama uses to justify his Executive Orders and “executive actions” that deliberately bypass Congress, and unconstitutionally so.

Justice Ginsburg, and others of like mind on the Supreme Court, may be entirely right on Congress’ ability—or willingness—to act. However, she, and they, would do well to remember that the Constitution they’re sworn to uphold does not authorize the Court to legislate in place of, or in addition to, Congress.

Justice Ginsburg and her fellows would do well to remember that the judiciary’s task is first to determine whether a law comports with the Constitution as the Constitution is written, and if it’s legitimate, to apply that law as that law is written.

Full stop.

Corporate Dishonesty

Posted on by
Reply

I received in today’s snailmail a document postmarked Sacramento, CA, Permit No 1827. In bold, black print, the envelope carrying this document had the following notice:

WARNING: $2000 FINE, 5 YEARS IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH FOR ANY PERSON INTERFERING OR OBSTRUCTING DELIVERY OF THIS LETTER.

Who sent me this very important document? Who knows? The originator was so ashamed of himself and/or what he had to say to me that he declined to put his address, much less his name, on the envelope.

I opened it.

It turns out it’s from some crowd calling themselves 1st Nationwide Mortgage, and the document was signature-stamped by someone claiming to represent Chris Arco, Senior Vice President, First Nationwide Mortgage.

If this crowd is so dishonest it puts misleading threats of dire consequences on the outside of its envelope, and/or if it’s so cowardly it won’t put its name and return address on the outside, then on what basis can any of us take it seriously?

I put its trash into the recycling bin for pick up next week. Yeah, we recycle in Texas, just like they do in California. Only we recycle our trash to our own facilities, we don’t mail it out of state.

Who’d-a Thunk?

Posted on by
1

According to President Barack Obama’s Department of Education, his student loan forgiveness program already is experiencing cost overruns to the tune of nearly $22 billion. Obama’s 2010 PAYE expansion at the time was projected to add $9 billion to the taxpayers’ bill for students not repaying their debt. As the DoE put it,

The 2015 amount includes a net upward reestimate of $21.8 billion, primarily related to revised interest rates and increased participation in income-driven repayment plans.

Or, in the words of James Schneider, who wrote the article at the second link,

[S]welling enrollment due to looser loan rules is driving up costs….

Or, Romina Boccia, of the Heritage Foundation:

They didn’t account for the market risk in making these loans[.]

Or, Steve Ellis, of Taxpayers for Common Sense:

…hard to see how this is going to come out as a net positive as the administration predicts[.]

Or, Lindsey Burke, also with the Heritage Foundation:

Somebody pays for that loan forgiveness. And that is the three-quarters of Americans who don’t have bachelor’s degrees themselves.

Now, how does that work, exactly? Who could have expected such an outcome? Apparently everyone in the Universe except Democrats.

A Fatal Flaw

Posted on by
Reply

In a piece for Wired, FCC MFWIC Tom Wheeler offered rationalization for his decision to dismantle the Internet. He opened his apologia with this remarkable claim:

This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles….

That’s the problem. Regulatory “principles” proceed from the assumption that government regulation is a universal and primary good.

Of course, that’s precisely backward—and backwards. A free market is almost universally self-regulating: make a bad product, people find out and stop buying—the producer goes out of business. Lie about a product, people find out and stop buying—even if the product itself might be sound—and the producer or seller goes out of business. And so on.

Almost universally: yes, there are conditions within which government regulation is warranted. But such regulation must proceed from the fundamental assumption that regulating is bad or unnecessary, and the regulation proposer must prove—not merely justify—why this proposed regulation is necessary (not merely useful in some sense).

Wheeler’s regulatory travesty must be halted. Even its mere suggestion is sound reason for Congress to act—perhaps unsuccessfully until 2017 with a Republican President, too—now to reign in, to severely circumscribe, the regulatory authority of all Departments and Agencies.

NYSE Auctions

Posted on by
Reply

In the bad old days of stock auction markets [sic], owners of shares of companies—companies nominally public by their status as a shareholder company—would meet in a crowd, face to face, and offer their shares for sale at a price or offer to buy another’s shares at a price. Bid prices and asking prices would converge, and sales would be executed.

Only the rich could play this game, though; Middle America (and Middle Netherlands where such auctions got an early start some hundreds of years ago, and Middle You-Pick-the-Nation) couldn’t afford to play. To be sure, Middle America (and the others) in those early days had little interest in playing, and the matter was a no harm, no foul situation. Then the broker industry developed, and brokers would act as middle men in these auctions, doing the mixing and matching of buys and sells—for a small remuneration, of course—and the shareholders didn’t need to meet in person. But those remunerations—commissions—kept Middle America priced out of the game.

Then discount brokers developed (think Charles Schwab), and Middle America (and Middle xyz) could play. The broader breadth of participation both increased stock prices themselves, and they gave companies all across the economy access to tons of additional money, from us little people, with which to do R&D, sales, production, etc. After all, little peoples’ nickels and dimes add up—it’s how the earlier Five and Dime stores prospered and how today’s deep discount stores prosper. It also gave us little people additional ways to save and to build our nest eggs.

Today, there are even brokerages that operate entirely online, for a song: typical remunerations for effecting a buy or sell today range from $5 to $10 per some number of thousands of shares traded (when Schwab was starting out, they charged $35 per hundred shares traded).

Now the New York Stock Exchange wants to

introduce a midday auction

ostensibly to

draw trading away from private venues such as dark pools….

Never mind that those dark pools are capitalist, free market responses to excessive interference in today’s financial industry (of which stock markets are only a part) by the Security & Exchange Commission and the myriad mechanisms spawned by Dodd-Frank.

The new NYSE auction would take place in the middle of the day, when trading is at its slowest. One draw of such auctions is they allow big investors to put in large orders without immediately moving the price of a stock[.]

Auctions work differently than continuous trading on markets, which match orders as they come in at an ultrafast pace. In an auction, buyers put in a maximum price and quantity they are seeking to fill and sellers put in a minimum price and size they are willing to sell over a period of time. At the end of the period, orders are filled at a price set by supply and demand for shares.

Just like those original bad, old days.

I’m not sure this isn’t a return to those bad old days when only the rich could play. I’m not sure it is, either; it’s something that needs to be watched very carefully—even by the SEC.