[HN Gopher] WH Ignores Yellen $800k Speaking Fees from Firm Bail...
___________________________________________________________________
WH Ignores Yellen $800k Speaking Fees from Firm Bailed Out GameStop
Hedge Fund
Author : 9387367
Score : 34 points
Date : 2021-02-14 19:43 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.realclearpolitics.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.realclearpolitics.com)
| [deleted]
| monkeydreams wrote:
| So the WH Press Secretary, when asked for the specific thoughts
| of Yellen and Biden, declined to offer those thoughts, and
| instead stated that there was a wider economics team who could
| step up if necessary.
|
| That's hardly "ignoring" the "speaking fees" that Yellen earned
| as a private citizen. Nor is garnering speaking fees a reason to
| "recuse" from offering advice. No one would be able to offer the
| POTUS any advice on their field of expertise if this is the bar
| that is set.
|
| Keep grabbin' after those straws.
| kodah wrote:
| I don't really think that's straw grabbing. It seems like a
| reasonable request, especially if there's a team that can
| replace her expert advice.
| monkeydreams wrote:
| Here is why it is straw grabbing:
|
| 1. WH did not ignore the question. The press secretary
| declined to speak POTUS or Yellen's mind for them, and
| instead implied that it would not be a problem if Yellen did
| recuse because there was a full economics team. Ergo - the
| headline is bunk.
|
| 2. CoI declarations and recusals are for when someone stands
| to gain, where someone has previously gained and feels
| beholden, or where the impression of a CoI might arise.
| Yellen spoke to many, many firms but, due to the fact she was
| only paid to speak, likely does not feel beholden to these
| firms now or in the future. Ergo - the lede is bunk.
|
| 3. People who are hired by governments to offer advice do so
| within the domain of their expertise. Now, perhaps there are
| a few eager amateurs out there who have never drawn a
| paycheck in their area of expertise, but to state that Yellen
| should not advise the President on the biggest stock market
| scandal of the year because she once drew a paycheck for
| talking to them at one time is a damn long bow to draw. Where
| else is the POTUS going to get advisors except from the firms
| who pay the most money to get the best employees / speakers?
| The local CPA? Ergo - the wider implication is bunk.
|
| So the headline, lede and implication of the article are
| bunk. Given that this article is from a pro-Trump news
| aggregator / commentator site, and given that politics has
| become so polarised, this appears to be the conflating of a
| molehill with a mountain for the sake of political gain.
|
| Ergo - straw grabbing.
| temp8964 wrote:
| > No one would be able to offer the POTUS any advice on their
| field of expertise if this is the bar that is set.
|
| So $800k speaking fees are just "speaking fees".
| monkeydreams wrote:
| Do you have evidence that they are not? By all means, provide
| the evidence. If Yellen has lied, demonstrate it and let due
| process take its course.
| redisman wrote:
| Can someone explain what these "speaking fees" Wall Street pays
| are really about? I doubt there's any ROI so what is the point?
| They always seem about 100x of a reasonable rate.
| retsibsi wrote:
| I've always assumed they're basically legalised bribery, but
| I'd be interested to hear the best non-cynical explanation. Off
| the top of my head, I guess it could be a way of buying status-
| by-association, showing prospective clients and employees that
| you're a serious player with money to splash around and
| connections to power. (Which I admit is still a fairly cynical
| explanation.)
| thedudeabides5 wrote:
| Imagine a world where you, personally, pay $300mm a year to
| financial professionals in your employ to help you manage say
| ...$10bn
|
| Let's say you take that $10bn and manage a portfolio with
| ~30% a year volatility.
|
| So you pay $300m to manage a bunch of assets that move around
| by ~$3bn a year.
|
| All of a sudden paying $500k for a speech, a dinner, and a
| the start of a relationship with a top 10 government
| policymaker, seems like a bargain.
|
| Same reason Clinton and Obama can do the same after the leave
| office. Part wisdom, part networking.
|
| Doesn't have to be nefarious to be a good investment when
| your business is that scale.
| byecomputer wrote:
| Some might argue that public officials being paid
| extraordinary sums by private investment firms in exchange
| for access and influence is nefarious in itself.
| aneemzic wrote:
| Why does comic-con pay famous actors to appear? I assume
| because it attracts the type of audience they see as their
| customers.
|
| Hedge fund billionaires, bankers and policy makers on the
| other hand aren't going to show up to listen to what johnny
| depp has to say. So you have to pay for someone who will be
| draw for them. The higher the status of the customers you
| want, the more you'll find yourself paying.
| nanis wrote:
| > Why does comic-con pay famous actors to appear?
|
| In the case of Comic-Con, they do that because their
| audience who pay for their tickets are more likely to pay
| if the actors they like are part of the experience.
|
| In this case, we are talking about companies paying people
| exorbitant sums for no other reason that at some point the
| speaker may be in a position to affect the flow of
| government largess.
|
| Even "networking" in this context is geared towards
| signaling to friend & foe that you now have inside reach to
| people whose actions or even mere words can move mountains
| of money in one direction or another.
|
| Totally different.
|
| By the way, this is standard textbook economic analysis and
| it would not be different if the names and political
| parties were switched.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Maybe sometimes this is it, but it clearly isn't always
| legalized bribery. Celebrities command huge speaking fees
| even though you almost certainly aren't getting any out of
| them other than the thrill of personal time with a celebrity.
| You may as well ask why some prostitutes can command $10,000
| an hour rates. They're not hundreds of times better at sex.
| The purchase is just being made by some entity with way more
| money than anyone should have and not enough good uses for
| it. It's like when Bobby Axelrod in Billions buys a private
| performance from Metallica. He isn't gaining any investing
| edge, but what's the point in being that rich if you can't
| blow huge amounts of money to be close to famous people you
| admire? If you're in finance, Janet Yellen is a celebrity. If
| I had enough money that ten million could get lost in my
| couch without noticing, I'd probably pay her to talk to me.
| aneemzic wrote:
| I assume it's organized to attract and bring it wealthy
| individuals, who I suspect are not the easiest to get time
| with. When you think about it, it's a small price to pay to get
| a large group of billionaires in the same room and what their
| prospective business/donations could be worth depending on what
| you're selling/promoting.
|
| Just think the type of people you get in to the same room who
| normally wouldn't give you the time of day if you had obama
| agree to give a private talk.
| ffggvv wrote:
| how is there not any roi when she's now treasury secretary
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-14 23:01 UTC)