Finance Matters

Archive for January 21st, 2010

In the hyper-competitive world of summer associate hiring, timing issues can get people quite worked up.

We noted earlier this month that the National Association for Law Placement has put forth a proposal to change the guidelines for law school recruiting from the fall-free-for-all of staggered, post-inteview offers to a January nationwide offer date.

The time for students to accept an offer would be decreased from 45 days to 10 days, on the theory that students would already have had plenty of time to evaluate the firms.

Karen Sloan of The National Law Journal has a lengthy report on firms’ and schools varied reactions — some think calmer would be better, some think the short time frame will limit students’ choices and result in more “mismatches.”

But so far Jones Day seems to have had the strongest reaction, going as far as pulling (in protest) its Los Angeles recruiting manager from the NALP commission that recommended the changes. “We have a very strong reaction, and frankly, it’s allergic,” Gregory Shumaker, the firm’s hiring manager, told the NLJ. But Shumaker was not done.

NLJ: Jones Day doesn’t want to be hemmed in by rules meant to protect firms whose reputations suffered because they laid off associates, rescinded job offers or made other unpopular cost-cutting moves, Shumaker said.

“Jones Day hasn’t done that, and they want to require us to link arms with our competitors who have,” Shumaker said. “We think the process was driven, in part, by a great deal of our competitors.”

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• NALP Recommends Firms Wait Until January To Extend 2L Summer Offers
• Something’s Gotta Give: The Options For Big Law’s Summer Associate Programs
• For Associates, Big Law Just Isn’t What It Used To Be

(This post originally appeared at NewDeal2.0)

Today, President Obama finally took meaningful action toward financial reform, apparently prodded by his disaster in Massachusetts. Heck, if the Democrats cannot retain Teddy’s seat, there is no safe refuge. The Republicans and Tea Partiers will take the next election in a landslide unless Obama changes course, and fast.

Briefly, here is what he announced. Government spent a huge bundle trying to rescue Wall Street, and while that was distasteful, it was necessary, for otherwise the economy would have slipped into a second great depression. The financial system is now stronger than it was when he took office, but Wall Street continues to engage in its antisocial practices, Hoovering all the nation’s profits, paying huge bonuses, and trading rather than lending.

According to Obama, the root of the problem is that these institutions take advantage of their government guarantees (deposit insurance and bail-outs when things go bad) to gamble with house money. He says the root of the crisis was that these government-protected institutions engaged in proprietary trading and created their own hedge funds and private equity firms. The access to insured deposits gave them low cost funds with which they took huge risks at taxpayer expense. Further, they have sent an army of lobbyists to Washington to prevent financial reform. Hence, he proposes a new “Volcker Rule” that would prohibit these regulated financial institutions from operating hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading. And the government will prevent further consolidation of the financial sector.

The reforms sound good. It is always too easy to criticize reform for not going far enough. However, the nature of this proposal seems to indicate that Obama still does not understand the scope of the problem. Let me provide what I believe to be more than mere quibbles:

1. The financial bail-out was not needed and would do nothing to prevent another great depression. We had a liquidity crisis that could have been resolved in the normal way, through lending by the Fed without limit, to all financial institutions, and without collateral. That is how you end a liquidity crisis. But that has nothing to do with the Paulson/Rubin/Geithner plans that variously bought bad assets, injected capital, and provided guarantees — in an amount estimated above $20 trillion. None of that was necessary and none of it prevented collapse of the economic system. Banks are still massively insolvent. If we wanted to leave insolvent institutions open, all we had to do was to use forbearance. And, in truth, that is the only reason they are still open for business.

2. And of course, none of that had any benefit at all for Main Street. Indeed, we could have closed down the top 20 banks (responsible for almost all of the mess) with no impact on the economy. The only thing that has helped was the fiscal stimulus package. That will soon run out, and although it helped it was far too small. Obama has zero chance of getting more money for Main Street unless he can convince Congress and the public that he has changed his ways. The reforms he has announced fall short.

3. The financial system is not healthier today. Indeed, it is much more dangerous. The Bush and Obama administrations reacted to the crisis by encouraging and subsidizing consolidation of the sector in the hands of gargantuan and dangerously insolvent institutions. The sector is essentially run by a handful of rapacious institutions that have made out like bandits because of the crisis: Goldman, JP Morgan, Citi, Chase and Bank of America. All of these are systemically dangerous. All should be closed. Today.

4. Yes, the lobbyists are a problem. What do you expect when you operate a revolving door between Wall Street and the administration? Goldman essentially runs the Treasury. The lobbyists are in Washington to meet with their former colleagues, and to oil that revolving door. There is only one solution: ban all former employees of the financial sector from government employment (including roles as advisors), and prohibit all government employees from ever working for a Wall Street firm.

5. It is not enough to subject banks to the requirements of the Volcker Rule. Any institution that has access to the Fed and to the FDIC should be prohibited from making ANY KINDS OF TRADES. They should make loans, and purchase securities, and then hold them. (An exception can be made for government debt.) They should perform underwriting and due diligence to ensure that the assets they hold meet appropriate standards of risk. And then they should bear all the risk through maturity of the assets. They should not be allowed to offload assets, much less to short assets that they sell, while knowing they are trash (Goldman’s favorite strategy). They should not be able to hedge risks through derivatives. They should not be allowed to purchase credit default “insurance” to protect themselves. They should not be allowed to move risk off balance sheet. They should not be involved in equities markets. Any behemoth that does not like these conditions can hand back its bank charter and become an unprotected financial institution. Those that retain their charters will be treated as public-private partnerships, which is what banks are. They put up $5 of their own money, then gamble with $95 of government (guaranteed) money. The only public purpose they serve is underwriting-and that only works if they hold all the risks.

6. Obama ignores fraud. It is rampant in the financial sector. Indeed, it has no doubt increased since the crisis. Where do you think all of those record profits come from? It is a massive control fraud, based on Ponzi (or Bernie Madoff) schemes. This must be investigated. Fraudulent institutions must be shut down. Management must be prosecuted and jailed. Only if Obama is willing to take on fraud will we know that he really is about hope and change. He has got to start with the Rubin, Geithner and Summers team. Fire them, then investigate them. That is change I can believe in-and an end to “business as usual”, as Obama put it.

L. Randall Wray is Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, Research Director with the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability and Senior Research Scholar at The Levy Economics Institu

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Privately, Wall Streeters Decry Obama’s Populist Turn After Massachusetts
• Wall Street Big Shots Mull Buying Merrill Lynch Out From Bank Of America
• Let Me Tell You How I’m Going To Stick It To Wall Street

Twitter has apparently just implemented a change that may well have a massive impact on the service. The company has apparently abandoned its highly controversial Suggested User List, in favor of a list of Suggestions based on topic. That’s big news in and of itself (before Twitter’s…

Continue reading »

Join the conversation about this story »

The Apple tablet will resemble a larger, but thinner version of the original iPhone, according to sources speaking with Apple Insider.

The site points to the tablet mock-up picutred here, which was made by Fotoboer.nl on Flickr, as decent approximation of what we can expect:

Of all the mockups and renderings that have surfaced on the Web attempting to depict what the final product will look like, the rendition below created by Flickr user Fotoboer.nl last August is strikingly close to the real deal, those same people say. It would be more precise, they add, if it weren’t missing a handful of design elements of the iPhone.

Nestled in an aluminum shell that leverages the Apple’s expertise in unibody construction but thinner proportionality than the original iPhone, the tablet reportedly sports all of the same buttons found on the handset, right down to its iconic home button — which, like the volume toggle, is missing from the rendering.

While it’s exciting to see what the hardware looks like, it will be more interesting to see what the software looks like. For instance, how the heck will we type on it?

See Also: 20 Guesses About What The Apple Tablet Will Look Like

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• 20 Guesses About What The Apple Tablet Will Look Like
• More Clues About How We’ll Type On The Apple Tablet
• How Will We Type On The Apple Tablet?

For a moment, Google Wave — the company’s ambitious, futuristic new messaging/docs/email/IM service — was hot stuff. Getting an invitation to the service took real work. People seemed seriously excited about it.

But after a quick spike in activity, Web visits to Google Wave have dropped sharply, according to Hitwise.

Even our nerdiest associates say they have stopped using it. In an informal survey, those who have even bothered to test it, say: “It’s pretty lame,” “shitty alternative to Basecamp for ad hoc collaboration,” “sucking generally,” needs “UI changes,” etc.

To be sure, few Web services are homeruns on version 1.0. It is of course possible that Google Wave could still be successful and popular someday if Google makes a bunch of improvements and perhaps figures out more practical use cases for it. (Or if another company does.)

But it does not seem to be replacing email for anyone yet, especially not in any mainstream fashion.

Follow the Chart Of The Day on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chartoftheday

Get This Delivered To Your Inbox

You can get this dropped in your inbox every afternoon as The Chart Of The Day. It’s a simple. It’s convenient. It’s free. All we need is your email address (though we’d love your name and state, too, if you’re willing to share it).  Sign up below!

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• CHART OF THE DAY: Google Revs Up For Another Growth Spurt
• CHART OF THE DAY: One Third Of U.S. 11-Year-Olds Have Cellphones
• CHART OF THE DAY: Bing Could Catch Yahoo By The End Of The Year