3 ms·

Not limited to equities, or to China. Regulators worldwide are weighing the systemic risks of now enforcing the transparency that should have always been presen

by rrggrr 10y ago

Not limited to equities, or to China. Regulators worldwide are weighing the systemic risks of now enforcing the transparency that should have always been present. Dodd-Frank is paying off now, finally as capital flees risk for the perceived, possibly very real safety of US markets.

nickff 10y ago
Exactly how is Dodd-Frank paying off now? Most investors have seen US markets as the safest for at least a few decades, if not longer. Dodd-Frank may have expedited the decrease in the number of listed companies (through the imposition of large fixed costs which hurt small companies), but I see little evidence that investors feel any 'safer'.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  Its clear its not doing much, but there's this HN narrative about how China can't be criticized and if it is then there's whataboutism with "The US is just as bad" which is often a false narrative. The Dodd-Frank is just something pulled out one's ass to promote that narrative. In reality, US markets are considered very safe even before Dodd-Frank. As much as HN claims $this_year is the end of the "petrodollar", its clear the the USD still rules and is considered a safe currency as well. A year or two ago this forum was full of "rise of the BRICs" rhetoric. Russia's and Brazil's economy have stagnated with no end in sight, India is going nowhere, and China is playing 'house of cards' with its markets. Trust me, if you want investing advice, don't get it from HN. The narratives here are politically biased to promote an anti-US sentiment and other college identity politics groupthink.
- rrggrr 10y ago
  Dodd-Frank != Sarbanes-Oxley. You are confused.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Both have compliance costs, please give Dodd-Frank a thorough read, and you will see what I mean. There are some especially bad laws in there, such as the conflict mineral reporting requirement,

by rrggrr 10y ago

nickff 10y ago

Exactly how is Dodd-Frank paying off now? Most investors have seen US markets as the safest for at least a few decades, if not longer. Dodd-Frank may have expedited the decrease in the number of listed companies (through the imposition of large fixed costs which hurt small companies), but I see little evidence that investors feel any 'safer'.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Its clear its not doing much, but there's this HN narrative about how China can't be criticized and if it is then there's whataboutism with "The US is just as bad" which is often a false narrative. The Dodd-Frank is just something pulled out one's ass to promote that narrative. In reality, US markets are considered very safe even before Dodd-Frank. As much as HN claims $this_year is the end of the "petrodollar", its clear the the USD still rules and is considered a safe currency as well. A year or two ago this forum was full of "rise of the BRICs" rhetoric. Russia's and Brazil's economy have stagnated with no end in sight, India is going nowhere, and China is playing 'house of cards' with its markets. Trust me, if you want investing advice, don't get it from HN. The narratives here are politically biased to promote an anti-US sentiment and other college identity politics groupthink.
rrggrr 10y ago
Dodd-Frank != Sarbanes-Oxley. You are confused.
- nickff 10y ago
  Both have compliance costs, please give Dodd-Frank a thorough read, and you will see what I mean. There are some especially bad laws in there, such as the conflict mineral reporting requirement,