3 ms·

We are talking about Yellen here because unlike Bill Clinton or whomever, she's the one in a position of power and she's the one "summoning regulators to discus

We are talking about Yellen here because unlike Bill Clinton or whomever, she's the one in a position of power and she's the one "summoning regulators to discuss" Melvin (a hedge fund backed by Citadel) and Robinhood (whose number one PFOF client is Citadel). The regulations currently protect market-makers like Citadel from having to adhere to many of the rules that other market participants have to follow. This includes the locate requirement of Reg SHO, as well as the buy-in procedure for failure to deliver. How are we supposed to trust Yellen to regulate one of her own biggest customers (maybe the biggest)? It's an absolute joke to pay Yellen six figures to give a speech, and that's why people are thinking, "wait a sec, this is bribery right?" Are you suggesting that Yellen should get paid because she is "smart, accomplished, respected, and well known"? The impropriety of these lavish payments comes from the fact that she's a cabinet secretary expected to keep these very firms in line. FINRA doesn't let vendors give their individual clients gifts of more than a hundred dollars per year. Yet the current TREASURY SECRETARY raked in $7mm in the past two years for giving bad speeches and somehow we're supposed to just be cool with that? Give me a break. She shouldn't be involved with this.

slg 6y ago
We are talking about the general practice and not specifically Yellen. The comment I replied to did not mention her. My top comment didn't mention her. I only referenced her in response to someone bringing her up directly and it was in the same paragraph as I mentioned Reagan and Bill Clinton. If you think this system is bribery, then Yellen is not the only guilty party. I also said in my top comment that these speaking fees are ridiculous. I don't think they are good use of money. However it is quite a leap to go from these being a poor use of money to them being obvious bribery. Plenty of people and organizations spend money on stupid things. This includes speaking fees for non-politicians. All sorts of famous people from actors to philanthropists to technologists get paid to speak in front of crowds. Are they all forms of bribery? If you are going to accuse people of corruption, you need to have evidence that is stronger than the existence of a motive, which is basically all you have currently.
- totalZero 6y ago
  > We are talking about the general practice and not specifically Yellen. > Are they all forms of bribery? Reagan and Clinton didn't become cabinet officials after cashing in on speeches, and both the article and this thread center on Yellen. Don't attempt to move the goal posts. > If you are going to accuse people of corruption, you need to have > evidence that is stronger than the existence of a motive, which is > basically all you have currently. This is not how it works. Read (b)(1) here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/208 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/208 Then, read (d) here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.502 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.502 Yellen disclosed the sources of her honoraria and acknowledged a financial interest (here: https://extapps2.oge.gov/201/Presiden.nsf/PAS+Index/18A4D129DD5675888525864F0081071C/$FILE/Yellen,%20Janet%20L.%20final%20EA.pdf https://extapps2.oge.gov/201/Presiden.nsf/PAS+Index/18A4D129...). She received written permission based on the determination "that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity" of her work. The question isn't whether she has committed a crime (she has not), nor whether she has motive to unfairly benefit Citadel (she does). Rather, the question is whether that financial interest is substantial enough to likely affect her work (a discretionary call already made by a government official), and whether the process itself is fair to other market participants (I contend that it is not).

slg 6y ago

We are talking about the general practice and not specifically Yellen. The comment I replied to did not mention her. My top comment didn't mention her. I only referenced her in response to someone bringing her up directly and it was in the same paragraph as I mentioned Reagan and Bill Clinton. If you think this system is bribery, then Yellen is not the only guilty party. I also said in my top comment that these speaking fees are ridiculous. I don't think they are good use of money. However it is quite a leap to go from these being a poor use of money to them being obvious bribery. Plenty of people and organizations spend money on stupid things. This includes speaking fees for non-politicians. All sorts of famous people from actors to philanthropists to technologists get paid to speak in front of crowds. Are they all forms of bribery? If you are going to accuse people of corruption, you need to have evidence that is stronger than the existence of a motive, which is basically all you have currently.

totalZero 6y ago
> We are talking about the general practice and not specifically Yellen. > Are they all forms of bribery? Reagan and Clinton didn't become cabinet officials after cashing in on speeches, and both the article and this thread center on Yellen. Don't attempt to move the goal posts. > If you are going to accuse people of corruption, you need to have > evidence that is stronger than the existence of a motive, which is > basically all you have currently. This is not how it works. Read (b)(1) here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/208 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/208 Then, read (d) here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.502 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.502 Yellen disclosed the sources of her honoraria and acknowledged a financial interest (here: https://extapps2.oge.gov/201/Presiden.nsf/PAS+Index/18A4D129DD5675888525864F0081071C/$FILE/Yellen,%20Janet%20L.%20final%20EA.pdf https://extapps2.oge.gov/201/Presiden.nsf/PAS+Index/18A4D129...). She received written permission based on the determination "that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity" of her work. The question isn't whether she has committed a crime (she has not), nor whether she has motive to unfairly benefit Citadel (she does). Rather, the question is whether that financial interest is substantial enough to likely affect her work (a discretionary call already made by a government official), and whether the process itself is fair to other market participants (I contend that it is not).