6 ms·

WH Ignores Yellen $800k Speaking Fees from Firm Bailed Out GameStop Hedge Fund

67 points by 9387367 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
monkeydreams 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    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.
    - byecomputer 6y ago
      > 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. I'm not convinced that everyone who's knowledgeable enough to preside over this hearing has been paid by this specific firm. Nobody's saying that the advisor on this issue needs to have never given a paid speech or worked for one of the big players. They're saying that the advisor should not have been paid $800,000 by Citadel over the course of multiple speaking arrangements because that's an obvious sign of a preexisting relationship and therefore a conflict of interest.
      - monkeydreams 6y ago
        > I'm not convinced that everyone who's knowledgeable enough to preside over this hearing has been paid by this specific firm. Literally every economic decision Yellen has to advise upon will affect some firm or organisation to which she has provided services. > Nobody's saying that the advisor on this issue needs to have never given a paid speech or worked for one of the big players. But this is exactly what you are saying by implication. Whatever regulatory outcome occurs here will affect all trading firms, which means that all advisors will have been paid by someone at some stage in the past affected by any outcome. > They're saying that the advisor should not have been paid $800,000 by Citadel over the course of multiple speaking arrangements because that's an obvious sign of a preexisting relationship and therefore a conflict of interest. That is not how conflict of interest works. If there is no current relationship, and no indication of a future relationship (e.g. quid pro quo or a promise of employment), and no obvious link to the firm (e.g. an unpaid board seat, etc), then I am finding it hard to see how a conflict of interest might occur.
        byecomputer 6y ago
        > Whatever regulatory outcome occurs here will affect all trading firms, which means that all advisors will have been paid by someone at some stage in the past affected by any outcome. That's unavoidable, but it doesn't change the absolutely controllable and simple request that the investigator not have a direct relationship with the firm in question. > That is not how conflict of interest works. If there is no current relationship, and no indication of a future relationship (e.g. quid pro quo or a promise of employment), and no obvious link to the firm (e.g. an unpaid board seat, etc), then I am finding it hard to see how a conflict of interest might occur. Conflicts of interest do not have to be concurrent in order to be disqualifying. Recusal as an administrative official is generally warranted when one's impartiality could be reasonably questioned due to some significant past-or-present relationship with the parties involved that reaches beyond their role as a public servant.
- temp8964 6y ago
  > 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 6y ago
    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.
    - postalrat 6y ago
      Is there a point in your mind where the amount of money transferred is more than just speaking fees? 2 million? 20 million? 200 million?
      - jjeaff 6y ago
        Sure, it's when it goes far above what similar, non-political speakers are getting. This doesn't appear to be above and beyond market rate for this level of cachet.
        postalrat 6y ago
        So you are saying there isn't an upper limit.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    That was for 2 speeches and a series of webinars. In contrast, Seth Godin and Malcolm Gladwell command as much as $250k for a single speech. Oprah gets a rumored 7 figures. If Seth Godin can legitimately command $250k for a single speech, I think Janet Yellen can easily command $800k for two speeches and a webinar series (which could actually be any number of episodes).
- bagacrap 6y ago
  They only want her to recuse herself in the case that involves her benefactors, not all economic matters.
redisman 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    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 6y ago
      Some might argue that public officials being paid extraordinary sums by private investment firms in exchange for access and influence is nefarious in itself.
      - travmatt 6y ago
        Some might argue that you should provide evidence and arguments that support your allegation that’s she’s selling influence.
Proven 6y ago
Of course they are ignoring this tiny bit of news - what are they supposed to do? Biden's campaign was funded by Wall St money (same as Obama's). It's time to reward the backers.

67 points by 9387367 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

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 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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.
  - byecomputer 6y ago
    > 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. I'm not convinced that everyone who's knowledgeable enough to preside over this hearing has been paid by this specific firm. Nobody's saying that the advisor on this issue needs to have never given a paid speech or worked for one of the big players. They're saying that the advisor should not have been paid $800,000 by Citadel over the course of multiple speaking arrangements because that's an obvious sign of a preexisting relationship and therefore a conflict of interest.
    - monkeydreams 6y ago
      > I'm not convinced that everyone who's knowledgeable enough to preside over this hearing has been paid by this specific firm. Literally every economic decision Yellen has to advise upon will affect some firm or organisation to which she has provided services. > Nobody's saying that the advisor on this issue needs to have never given a paid speech or worked for one of the big players. But this is exactly what you are saying by implication. Whatever regulatory outcome occurs here will affect all trading firms, which means that all advisors will have been paid by someone at some stage in the past affected by any outcome. > They're saying that the advisor should not have been paid $800,000 by Citadel over the course of multiple speaking arrangements because that's an obvious sign of a preexisting relationship and therefore a conflict of interest. That is not how conflict of interest works. If there is no current relationship, and no indication of a future relationship (e.g. quid pro quo or a promise of employment), and no obvious link to the firm (e.g. an unpaid board seat, etc), then I am finding it hard to see how a conflict of interest might occur.
      - byecomputer 6y ago
        > Whatever regulatory outcome occurs here will affect all trading firms, which means that all advisors will have been paid by someone at some stage in the past affected by any outcome. That's unavoidable, but it doesn't change the absolutely controllable and simple request that the investigator not have a direct relationship with the firm in question. > That is not how conflict of interest works. If there is no current relationship, and no indication of a future relationship (e.g. quid pro quo or a promise of employment), and no obvious link to the firm (e.g. an unpaid board seat, etc), then I am finding it hard to see how a conflict of interest might occur. Conflicts of interest do not have to be concurrent in order to be disqualifying. Recusal as an administrative official is generally warranted when one's impartiality could be reasonably questioned due to some significant past-or-present relationship with the parties involved that reaches beyond their role as a public servant.
temp8964 6y ago
> 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 6y ago
  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.
  - postalrat 6y ago
    Is there a point in your mind where the amount of money transferred is more than just speaking fees? 2 million? 20 million? 200 million?
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      Sure, it's when it goes far above what similar, non-political speakers are getting. This doesn't appear to be above and beyond market rate for this level of cachet.
      - postalrat 6y ago
        So you are saying there isn't an upper limit.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  That was for 2 speeches and a series of webinars. In contrast, Seth Godin and Malcolm Gladwell command as much as $250k for a single speech. Oprah gets a rumored 7 figures. If Seth Godin can legitimately command $250k for a single speech, I think Janet Yellen can easily command $800k for two speeches and a webinar series (which could actually be any number of episodes).
bagacrap 6y ago
They only want her to recuse herself in the case that involves her benefactors, not all economic matters.

redisman 6y ago

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 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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 6y ago
    Some might argue that public officials being paid extraordinary sums by private investment firms in exchange for access and influence is nefarious in itself.
    - travmatt 6y ago
      Some might argue that you should provide evidence and arguments that support your allegation that’s she’s selling influence.

Proven 6y ago

Of course they are ignoring this tiny bit of news - what are they supposed to do? Biden's campaign was funded by Wall St money (same as Obama's). It's time to reward the backers.