The Senate is due to vote today on the so-called "JOBS" bill -- a piece of legislation, originating in the House, which aims to reduce disclosure and other securities law protections for investors (see my review yesterday; a link to HR3606 is here).
Supporters of the law claim that it will greatly increase the number of companies going public -- and that this will boost economic growth and job creation. Opponents argue that by weakening investor protection, the risks of investing in start-up companies will increase -- there will be more frauds and scams -- and this will increase the cost of capital for honest entrepreneurs.
Members of the CFA Institute have an interest in getting this right -- this is the "global association of investment professionals" and they make their living by figuring out what is a good investment and what is likely to become a losing proposition. These people also have a lot of expertise on the key issue - which is better for business, weakening investor protections or keeping them in place? Which way are these experts voting?
Overwhelmingly, members of the CFA Institute are against the "JOBs" bill as it currently stands.
According to a survey released yesterday, and available through MarketWatch, 33 percent of CFA members in the U.S. think that the Senate should "not pass this bill," while 27 percent think the Senate should pass a bill with more investor protections. (The member survey was conducted online from March 13-16, with 491 U.S. members participating.)
In terms of the effects that the legislation would have on investor protection, the view is overwhelmingly skeptical: 63 percent say "the proposed bill would create additional gaps in investor protection and transparency," and only 3 percent say the bill would improve investor protection (the rest think it will have no effect).
The essential nuts and bolts question is: What effect, if any, would the bill have on an investor's ability to make informed investment decisions? The majority, 59 percent, of those surveyed think, "The bill would decrease an investor's ability to make informed investment decisions," while only 9 percent think it will enable investors to make more informed decisions.
In rather more colorful language, the Motley Fool -- a strong advocate for investors - takes an equally negative view of the "JOBS" bill. Investors in companies with less than $1 billion in revenue (i.e., most companies in the United States today) "would look forward to":
The legalization of Wall Street pump-and-dump behavior that was banned after the Enron and WorldCom frauds.
Less clarity in executive compensation and golden parachute disclosure.Weaker auditing standards.
Markets with weak investor protection and little effective disclosure are subject to a great deal of volatility. They also do not typically do well over time - there might be a boom for a while, but fraud and excess generally prevail, resulting in a big collapse. Well-connected people, including many stock brokers, can do well - this was the experience in the US stock market frenzy of the 1920s. But ordinary investors do not thrive in this environment - and ultimately everyone suffers, as in the 1930s.
In terms of the practical alternatives at this point, I agree with the position taken by Ilan Moscovitz in the Motley Fool article:
Although the House has already passed the worst elements of the bill, the Senate is considering the Reed-Landrieu-Levin amendment, which would help clean up most of these problems.
Among other things, the Reed-Landrieu-Levin amendment would make sure investors still get clear executive pay disclosures, reduce the number of companies that get exempted from accounting rules, and help ensure that crowd-funding companies give true information to investors.They're voting on it tomorrow [i.e., Tuesday/today].
What do you think? You can let your senators know here.
Contact your senator by 4pm today or don't complain when your savings are stolen by fraudsters.
Simon Johnson is the co-author of White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters To You, available from April 3rd. This post is cross-posted from The Baseline Scenario.
Follow Simon Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/baselinescene
Simon Johnson: Fiscal Affairs: "JOBS" Disaster Looms
Tim Rowe: The Wisdom of the Crowd
For those who say regulations stifle, no it's the opposite, transparency is what we need in these situations. That's best way to restore trust in business, starting with Wall Street.
This article explains the bill better.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/217013-dems-bring-last-minute-fight-to-stop-gop-jobs-bill-in-the-senate
It's that serious. This is the big one. If this bill becomes law, game's over.
This is reflected in the purchasing power of the US dollar and should have government support.
Wealth should be created for the benefit of future US generations.
Existing wealth should not be sold to foreigners so that present US citizens can afford to not work. The US government policy is apparently to destroy the manufacturing of consumer goods in the USA through Free Trade.
There is not much industry left in the USA.
The economic pie of any nation is the total value of the PRIVATELY OWNED WEALTH that is located within the boundaries of that nation and is SUBJECT TO TAXATION and/or CONFISCATION by our various governmental taxing authorities to pay for government services and government contracts that CONSUME NATIONAL WEALTH rather than CREATE NATIONAL WEALTH.
Yet in the 1930's, the government was not bailing out the well connected from self-made bankruptcy, nor passing them essentially interest free loans with which to make guaranteed profit. This is another big gift to the same folks that imperils the public interest.
This article does not say anywhere?
Maybe all of the recently created new financial products, and similar new toxic asset products created by the Wall Street master financial geniuses that created various derivative and other junk bond type freshly printed paper securities out of the thin air should require a separate application and a separate license granted by the SEC for the creation, existence and/or sale of each and/or any new financial product.
Maybe the SEC should require/grant license only to those that have intrinsic collateral value, are easily understood, are transparent, forthright, and are not deceptive in their sworn financial statements filed with the SEC.
Maybe the SEC should also require a study to justify the need and define the value of any new derivative type instrument created, similar to an Environmental Impact Statement.
When the financial risks are several layers or completely removed from the title to the actual asset that has some actual collateral value (like a Mortgage, Bond, Property Title, Stock Share, Promissory note), and this instrument is insured from most of the investment risk, how much due diligence will an investor perform before he will commit to purchase, as compared to the investing into a primary mortgage or similar instrument that is collateralized for the event of failure?
If I were driving a car without insurance, I would probably drive more carefully than if I had insurance since my exposure for loss is lessened with insurance coverage.
^ ^
We need to bring manufacturing back to the United States of America and both parties are ignoring tariffs as a way to level the playing field, raise money and bring jobs back home. Let's guess why. Oh that's right, tariff is a dirty word. Hum, maybe it’s that our so called leaders (political leaders) are beholden to the same people who are exporting our jobs.
These FTAs economically required that US businesses take advantage of lower cost Labor, environmental requirements, and other cost savings offered in foreign countries in order to make the price to the Consuner the very lowest price possible.
President Obama has created more FTA's than I can count in the last three years.
President George W. Bush created 14 FTA's.
President Clinton created NAFTA plus H-1b visas, GATT, WTO, Most Favored Nation (MFN) status for China, and the Cambodia FTA.
If you want to bring back these jobs at previous US pay scales instead of having to accept Asian Pay scales, then you would have to repeal each and every one of these Agreements and Treaties.
China has a Most Favored Nation WTO trade status instead of a Free Trade Agreement, but I lump all of these things into FTAs when I talk.
Our government, who is supposed to represent the American people, has to help even the playing field by adding tariffs that are proportionate to the inequities in wages and regulations in the country where the goods were produced and or where we're importing them from. We could then use the money raised by these tariffs to help companies build state of the art manufacturing plants here in the USA, which would create more jobs here at home for US citizens, which would then in turn increase our income tax revenue. We also need to bring customer support services back to the United States of America and staff them with employees who are US Citizens. (Preferably, non-union cross trained employees)
Most US Citizens are not as concerned about the “Global Economy" as they are about being able to earn a living, their children’s future and the future of our country.
We may have to pay a bit more for products made here in the USA by US citizens, but at least we'll still have jobs and a future for our children.
I have to admit that I find myself wondering....how long.....how long before the blood of our representatives is spilled?
What does CFA stand for? Usually an acronym has some sort of meaning. Would be helpful that we know this up front in the story.
Here's an idea that is non political, and non corporate - it requires no money and little sacrifice from any single corporation. It helps solve the jobs problem in one week. It helps the nation and is totally voluntary. http://wp.me/p5S9X-nv
National Hiring Day. This is a day that corporations are encouraged to hire new employees. Corporations are called on to put patriotism first and help their country in hard times. Those corporations that cannot hire, are asked to stop firing for that month.