Comments on: After the Robin Hood tax http://blogs.reuters.com/hugo-dixon/2012/03/26/after-the-robin-hood-tax/ Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:55:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: breezinthru http://blogs.reuters.com/hugo-dixon/2012/03/26/after-the-robin-hood-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-238 Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:35:24 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/hugo-dixon/?p=299#comment-238 Less than three years from now, there will likely be a need for another infusion of cash from the ECB to Eurozone banks because so much of that money has been invested in the futures of nations suffering under the weight of economic malaise and/or disfunction.

Should that infusion be subject to a ‘hot money’ tax?

]]>
By: ptiffany http://blogs.reuters.com/hugo-dixon/2012/03/26/after-the-robin-hood-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-237 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:04:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/hugo-dixon/?p=299#comment-237 The “hot money” tax is what has been termed “interest” for a couple of centuries. If the Fed is going to give away money to the banks, the tax/interest is lost and the appropriate long-term incentives eliminated.

It seems the idea of creating a fund to bailout banks has been similarly applied by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for decades. It seems to work quite well for depositors.

There is also another idea that has been around for many years called reserve requirements. If banks and insurance companies want to gamble, they shouldn’t be doing it with FDIC-insured deposits. Seems the ex-CEO of Citigroup, John Reed, now believes that Glass-Steagall should be reinstituted.

Sorry, but this is one of the lamest financial articles written in a while.

]]>
By: txgadfly http://blogs.reuters.com/hugo-dixon/2012/03/26/after-the-robin-hood-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-236 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:13:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/hugo-dixon/?p=299#comment-236 Actually, the source of the problem is Government backing of massive, non-consumer deposits, loans, and other financial instruments. If the Government restricted itself to “little people” deposit insurance and let the big banks fail otherwise, the system would have a chance. As it stands, banks risk almost nothing. Their shareholders have almost no ownership say-so over the banks’ behavior and suffer all losses while the management, which is the real problem, takes outlandish risks and keep their jobs after they have “fired” their shareholders through financial failure.

The tax should land squarely on the backs of management rather than shareholders, and should personally persist after any bailout. Bailouts should guarantee no bonuses, or compensation named otherwise, be paid from the surviving entity for at least a decade. The managers are to blame for the misbehavior but suffer very few of the consequences. The pressure to behave must be applied to the decision makers.

]]>
By: wildbiker http://blogs.reuters.com/hugo-dixon/2012/03/26/after-the-robin-hood-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-235 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:09:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/hugo-dixon/?p=299#comment-235 I believe this is another case of attempting social engineering in a banking envirnoment through the use of a pejorative tax. It’s an attempt to influence what’s viewed as poor behavior (excessive risk taking) by reducing the profit potential of that behavior. But it’s wrong-headed. How much risk taking is too much? Who decides that? Is that adjustable to conditions? The answer is some risk-averse bureaucrat would decide. Any statute or regulation put in place would not be flexible enough to adapt to changing market conditions. If it were, you would simply be shifting the risk management from the banks to the bureaucrats. The problem is a lack of accountability to consequence for those at banks making poor decisions. It doesn’t need the introduction of some criminal consequence to poor decisions. But there should be some personal consequence, either financial or to one’s career. The culture that insulates someone from that is what needs fixing. Not the practice that is the symptom of that.

]]>
By: rhone http://blogs.reuters.com/hugo-dixon/2012/03/26/after-the-robin-hood-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-234 Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:48:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/hugo-dixon/?p=299#comment-234 Most of the proposed bank taxes are actually complex, cascading taxes with investors and consumers paying the final result. The Robbing Hood tax is the most inane of them all, with the entire focus on taxing investors and calling it a bank tax. Investors are already over-taxed and discouraged from investing. Debt has been encouraged with lax lending standards, tax credits, breaks, bail-outs, low rates, absurd leverage…

]]>