CONTACT INFORMATION :

About Me:
Real Name: Duncan Black
Age: 37
Location: Philadelphia



RSS Feed
Latest

Search Now:  
Amazon Logo


Blogroll:

Pandagon
Daily Kos
Matthew Yglesias
Josh Marshall
Hullabaloo
Unqualified Offerings
corrente
First Draft
AmericaBlog
Echidne
Firedoglake
Feministe
Crooks&Liars
Washington Monthly
Glenn Greenwald
General J.C. Christian
Crooked Timber
Pacific Views
Altercation
The Big Picture
Shakespeare's Sister
Feministing
Oliver Willis
Think Progress
Adventus
Sadly, No!
Poor Man
Whiskey Fire
Alicublog
TBogg
Talk Left
Orcinus
Roger Ailes
Suburban Guerilla
Upyernoz
Booman Tribune
She Flies...
Attaturk
All Spin Zone
Will Bunch
The Sideshow
Tom Tomorrow
Majikthise
TAPPED
MyDD
Dependable Renegade
Ezra Klein
August J. Pollak
NToddler
Open Left
LG&M
Calculated Risk


 
 
check to have links open new windows


Monday, November 08, 2004
 
More Social Security

Posted by Atrios
As I've written before, my opposition to a forced savings plan [note to Democrats: "forced savings" has a nice ring to it, and is in fact what such a plan would be.] is largely due to the fact that it opens the door for Fund firms, one way or another, to loot the US Treasury and to loot these mandatory accounts. Conservative trolls like to write "Oh, but if you lose all your money it's all your fault!" which, after I get a good laugh at how stupid they are, depresses the hell out of me. First, investments are not deterministic. They are risky. People who do well in the market like to believe they're "smart investors." Maybe they are. But, most of them just got lucky. Being a "smart investor" means that you know more than the market does, something which can't exist if we believe the markets are efficient, as our conservative trolls usually do.

Who knows what kind of investment options would be available for people? Why could you, say, invest in a publicly traded company and not your brother's new pizza joint. But, aside from the risk issue - the bigger one is the fact that firms will find big and small ways to skim from accounts. This latest SEC investigationgives us another way they can do so:

The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating about a dozen brokerage firms - including Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Ameritrade, Charles Schwab and E*Trade Financial - on suspicion that they failed to secure the best available price for stocks they were trading for their customers, according to people who have been briefed on the inquiry.

At issue is the way the companies executed trades of Nasdaq-listed securities when the markets opened in the morning, a period of intense trading activity resulting from the backlog of orders since the market's close the previous day.

After examining trading data from the last four years, the investigation found evidence that trades were often processed in ways that favored the firms over their clients, these people said.

Securing the best price is one of the industry's critical obligations to investors. If the investigators' suspicions are confirmed, these practices are not likely to add up to significant costs for individual investors - the difference would be pennies a share traded - but in total they could represent substantial amounts of money for the brokers.

The move to decimal pricing has made this kind of activity a lot easier. Firms found guilty of this kind of behavior should be nuked [metaphorically], but of course they won't be.






Disclaimer:
This is a personal web site. It is not a production of Media Matters for America (MMFA). Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of MMFA. Preferences for electoral candidates posted on this site have not been expressed using any MMFA resources.



 

 
 












Drinking Liberally