• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Elizabeth Warren: oppose me and I will ruin you

 
 
 
And now for another point of view

Elizabeth Warren challenges Brookings over research backed by industry

Post reporter Tom Hamburger obtained letters that Warren sent this week to Brookings and the Labor Department. The Massachusetts Democrat blasts a report by non-resident scholar, Robert Litan, which predicted high costs for a measure backed strongly by progressives, consumer groups and President Obama.

Citing the $85,000 combined fee that Litan and a co-author received from a leading investment firm, Warren calls their report “highly compensated and editorially compromised work on behalf of an industry player seeking a specific conclusion.”

Litan, who held senior positions in Bill Clinton’s administration, confirmed that the outline for his study was reviewed by its sole sponsor, The Capital Group, which offered some comments. The investment firm has more than $1.4 trillion under management in its American Funds and other products. The company, like others handling retirement investment assets, has made opposition to Labor’s rule one of its top priorities.

The scholar forcefully rejects Warren’s criticism, arguing that he disclosed the funding arrangement repeatedly, including in July testimony before a congressional committee on which Warren sits. He stressed that the funding did not influence his study or its conclusions.

But Litan acknowledges one mistake: His testimony overlooked a relatively new Brookings rule prohibiting non-resident scholars—who are generally not paid by the institution—from associating their congressional testimony with the think tank.
Click to expand...

I am still looking for the actual letters that Warren wrote.

Her complaint pointed to a relatively new form of influence peddling in the nation’s capital, with industry groups and even foreign governments paying think tanks and scholars for research papers that support lobbying goals.

Brookings over the past decade has embarked on aggressive fundraising drives to pay for major expansions. Investigations last year by The Washington Post, the New York Times and others found that donors had gained the ability to influence Brookings’s events and research agenda.

...

The proposed rule, written by the Labor Department, would prohibit retirement plan brokers from receiving enticements from big investment houses that can distract them from the best interests of consumers. Litan concluded that the rule, while well-intentioned, would be too costly.

“Some advisers and brokers recommend investments based on the free vacations, cars, bonuses, fees and other kickbacks that the adviser can earn from selling a lousy product,” Warren wrote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e45276-66c7-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html
Click to expand...
 
Oh, the horror! He was forced* to resign an unpaid position with the Brrokings Institute, his career is wrecked. Wrecked, I tell you! And all just because he violated a Brookings Institute rule. Warren is such a monster for pointing out the rule violation, and observing that a disclosure may have been vague.

I'm sorry, but if the telling truth and a making simple allegation about a vague disclosure is all a Senator need do to ruin a man's career, well then, that career must have been shit to begin with.

[P]*I'm not sure how this forced him to resign anything. If the disclosure was not vague, and he had already put the rule violation behind him by acknowledging it, apologizing, and getting the Brookings Institute to accept the apology, why did he have to resign? But since the WSJ says it's so, it must be true. I mean it's not like they would be biased here, or anything.[/P]
 
I actually do find it vague. Does "was supported by" mean the group supports the results of the study or does it mean they paid for the study?
 
KeepTalking said:
[P]*I'm not sure how this forced him to resign anything. If the disclosure was not vague, and he had already put the rule violation behind him by acknowledging it, apologizing, and getting the Brookings Institute to accept the apology, why did he have to resign? But since the WSJ says it's so, it must be true. I mean it's not like they would be biased here, or anything.[/P]
Click to expand...

The WSJ biased? I am shocked I say, shocked!
 
Axulus said:
laughing dog said:
And my life has not been ruined by any of those violations.
Axulus said:
I don't see anything ironical about it. She is being called out for her horrible actions by using her influence as a us senator to try to destroy someone's career over a petty violation all because he provided reserch and testimony that challenged her regulations. Do you not appreciate the power and influence she wields as a us senator and how corrupt it is to try to use that power to purge a critic?
Click to expand...
The WSJ is using its power and influence in printing a hysterical attack on Senator Warren in order to "ruin" her over a very insignificant action and how corrupt it is to try and use that power to purge a critic of one the WSJ's favorite industries.

I appreciate the difference between an attempt to ruin someone's career and a lame swipe at a critic. Perhaps the WSJ should learn to appreciate the difference as well.
Click to expand...

It's the job of the press to criticize and point out corrupt actions of the powerful. It is very telling that you see no distinction between someone in a position of power and influence trying to harm someone's career for criticizing their policies as equivalent to a journalist reporting and criticizing those actions of that powerful person.
Click to expand...
Warren's remarks were uncalled for, but there is no way that anyone who can fucking think would claim it could "ruin" Litan's career. That sort of rhetoric is uncalled for, just as Warren's oblique observation that Litan violated a Brookings' policy, And the point of the rhetoric was to smear Warren.

The WSJ could report Warren's behavior without the rhetoric. It appears you are under the delusion that legitimate criticism requires hyperbolic rhetoric and/or partisan bullshit. The fact you cannot seem to distinguish the wheat from the chaff in this case is truly disappointing.
 
After hearing stories of Goldman Sachs salesmen texting others about what suckers their customers are while meeting with them, I wouldn't have a financial advisor who wasn't a fiduciary. Sell me a line a crap and then take a position against it? Fuck that.
 
laughing dog said:
AthenaAwakened said:
Found the letters

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2015-9-28_Warren_Brookings_ltr.pdf
http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2015-9-24_Warren_DOL_ltr.pdf
Click to expand...
These letters indicate that the WSJ is misleading since it omits salient facts that Warren was alluding to. Who would have thought the WSJ would stoop so low in order to criticize a liberal Democrat?
Click to expand...

WSJ has always been a financial industry shill in the publishing business. Now, it also just another of Rupert's tentacles.
 
laughing dog said:
AthenaAwakened said:
Found the letters

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2015-9-28_Warren_Brookings_ltr.pdf
http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2015-9-24_Warren_DOL_ltr.pdf
Click to expand...
These letters indicate that the WSJ is misleading since it omits salient facts that Warren was alluding to. Who would have thought the WSJ would stoop so low in order to criticize a liberal Democrat?
Click to expand...

I like how the WSJ charcterized it as "force investors to move from brokers to fiduciaries" like it was having to be done at gunpoint because the last thing an investor would want is to have to deal with an investment advisor that had a fiduciary responsibility to them.

I'm willing to bet that most individual investors already thought they were dealing with a fiduciary when going to an investment professional.
 
Axulus said:
untermensche said:
Axulus said:
Did you miss this part in the OP?

Here’s the note about funding that appears on the first page of his prepared testimony, which is available on the Senate website: “The study was supported by the Capital Group, one of the largest mutual fund asset managers in the United States.”
Click to expand...

How much more clear does it need to be? Are you serious?

Here is a link to the testimony, confirming that it does indeed appear on the first page:

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Litan.pdf
Click to expand...

So words before a report prove a report was not vague.

This is worse than I thought.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, you are confused. Her claim in her letter was that his disclosure on the source of funding for his study was vague (which is either a blatant lie or a serious error which the Senator should apologize for), as well as pointing out he violated a (petty) new Brooking Institution rule that he wasn't supposed to disclose his affiliation to Bookings Institution in his testimony (which appears only in the written testimony and not in his verbal testimony, a mistake which he had already previously acknowledged and apologized for and promised would not happen again). As a result of this letter, obviously due to the pressure and negative attention, he resigned his position with the Brookings Institution.

The purpose of her letter is clear, she was trying to do whatever she could to discredit him and harm his career because his testimony and study challenged her policy and she had no ability to actually address his reasoning and facts (or if she does, she is hiding it from the rest of us).
Click to expand...

This complaint that she called his disclosure "vague" is itself vague and very misleading. She didn't ignore that he mentioned Capital Group was the funder. From her letter:


Dr. Litan's study, which has been featured in the financial industry's comments and public opposition to the DOL regulation,6 contained a broad - but vague - disclosure, stating that
funding for this study was provided by the Capital Group, which provides investment services worldwide."7 Dr. Litan's testimony provided a similar disclosure, while also noting that "Dr. Singer and I are solely responsible for the analysis and conclusions in the study."8 The Capital Group has been rhetorically supportive of a conflict of interest provision, but like other financial industry groups with a major stake in preserving the status quo, has been critical of key details in the proposal, claiming that it would "upend the market for personalized investment advice," that the "proposed best interest contract exemption does not hit the mark," and that the DOL implementation timeline is "not practical."9
Click to expand...

I was curious about the full extent of financial industry support for this study, and asked Dr. Litan additional questions for the record following the hearing. In response, Dr. Litan provided the Committee with important information that bears directly on the credibility of this analysis.

First, Dr. Litan provided specific details on the amount of financial support provided by the Capital Group for his work. He told the Committee that the Capital Group commissioned Economists, Inc. to have Dr. Litan, and Dr. Singer conduct the study, stating that "Economists, Inc. was paid $85,000 for us to conduct" the 28 page study. Dr. Litan further clarified that "my personal share was $38,800." 1 0
Dr. Litan also noted that no other entity provided financial support for his work on the study - that it was funded entirely by the Capital Group. 11

I also asked Dr. Litan whether the Capital Group provided guidance on the goals, content, or conclusions of the study. In response, he reasserted that "the conclusions are our own." 1 2 However, he also noted that "The Capital Group provided us with feedback on our initial outline and some editorial comments, plus a few citations in the literature to follow up."13 This statement appears to be inconsistent with Dr. Litan's testimony before the Senate that "Dr. Singer and I are solely responsible for the analysis" in the study.

Neither the editorial input of the financial industry into Dr. Litan's and Dr. Singer's work nor the exact amount of and sole nature of the industry's financial support for this work were disclosed at the HELP hearing, and they have not previously been disclosed elsewhere. These disclosures are problematic: they raise significant questions about the impartiality of the study and its conclusions, and about why a Brookings-affiliated expert is allowed to use that affiliation to lend credibility to work that is both highly financially compensated and editorially compromised by an industry player seeking a specific conclusion, and has been implicitly criticized by the Institution's own in-house scholars as bought and paid-for research lacking in merit.
Click to expand...
 
ksen said:
laughing dog said:
These letters indicate that the WSJ is misleading since it omits salient facts that Warren was alluding to. Who would have thought the WSJ would stoop so low in order to criticize a liberal Democrat?
Click to expand...

I like how the WSJ charcterized it as "force investors to move from brokers to fiduciaries" like it was having to be done at gunpoint because the last thing an investor would want is to have to deal with an investment advisor that had a fiduciary responsibility to them.

I'm willing to bet that most individual investors already thought they were dealing with a fiduciary when going to an investment professional.
Click to expand...

They would be forced because no broker will take their business as it isn't worth their while anymore.

As Robert's study revealed, the industry will also simply shift to wrap fees, a fee based on a percent of assets under management, which would be expected to be more expensive than the simple commission model currently practiced by some brokers.

Furthermore, brokers already have a fiduciary responsibility for their clients. We already have such laws in place.

See the testimony here:

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Litan.pdf
 
Axulus said:
ksen said:
I like how the WSJ charcterized it as "force investors to move from brokers to fiduciaries" like it was having to be done at gunpoint because the last thing an investor would want is to have to deal with an investment advisor that had a fiduciary responsibility to them.

I'm willing to bet that most individual investors already thought they were dealing with a fiduciary when going to an investment professional.
Click to expand...

They would be forced because no broker will take their business as it isn't worth their while anymore.

As Robert's study revealed, the industry will also simply shift to wrap fees, a fee based on a percent of assets under management, which would be expected to be more expensive than the simple commission model currently practiced by some brokers.

Furthermore, brokers already have a fiduciary responsibility for their clients. We already have such laws in place.

See the testimony here:

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Litan.pdf
Click to expand...

Have you read the letters that Warren wrote?
 
AthenaAwakened said:
Axulus said:
They would be forced because no broker will take their business as it isn't worth their while anymore.

As Robert's study revealed, the industry will also simply shift to wrap fees, a fee based on a percent of assets under management, which would be expected to be more expensive than the simple commission model currently practiced by some brokers.

Furthermore, brokers already have a fiduciary responsibility for their clients. We already have such laws in place.

See the testimony here:

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Litan.pdf
Click to expand...

Have you read the letters that Warren wrote?
Click to expand...

Yes, I posted one of them before you did in fact.

She obsesses over his supposed lack of transparency and questions his motives and intentions despite his stating up front in the written and verbal testimony that the study was funded by one of the largest mutual fund companies in the US. His level of disclosure was reasonable by any standard. No one is expected to provide everyone a copy of the contract and copies of meeting minutes and email exchanges to detail out the relationship, which Sen Warren seems to expect based on her letter.

Yes, you can expect his position on the issue to be aligned with the company that commissioned the study after he disclosed the relationship with the mutual fund company. That does not mean his facts and conclusions determined by his study are automatically groundless. They are worthy points worth challenging head on, something which Sen Warren refuses to do. Her next best route, seemly unable to challenge the points brought up directly, was to try to tarnish his reputation and discredit him ad hom style. She also brings up several times how horrible it is for the Brookings Institution to tarnish itself by being affiliated with such a person and allowing him to use their good name, clearly an attempt to damage his relationship with the Brookings Institution (which worked as he was pressured to resign after the letter was received). She also engages in several straw-man attacks against his argument in the letters. Would you like me to point them out?
 
Axulus said:
AthenaAwakened said:
Have you read the letters that Warren wrote?
Click to expand...

Yes, I posted one of them before you did in fact.

She obsesses over his supposed lack of transparency and questions his motives and intentions despite his stating up front in the written and verbal testimony that the study was funded by one of the largest mutual fund companies in the US. His level of disclosure was reasonable by any standard. No one is expected to provide everyone a copy of the contract and copies of meeting minutes and email exchanges to detail out the relationship, which Sen Warren seems to expect based on her letter.

Yes, you can expect his position on the issue to be aligned with the company that commissioned the study after he disclosed the relationship with the mutual fund company. That does not mean his facts and conclusions determined by his study are automatically groundless. They are worthy points worth challenging head on, something which Sen Warren refuses to do. Her next best route, seemly unable to challenge the points brought up directly, was to try to tarnish his reputation and discredit him ad hom style. She also brings up several times how horrible it is for the Brookings Institution to tarnish itself by being affiliated with such a person and allowing him to use their good name, clearly an attempt to damage his relationship with the Brookings Institution (which worked as he was pressured to resign after the letter was received). She also engages in several straw-man attacks against his argument in the letters. Would you like me to point them out?
Click to expand...

Are you sure we are reading the same letters?
 
AthenaAwakened said:
Axulus said:
Yes, I posted one of them before you did in fact.

She obsesses over his supposed lack of transparency and questions his motives and intentions despite his stating up front in the written and verbal testimony that the study was funded by one of the largest mutual fund companies in the US. His level of disclosure was reasonable by any standard. No one is expected to provide everyone a copy of the contract and copies of meeting minutes and email exchanges to detail out the relationship, which Sen Warren seems to expect based on her letter.

Yes, you can expect his position on the issue to be aligned with the company that commissioned the study after he disclosed the relationship with the mutual fund company. That does not mean his facts and conclusions determined by his study are automatically groundless. They are worthy points worth challenging head on, something which Sen Warren refuses to do. Her next best route, seemly unable to challenge the points brought up directly, was to try to tarnish his reputation and discredit him ad hom style. She also brings up several times how horrible it is for the Brookings Institution to tarnish itself by being affiliated with such a person and allowing him to use their good name, clearly an attempt to damage his relationship with the Brookings Institution (which worked as he was pressured to resign after the letter was received). She also engages in several straw-man attacks against his argument in the letters. Would you like me to point them out?
Click to expand...

Are you sure we are reading the same letters?
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm referring to the 2015-9-28 Brookings Letter. You want to discuss the specifics?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom