Michael Maiello's picture

    For the Love of Wall Street!

    If you get your news from Politico, you are a strange person, but they have been pushing the line for months that Wall Street likes Hillary Clinton and also Jeb Bush.  The line is that anonymous financial services types find both acceptable.  The inference for liberals is that this means Clinton is as much a tool of the financial industry as a member of the Bush family.

    I think that's the wrong inference, based on experience working in that industry.  What I have heard from otherwise informed people is that voting for Clinton this time around is a definite vote against our own interests as she is likely to amend the capital gains tax schedule in an unfavorable way. They also fear increased income taxes, increased regulations and the increased possibility of a financial transactions tax.

    This is not to say that they'd prefer, say Bernie Sanders to Hillary.  They don't.  They see a serious Sanders candidacy as a bad sign for where the industry stands in the public's mind. That's also how they see the existence of Ted Cruz.  They definitely don't want to see President Donald Trump.  From a banker's perspective, it would be awkward to have a president who owes you money.

    Point being, people in the industry don't see Clinton as any sort of tool, any more than they've seen Obama that way.  From the outside, the perspective is that bankers didn't go to jail after the Financial Crisis and that big banks weren't broken up.  From the inside, a lot has changed. People may not have gone to jail, but many were driven from the industry.  Banks may not have been split up, but the proprietary trading desks of old are all gone (ironically, mostly spun out into hedge funds that contribute to an even less regulated shadow banking system). Point being that insiders have had their cheese moved since 2008 and they tend to blame Democrats.  They are not excited about a Clinton presidency, they merely acknowledge it as likely.

    That said, there are warm feelings for Clinton that go beyond raw economic interest.  Clinton is correct, for example, that as a NY Senator during 9/11, she acquitted herself well and is remembered for it.  She should have expanded that to say that New Yorkers were generally quite satisfied with her senate term.  She has always been popular in the state and especially the city.

    On a personal level, Clinton's story -- one of social and economic climbing, does tend to resonate with individual workers in the financial services industry.  That's why otherwise normal people get into that line of work.

    Related -- Clinton is kind of a Davos/TED talk style celebrity -- a popular type in these circles.

    Also, Clinton inspires and delights women on the professional rise and this is a huge, changing component of financial services. Clinton cited her support from women, I wonder how many of those women have financial services jobs.

    Finally, this is an industry where people have extra money to donate to politics, so it will always have a collectively larger effect on donations.  Excess pay is concentrated at the top but even among the rank and file, people tend to make more working for a bank than they would working for other types of businesses.

    But from what I hear, people doing those jobs actually fear Clinton will harm that.



    Don't know if you saw this from Politifact

    Clinton, still a senator at the time, delivered a speech on the volatility of the subprime mortgage market on March 15, 2007. She said too many people were ignoring warning signs.

    "The subprime problems are now creating massive issues on Wall Street," Clinton said. "It's a serious problem affecting our housing market and millions of hard-working families."

    She gave specific proposals for addressing subprime mortgages, including expanding the role of the Federal Housing Administration, more borrowing options for underprivileged and first-time homebuyers, more safeguards against predatory lending practices and policies intended to prevent foreclosures.

    In August that year, she delivered a similar speech about dealing with problems from subprime mortgages. There, she reiterated earlier proposals, and also suggested laws establishing national standards and registration for loan brokers, as well as regulations on lenders.

    But, but, she received money from people who work on Wall Street!  I guess I should have pointed this out in the piece but the financial services industry in New York City is still part of New York City.  In short, Wall Street is full of Democrats.  Now, they might be more like Steve Rattner Democrats than Bernie Sanders Democrats but it isn't surprising that an industry made up of Steve Rattner Democrats would donate to the front runner.

    They definitely don't want to see President Donald Trump. From a banker's perspective, it would be awkward to have a president who owes you money.
    Boom. Are you more or less likely to play ball with big banks on Wall Street if they "own" at least part of your portfolio?

    You got that right!

    I hereby render unto Mike M the Dayly Line of the Week Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of this bastard, from all of me.

    Yeah Missy, you hit it all right!

    See, you really cannot read this kind of stuff anywhere, unless of course the Onion is in the right mooooood. hahahahahahha

    Latest Comments