recentpopularlog in

jerryking : political_advocacy   4

One Firm Getting What It Wants in Washington: BlackRock - WSJ
By RYAN TRACY and SARAH KROUSE
Updated April 20, 2016

The Problem: BlackRock believed that the U.S. Federal Reserve was leaning towards designating it as a source of financial system risk, like other big banks, and as such, be “too big to fail”.

What Was At Stake: the designation “systemically important” would draw BlackRock in for greater oversight by the Federal Reserve which would mean tougher rules and potentially higher capital requirements from U.S. regulators.

The Solution: BlackRock didn't take any chances. The company began spending heavily on lobbying and engaging policymakers. Executives at the firm began preparing for greater federal scrutiny of their business in the months following the 2008 financial crisis. BlackRock aggressively prepared a counter-narrative upon discovered a Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Research report that asset-management firms and the funds they run were “vulnerable to shocks” and may engage in “herding” behavior that could amplify a shock to the financial system. The response took the form of a 40-plus-page paper rebutting the report. The firm suggested that instead of focusing on the size of a manager or fund, regulators should look at what specific practices, such as the use of leverage, might be the source of risks. While other money managers such as Fidelity and Vanguard sought to evade being labeled systemically important, BlackRock’s strategy stood out.
BlackRock  crony_capitalism  Washington_D.C.  risks  lobbying  too_big_to_fail  asset_management  advocacy  government_relations  influence  political_advocacy  policy  U.S._Federal_Reserve  systemic_risks  Communicating_&_Connecting  U.S.Treasury_Department  counternarratives  oversight  financial_system  leverage  debt  creating_valuable_content  think_differently  policymakers  policymaking 
april 2016 by jerryking
Think tanks need to show us the money - The Globe and Mail
KONRAD YAKABUSKI
The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Feb. 09 2015

Like Brookings, almost of all of Canada’s leading think tanks claim to be independent and non-partisan. But while none – not even the Broadbent Institute – is directly affiliated with a political party, it’s not hard to discern an identifiable political agenda in the research they produce. American think tanks, says former think-tank founder David Callahan, “often operate as the motherships of ideological movements – weaving together a jumble of values and ideas into a coherent story and actionable agenda.” You could easily say the same of most of their Canadian counterparts.
Konrad_Yakabuski  think_tanks  lobbying  Brookings  institution-building  networks  institutions  political_infrastructure  transparency  political_advocacy  policy_analysis  policy  conflicts_of_interest  policymaking 
february 2015 by jerryking

Copy this bookmark:





to read