<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Cato @ Liberty &#187; morgan stanley</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/tag/morgan-stanley/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org</link>
	<description>Cato Institute Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:19:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<cloud domain='www.cato-at-liberty.org' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />
		<item>
		<title>More Proof ObamaCare Is a Sop to Industry</title>
		<link>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/more-proof-obamacare-is-a-sop-to-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/more-proof-obamacare-is-a-sop-to-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:45:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael F. Cannon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cato Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government and Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aetna]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bailout]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cigna]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david cordani]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david redfern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GlaxoSmithKline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government subsidies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gsk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health care reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hhs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[individual mandate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liz fowler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mark bertolini]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morgan stanley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[repeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reuters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standard & Poor’s 500]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[susan heavey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/?p=23668</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>By Michael F. Cannon</p>Reuters has helpfully published another article demonstrating that ObamaCare&#8216;s biggest cheerleaders are the insurance and drug industries.  That&#8217;s because, barring repeal and despite the Obama administration&#8217;s fatuous rhetoric about standing up to the special interests, ObamaCare will shower those industries with massive subsidies.  Excerpts follow. Health Overhaul Should Press Ahead: Industry By Susan Heavey Thu Nov [...]<p><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/more-proof-obamacare-is-a-sop-to-industry/">More Proof ObamaCare Is a Sop to Industry</a> is a post from <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org">Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By Michael F. Cannon</p><p>Reuters has helpfully published another <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AA4GV20101111">article</a> demonstrating that <a href="www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/BadMedicineWP.pdf">ObamaCare</a>&#8216;s biggest cheerleaders are the insurance and drug industries.  That&#8217;s because, barring repeal and despite the Obama administration&#8217;s fatuous rhetoric about standing up to the special interests, ObamaCare will shower those industries with massive subsidies.  Excerpts follow.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Health Overhaul Should Press Ahead: Industry</strong><br />
By Susan Heavey</p>
<p>Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:39pm EST</p>
<p>NEW YORK (Reuters) &#8211; Repeal reform? No thanks, say health insurers, drugmakers and others looking for a clearer picture of the U.S. healthcare market after the bruising passage of the controversial overhaul law&#8230;</p>
<p>The new healthcare law created &#8220;a stable,  predictable environment, however painful it has been in the short term,&#8221;  GlaxoSmithKline Plc&#8217;s (<a href="http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=GSK.L">GSK.L</a>) Chief Strategy Officer David Redfern said at the summit in New York.</p>
<p>&#8220;When  you are running a business, the hardest thing is changing policy and a  changing environment because it is very difficult to plan, predict and  ultimately invest in that sort of scenario,&#8221; he said, echoing other  speakers.</p></blockquote>
<p>True enough.  How&#8217;s a firm supposed to develop a business plan around <em>uncertain</em> taxpayer subsidies?</p>
<blockquote><p>Health officials must still hammer out how to  implement the law and finalize hundreds of new rules and regulations.  Many such details are key, as the sector looks to adjust its business  for 2011 and beyond.</p></blockquote>
<p>Wait, I thought the law created a &#8220;stable, predictable environment&#8221; and repeal would create uncertainty.  Hmmmm.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Anti-reform made good talking points before  the election,&#8221; said the Department of Health and Human Services&#8217; Liz  Fowler, adding that people &#8220;will find more to like than to dislike&#8221; in  the law once it is more in place.</p></blockquote>
<p>Boy, they just won&#8217;t let go of that <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/healthplan_n_725503.html">chestnut</a>, will they?  Remember: <em>voters</em> need <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/08/sebelius-time-for-reeducation-on-obama-health-care-law.html">re-education</a>, not the Obama administration.</p>
<blockquote><p>Even insurers, which were vilified by  Democrats in passing the reforms, said they don&#8217;t want a repeal, even as  they push for clarity on forthcoming rules and seek additional changes.</p>
<p>Cigna Corp CEO David Cordani and Aetna Inc President Mark Bertolini both urged the nation to move forward on the overhaul.</p></blockquote>
<p><em>Even the insurance industry</em> is against repeal?  The folks whose products the law will force 200 million Americans to purchase?  <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/curtain-call-for-the-public-option-sideshow/">Never</a> <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/conservatives-beware-rent-seeking-insurers/">saw</a><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/strange-bedfellows/"> that</a> <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/reid-wont-even-tell-his-base-what-hes-asking-them-to-swallow/">coming</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>Since the start of 2009, the Morgan Stanley Health Care Payor index has risen 75 percent, outperforming a roughly 35 percent rise for the broader Standard &amp; Poor&#8217;s 500 index.</p></blockquote>
<p>You don&#8217;t say.</p>
<blockquote><p>Unlike insurers[!], drugmakers have escaped largely unscathed under the law, although there is still incentive to shape it.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/tauzin-on-the-80-billion-phrma-obama-deal/">You don&#8217;t say.</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/more-proof-obamacare-is-a-sop-to-industry/">More Proof ObamaCare Is a Sop to Industry</a> is a post from <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org">Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/more-proof-obamacare-is-a-sop-to-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Washington Push on Executive Pay Has Unintended Consequences</title>
		<link>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/washington-push-on-executive-pay-has-unintended-consequences/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/washington-push-on-executive-pay-has-unintended-consequences/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:23:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark A. Calabria</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Finance, Banking & Monetary Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ceos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citibank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compensation levels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[executive compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[executives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morgan stanley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stock options]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[top executives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wall street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wall street bonuses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/?p=7981</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>By Mark A. Calabria</p>Regulators at the SEC and politicians on Capitol Hill seem to have short memories when it comes to executive compensation.  When the SEC years ago decided to make the compensation of top executives public information, it had the all too predictable result of actually increasing average compensation levels.  Once a top CEO knew what other [...]<p><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/washington-push-on-executive-pay-has-unintended-consequences/">Washington Push on Executive Pay Has Unintended Consequences</a> is a post from <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org">Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By Mark A. Calabria</p><p>Regulators at the SEC and politicians on Capitol Hill seem to have short memories when it comes to executive compensation.  When the SEC years ago decided to make the compensation of top executives public information, it had the all too predictable result of actually increasing average compensation levels.  Once a top CEO knew what other CEOs were making, he could argue for a pay hike based upon being &#8220;underpaid&#8221;.  Of course regulators were &#8220;shocked&#8221; by the resulting &#8220;race to the top.&#8221; </p>
<p>Similarly Congress was shocked when after deciding to heavily tax salaries over $1 million, that companies shifted away from direct cash pay and toward options and increased bonuses in the form of shares. </p>
<p>And soon Washington will also pretend to be shocked and outraged that the current anger over Wall Street bonuses is leading firms to reduce bonuses, but increase base pay.  As <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124649974821983889.html#mod=todays_us_money_and_investing">illustrated in today&#8217;s <em>Wall Street Journal</em></a>, companies like Morgan Stanley have increased their base pay from $300,000 to $400,000.  Even Citibank, essentially a ward of the US government, is increasing its base pay to $300,000 for employees that were previously eligible for bonuses.</p>
<p>The real harm in this is not that Wall Street employees are getting paid more in cash, but that less of their compensation will be tied to their performance, and the performance of their firm.  A flat salary, regardless of how hard you work, will encourage shirking. Perhaps even worse, is that more upfront cash, and less long-term stock options, will shift Wall Street&#8217;s focus even more toward today, rather than tomorrow.  So much for Washington fixing the short term focus of Wall Street, but then one shouldn&#8217;t be too surprised given the even more short term focus of Washington.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/washington-push-on-executive-pay-has-unintended-consequences/">Washington Push on Executive Pay Has Unintended Consequences</a> is a post from <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org">Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/washington-push-on-executive-pay-has-unintended-consequences/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.142 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-02-10 18:02:57 -->
<!-- Compression = gzip -->
