Building wealth and how Wall Street has changed with Raymond McGuire, Citigroup vice chair

Рет қаралды 8,223

Yahoo Finance

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 20

@royce1041 4 жыл бұрын

Next NYC mayor

@ihorperec4990 3 жыл бұрын

God forbid. He would be serving Wall Street, not the people.

@pradeepraje6404 3 жыл бұрын

Accidently saw this video, he is absolutely impressive.

@boston1977boston 3 жыл бұрын

Ray McGuire is running for Mayor. Here are the pros and cons... *Pros* - NYC government is a big bureaucracy, so it's important that the next mayor has prior experience leading from a large corporate or government setting. - NYC will need to borrow money and cut budget, so his Wall Street background positions him to help the city meet these critical needs. - Seems very involved with corporate inclusivity. *Cons* - He was an executive at Citigroup, a major player in the Subprime mortgage fiasco, during which black Americans lost half of their wealth (source: National Association of Real Estate Brokers). While the crisis caused mass unemployment for many Americans, Citigroup was bailed out by the federal government for $25 billion and 738 of its employees received bonuses of at least $1 million. - He's funded by billionaires (Tisch family member is head of finance). It's hard to create equitable policies when you mingle with the uber wealthy. - Small businesses in New York are hurting, and he comes off as someone lacking experience improving their fortunes. Ray's platform implicates government as the problem, but small businesses fail in New York for two reasons: they compete with corporations, who are simply better funded and more skilled as operators, and commercial real estate owners don't need to lower lease prices. The real question is what are the core competencies and expertise that New York Cities needs right now? My guess is it's loans and smart budget cuts, so he may be the best person for the job.

@austinwilliams3753 3 жыл бұрын

Corruption outweighs any pro in my book.. Yang is funded by small dollar donations (not by billionaire bankowners) therefore he is better

@boston1977boston 3 жыл бұрын

@@austinwilliams3753 I hear you. The fact that billionaires (and the worst kind, inheritance billionaires) seem to be involved in Ray's campaign rubs me the wrong way because it seems like he won't tax them if the city needs it. But I think the middle class and poor are actually going to suffer more if the city is run by someone who doesn't have experience raising capital, balancing a budget and managing a bureaucracy at a very high level. Politics unfortunately is about making tradeoffs.

@austinwilliams3753 3 жыл бұрын

@@boston1977boston On the raising capital front, I'd even say that Yang would be the smart option.. Based on the fact that he has demonstated use of vocality to raise funds.. not just in raising millions in donations for his campaign and nonprofit but also using the bully pulpit which will be key in unlocking billions in federal aid.. on top of that he would be willing to generate revenue from the ultra rich. I just dont see any trade-off.

@boston1977boston 3 жыл бұрын

@@austinwilliams3753 Not talking about raising funds for campaigns. Talking about raising billions of dollars through the municipal bond market, which the city will need to do in order to fund programs that benefit its residents, especially the poor. The city does this through banks. While Yang's vocality is useful in many domains, it isn't much help when structuring a municipal bond deal. Yang has little experience here; raising funds via social media for a presidential or mayoral campaign is not the same thing. This is where someone with a background in the banking industry could actually help the city. A rainmaking banker could in theory assemble the best people on Wall Street to structure a bond deal that bails the city out. Also, let's imagine for a moment that Yang's political fundraising ability is in fact a good a signal for his ability to fundraise in the municipal bond market. We know two things: 1) Yang has raised significantly less money than McGuire in a race where max contributions are capped for all candidates, and 2) he had to retire his presidential ambitions because his campaign ran out of money. I like the guy, but those two facts undermine the argument that he has had great success as a political fundraiser.

@austinwilliams3753 3 жыл бұрын

@@boston1977boston First, its unfair to compare donations right now, as yang just annouced his campaign five days ago. His fundraising prowess (I believe fifth most in the Democratic field, third among those not funded by billionaires) demonstrates how despite being an unknown figure, he could generate emergy around a vision; He can use the bully pulpit to his advantage with a base of passionate supporters. Secondly, the bully pulpit is necessary is securing immediate federal aid. NYC is already tapping into the municipal bond market, risking putting the city into even deeper debt (admittedly that is very unlikely but still). What the city needs is a concrete future in federal aid, not a false belief that we can play markets perfectly to provide the immediate billions which are needed. Yang, a vocal figure using the bully pulpit to pressure Congress, is much better situated to secure as much federal aid as possible...It should also be noted that McGuire, if he came up at all short of his revenue generating goals, would cut programs for the poor that the municipal bonds market was meant to pay for (because for corrupt reasons he's very unlikely to tax the rich). I btw think the better candidate to generate money from the MBM is whoever gets the economy going again. Not to say that Yang is quantifiably better on this (though he does seem to have innovative ideas on reopening) but i think that convo on the MBM should start with who can get it generated as opposed to who can navigate investment.