Snoopy Has Been Fired by MetLife
wsj.com
wsj.com
This is a key paragraph and it should be understood that this is an intended effect of the regulations.
The "Dodd-Frank" bill that was passed in the wake of the financial crisis gave the Federal Reserve new responsibility and authority to regulate "systemically important" financial institutions of any industry. These are the companies that would come to mind when you think "too big too fail." Prior to this bill, the Fed only had authority over commercial banks.
If a company gets designated as "systemically important," it has to meet higher capital ratio requirements and other extra regulatory hurdles. This is to (try to) make it less likely that the company will fail. But it will obviously have an impact on financial performance.
Some companies--like GE and now MetLife--instead choose to downsize their financial operations to get them under the "too big to fail" line.
This has the same effect as if the federal government "broke them up"--but it was accomplished via incentive instead of direct action.
The potential downside is that large companies do have some financial advantages, and foreign companies don't have the same regulatory requirement. (Their U.S. subsidiaries do, but not their business overseas.) Thus, over time we might see capital flow out of the U.S.
Oh, and H&M frequently does small shops in locations without such laws as well. They often have separate stores for men/women/children or along segments of style (i. e. stores with only formal menswear). It could be marketing, availability of retails space or an attempt to remain flexible.
It's also not too hard to make such laws airtight, or to leave some details to the executive branch which can react much faster.
But for regulatory issues?
The US let's a group of banks 'self regulate' - moreover regulate other industries?
The seems kind of crazy to me.
I see the need for 'smart regulation' esp. by bodies that are as 'independent' as possible, but in this case 'independent' could mean 'conflict of interest' which is kind of the opposite of what we would want, no?
Some private banks do have representatives on the boards of the regional Federal Reserve banks. This is to balance the fact that they are essentially forced to keep some of their capital in those banks.
Also am I the only one who finds the Peanuts to be depressing? I hated the way everyone treated Charlie Brown and I disliked everyone, including Charlie Brown. I have felt this way since I was 5.
From his phrasing that seems to be the parent's problem.
They would probably like the lighter, more fluff and less serious Peanuts better.
Try reading 'Andy Capp'.
They just don't allow such zaniness anymore.
Everyone has to be happy and PC.
Think Annie Potts in Ghostbusters: "Ghostbusters, waddya want?"
The genius of Peanuts is that it shows all of that: Happiness, sadness, depression, existential questions, and so many other things. They're emotions that we can identify with, because they may not be happy, but they're real things that we all experience, even children.
I don't know why you dislike they characters, that's your choice. But in answer to if I find Peanuts depressing: yes, I do. It's optimistic sometimes, but it's not happy, and it's not supposed to be.
Or maybe I'm just completely mad.
Edit: tvtropes suggests it's real, and it has a pleasant followup, although I'm not sure the followup fully offsets the initial effect.
Regarding Peanuts, you're not alone in finding the strip a bit off-putting. I tried many times to 'get it' like the advice booth, but between the janky art style and not quite finding the strip speak to me, it's not a personal classic. By comparison I got a lot more mileage out of The Far Side.
The secret sauce to making life insurance work is the time value of money. An insurance company takes in relatively small premiums from its customers, then invests that money over decades. The result is a death benefit that is considerably larger in nominal terms than the sum of moneys paid in.
This method has worked for life insurance for decades, even centuries. But central banks have upended it. Now some sovereign debt even has negative interest rates.
Of course, there are alternative investments, such as equities and real estate, still available. But they are riskier and far more volatile than bonds held to maturity.
Low interest rates together with low inflation make it very difficult for life insurance companies. Just another example of collateral damage from ZIRP.
But, yeah, most of the standard daily comic strips that have been recycling basically the same material for decades are pretty much there to satisfy a morning habit.
How can you dislike Charlie Brown?
Peanuts was a great comic, because it's so true-to-life, though I guess it does water things down some (humans are really much, much, much bigger assholes to each other IRL).
Well, yes, but it could be worse. Matt "Simpsons" Groening had really depressing strips ('Akbar and Jeff' and 'Life in Hell') in the early years in the free newspapers.
(Via the web link on top of the page, there's other news pages if you don't feel like sneaking into the WSJ through the Google stable door.)
Snoopy was laid off, or rightsized, or something. Not fired.
"People familiar with the matter said the most-recent contract was signed in 2014 and costs MetLife $10 million to $15 million a year."
That's peanuts.
Is that a common practice with news sites? ...seems kind of silly to me.
EDIT: Wow, derp. I never realized the HN link labeled "web" takes you to a web search for the title of the submitted article, so that you can bypass the paywall. Thanks for the insight, everyone!
I agree it's very silly.
That's what the "web" link on each entry on Hacker News does automatically: asks for the article as a Google search.
>Is that a common practice with news sites? ...seems kind of silly to me.
Well, they want to enforce their paywall, but not to send away new users coming randomly from a search.