It seems like there is such disappointment with the Republican field right now that everyone is trying to entice New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to join the already convoluted race. "Should he or shouldn't he?" aside, Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post and Politicker NJ both weigh in -- no Christie-related pun intended (although Politicker NJ does bring it up) -- with three and five reasons, respectively, on whether or not he should run.
Additionally, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight tries to figure out how Christie differentiates from Republican frontrunners Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.
And these are just the article about this topic today. If this Republican field gets any less appealing, who knows how many calls there will be for Christie to enter the race. Stay tuned.
Showing posts with label Politicker NJ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politicker NJ. Show all posts
Monday, September 26, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Corzine the next Treasury Secretary? | Politicker NJ
Politicker NJ reports on a clause in the prospectus for an MF Global bond fund that will pay an additional 1% interest if CEO Corzine is offered and confirmed to a White House position.
I'm not really sure if this is idle speculation or legitimate. From what I gather, MF Global has been using Jon Corzine's name for their marketing efforts and losing him is a loss to the company so the clause in the bond fund is to protect investors that purchased the bonds solely on his being at the head of the firm.
It is curious though that this clause is only in the prospectus for the bond fund and not other funds at the firm (or at least hasn't been reported as such). The clause does not specify Secretary of Treasury, only "appointment to a federal position". If the clause isn't in other prospectuses, then I'd get curious because you can assume the Treasury Secretary has more influence on the bond market than any other investor market out there.
Hmm...
I'm not really sure if this is idle speculation or legitimate. From what I gather, MF Global has been using Jon Corzine's name for their marketing efforts and losing him is a loss to the company so the clause in the bond fund is to protect investors that purchased the bonds solely on his being at the head of the firm.
It is curious though that this clause is only in the prospectus for the bond fund and not other funds at the firm (or at least hasn't been reported as such). The clause does not specify Secretary of Treasury, only "appointment to a federal position". If the clause isn't in other prospectuses, then I'd get curious because you can assume the Treasury Secretary has more influence on the bond market than any other investor market out there.
Hmm...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)