Commentary

Momtchil Pojarliev
Traders Magazine Online News

Some Like It Hedged

BNP Asset Management's Pojarliev discusses a variety of options to address foreign currency exposures. Although there is no single best-practice solution for addressing foreign currency exposures, institutional investors have three main choices, he says.

Traders Poll

Amid changes in builder, do you think the CAT project will be completed by 2020?




Free Site Registration

May 31, 2003

Forced to Eat a Rancid Apple?

By Staff Reports

Hard-pressed state lawmakers have come up with another taxing trading idea.

But the so-called transfer tax on stock sales in New York State, many hope, will never become a reality. That's unlike Section 31(a) fees and brutal trading taxes which are imposed by federal lawmakers.

A transfer tax was one of the measures proposed recently by some New York State lawmakers who are seeking to close a $12 billion deficit.

The measure is opposed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The Securities Industry Association is also opposed. The SIA, reflecting concerns raised by New York trading houses and exchanges, notes that investors would likely shift trades to market centers outside New York State to avoid the tax.

The introduction of a transfer tax still remains a possibility for New York, especially if the deficit problem worsens. If the tax became law, it could encourage investors to use ECNs and regional exchanges, the SIA argues. That could hurt trading jobs in New York.

Still, there is support for the tax from the New York-based Fiscal Policy Institute. This group has demanded a $0.05 tax on each share traded with a cap of $35 per trade. The Fiscal Policy Institute believes investors would not defect in large numbers to regionals and ECNs.

Wall Street opponents are obviously aware that, if the tax is enacted, it could take a long time to repeal. Despite some relief measures, Section 31(a) fees, paid by Nasdaq dealers and NYSE trading firms, still generate huge sums from stock transactions.