TIME Hillary Clinton

Why Hillary Clinton Prefers to Talk About Community Banks

Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives for a meeting with parents and child care workers at the Center for New Horizons in Chicago on May 20, 2015.
Scott Olson—Getty Images Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives for a meeting with parents and child care workers at the Center for New Horizons in Chicago on May 20, 2015.

Like many Democrats, Hillary Clinton has talked tough about reining in mega banks. But as her presidential campaign has gotten underway, she’s focused on the homier side of the financial industry: community banks.

At a roundtable in Cedar Falls, Iowa, Clinton spoke on Tuesday less about tightening oversight on Wall Street and more about loosening regulations for banks on Main Street. She argued that red tape and paperwork for small banks across the country are holding back small businesses by making it harder to get much-needed loans.

At times, listeners might have even mistaken Clinton for a moderate Republican.

“Today,” Clinton said, “local banks are being squeezed by regulations that don’t make sense for their size and mission—like endless examinations and paperwork designed for banks that measure their assets in the many billions.”

“And when it gets harder for small banks to do their jobs, it gets harder for small businesses to get their loans,” she said. “Our goal should be helping community banks serve their neighbors and customers the way they always have.”

Community banks tend have less than $1 billion in assets, are usually based in rural or suburban communities and are the kind of place your uncle in Idaho might go for money to open an antique shop. Touting small businesses is a tried-and-true trope for candidates on both sides of the aisle. For office-seekers from Barack Obama to Marco Rubio, the subject is as noncontroversial and all-American as crabgrass.

The difference, then, comes at how politicians want to handle bigger banks. Congress right now is debating how far to exempt banks from certain regulations. Democratic lawmakers generally want to reduce them only for smaller banks; some Republicans want to exempt all banks, an approach Clinton criticized.

Big banks in the United States have become increasingly large and powerful in the seven years since the financial crisis. Of the 6,000-odd banks in the United States, the five largest control nearly half of the country’s banking wealth, according to a December study. In 1990, the five biggest banks controlled just 10% of the industry’s assets.

Small banks complain that federal regulation in the aftermath of the Dodd-Frank legislation is contributing to a decline in their numbers. Annual examinations at a community banks, for instance, require staff to walk regulators through paperwork. Filling out paperwork and paying for compliance lawyers to deal with new Dodd-Frank stipulations are burdensome extra costs, banks say. And new rules can impose high damages on lenders who do make unsafe loans.

“There’s an inherent advantage in scale,” said Mike Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending, pointing out that small banks often have more trouble paying for regulation compliance. “Community banks, being smaller, have less business to spread the cost of regulations over.”

It’s an issue that resonates with Iowa bankers, says John Sorensen, president and CEO of the Iowa Bankers Association. “A lot of the banks we have across Iowa are small businesses with 10 to 30 employees that have been interrupted in their ability to serve their customers through a good part of Dodd-Frank,” he said.

But some say the discussion about scrapping community bank regulations as Clinton suggests is a distraction. Small banks were in steady decline for many years before Dodd-Frank, and they are protected from liability on certain loans that big banks are not. And regulators argue that preventing risky mortgages of the kind that brought on the financial crisis is a good thing.

Much of the push to deregulate community banks comes from bigger institutions who want exemptions from regulation themselves. “If you were able to somehow magically trace who is whipping up frenzy about regulator burden on small banks, you’d find its trade associations at the behest of bigger banks,” said Julia Gordon of the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank that has supplied some top officials in the Clinton campaign.

During the roundtable, Donna Sorensen, chair of the board of Cedar Rapids Bank and Trust and a participant on Tuesday, suggested to Clinton that more U.S. Small Business Administration-supported loans come with no fees. Clinton took notes and nodded in assent.

“If we really wanted to jumpstart more community bank lending, part of what we would do is exactly that—raise the limits to avoid the upfront fee” for businesses that need loans, Clinton said.

Clinton did not say specifically what regulations she would remove if she were elected president, but locals in Independence, Iowa, where Clinton stopped by for a visit after her small business roundtables, asked her to hold true to her sentiments. Terry Tekippe, whose family owns an independent hardware store, walked onto the street as Clinton walked by. “Keep us in focus,” Tekippe said.

“I want to be a small business president, so I am,” Clinton called back as she continued down the street.

TIME Banking

New Survey Confirms Exactly What Everybody Hates About Wall Street

Five Years After Start Of Financial Crisis, Wall Street Continues To Hum
John Moore—Getty Images A street sign for Wall Street hangs outside the New York Stock Exchange on September 16, 2013 in New York City.=

Almost a quarter of bankers said they'd break the rules

Wall Street bankers are feeling a greater willingness to violate laws and ethics to get ahead, according to a new survey that finds no discernible impact from years of record fines and tightened regulations.

One-quarter of respondents said they would violate insider trading laws to make a $10 million return as long as they knew they wouldn’t get caught, according to a survey of 1,200 financial professionals conducted by University of Notre Dame at the behest of the law firm Labaton Sucharow. That was actually a slight uptick from the previous survey, when the percentage stood at 24%.

Respondents weren’t exactly impressed with regulatory oversight either. Nearly half deemed the regulatory agencies ineffective at detecting and prosecuting illicit behavior.

 

MONEY fiduciary

If Humans Can’t Offer Unbiased Financial Advice to the Middle Class, These Robots Will

Wall Street says it can't be a "fiduciary" to everyone who wants financial advice. But the new breed of "robo advisers" is happy to take the job.

Fast-growing internet-based investment services known as robo-advisers have already begun to upend many aspects of the investment business. Here’s one more: Potentially reshaping the long-standing debate in Washington over whether financial advisers need to act in their clients’ best interests.

If you work with a financial adviser you may assume he or she is legally obligated to give you unbiased advice. In fact, that’s not necessarily the case. Many advisers—the ones who are technically called brokers—in fact face a much less stringent legal and ethical standard: They’re required only to offer investments that are “suitable” for you based on factors like age and risk tolerance. That leaves room for brokers to steer clients to suitable but costly products that deliver them high commissions.

The issue is especially troubling, say many investor advocates, because research shows that most consumers don’t understand they may be getting conflicted advice. And the White House recently claimed that over-priced advice was reducing investment returns by 1% annually, ultimately costing savers $17 billion a year.

Now the Labor Department has issued a proposal that, among other things, would expand the so-called fiduciary standard to advice on one of financial advisers’ biggest market segments, Individual Retirement Accounts. A 90-day comment period ends this summer.

Seems like an easy call, right? Not so fast. Wall Street lobbyists contend that forcing all advisers to put clients first would actually hurt investors. Their argument? Because advisers who currently adhere to stricter fiduciary standards tend to work with wealthier clients, forcing all advisers to adopt it would drive those who serve less wealthy savers out of the business. In other words, according to the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a fiduciary standard would mean middle-class investors could end up without access to any advice at all.

(Why, you might ask, would anyone in Washington listen to business rather than consumer groups about what’s best for consumers? Well, that is another story.)

What’s interesting about robo-advisers, which rely on the Internet to deliver automated advice, is that they have potential to change the dynamic. Robo-advisers have been filling this gap, offering investors so-called fiduciary advice with little or no investment minimums at all. For instance, Wealthfront, one of the leading robo-advisers, has a minimum account size of just $5,000. It’s free for the first $10,000 invested and charges just 0.25% on amounts over that. Arch-rival Betterment has no account minimum at all and charges just 0.35% on accounts up to $10,000 when investors agree to direct deposit up to $100 a month.

Of course, these services mostly focus on investing—clients can expect little in the way of individual attention or holistic financial planning. But the truth is that flesh-and-blood advisers seldom deliver much of those things to clients without a lot of assets. What’s more, the dynamic is starting to change. Earlier this month, fund giant Vanguard launched Personal Advisor Services that will offer individual financial planning over the phone and Internet for investors with as little as $50,000. The fee is 0.3%.

The financial services industry says robo-advisers shouldn’t change the argument. Juli McNeely, president of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, argues that relying on robo-advisers to fill the advice gap would still deprive investors of the human touch. “It all boils down to the relationship,” she says. “It provides clients with a lot of comfort.”

But robo-adviser’s growth suggests a different story. Wealthfront and Betterment, with $2.3 billion and $2.1 billion under management, respectively, are still small but have seen assets more than double in the past year.

And Vanguard’s service, meanwhile, which had been in a pilot program for two years before it’s recent launch, already has $17 billion under management.

Vanguard chief executive William McNabb told me last week that, although Vanguard had reservations about the specific legal details of past proposals, his company supports a fiduciary standard in principle. Small investors, he says, are precisely the niche that robo-advisers are “looking to fill.”

 

 

 

 

 

MONEY ETFs

Humdrum ETFs Are Overtaking Racy Hedge Funds

Tortoise and the hare
Milo Winter—Blue Lantern Studio/Corbis

It's part of a gradual change in culture on Wall Street that's encouraging low costs and long-term thinking.

It’s like the investment world’s version of the race between the tortoise and the hare. And the hare is losing its lead.

Hedge funds, investment pools known for their exotic investment strategies and rich fees, have long been considered one of the raciest investments Wall Street has to offer, with $2.94 trillion invested globally as of the first quarter, according to researcher Hedge Fund Research.

Despite their mystique and popularity, though, hedge funds are about to be eclipsed by a far cheaper and less exclusive investment vehicle: exchange-traded funds.

According to ETF researcher ETFGI, exchange-traded funds — index funds that have become favorites of financial planners and mom and pop investors — have climbed to more than $2.93 trillion. ETFs could eclipse hedge funds as early as this summer, according to co-founder Debbie Fuhr.

In some ways the milestone is one that few people outside the money management business might notice or care about. But even if you don’t pay much attention to the pecking order on Wall Street, there’s reason to take notice.

The fact that ETFs have caught up with hedge funds reflects broader trends toward lower costs and a focus on long-term passive investing, both of which benefit small investors.

Exchange-traded funds, which first appeared in the 1990s and hit the $1 trillion mark following the financial crisis, have gained fans in large part because their ultra-low cost and hands-off investing style.

While there are many varieties of ETFs, the basic premise is built on the notion that investors get ahead not by picking individual stocks and securities but by simply owning big parts of the market.

Index mutual funds have been around for a long time. (Mutual funds control $30 trillion in assets globally, dwarfing both ETFs and hedge funds). But ETFs allow investors to trade funds like stocks, and they can be more tax efficient than mutual funds. Both ETFs and traditional index funds are known for ultra-low fees, sometimes less than 0.1% of assets invested. That means investors keep more of what they earn, and pay less to Wall Street.

Hedge funds by contrast exist for elaborate investment strategies. They are investment pools that in some ways resemble mutual funds, but they can’t call themselves that because they aren’t willing to follow SEC rules designed to protect less sophisticated investors.

Because of their special legal status, hedge funds aren’t allowed to accept investors with less than than $1 million in net worth, hence the air of wealth and exclusivity.

But hedge fund managers also enjoy a lot more freedom in how they invest, for instance, sometimes requiring shareholders to lock up money for months at a time or taking big positions in complex derivatives.

Hedge funds aren’t necessarily designed to be risky — they get their name from a strategy designed to offset not magnify market swings. But hedge fund investors do expect managers to deliver something the market cannot. Otherwise why pay the high fees? Hedge funds typically charge “two and twenty.” That is 2% of the amount invested each year, plus 20% of any gains above some benchmark. No that is not a typo.

Of course, hedge funds’ rich fees wouldn’t be a problem if they delivered rich investment returns. The industry has long relied on some fabulously successful examples to make its case. But critics have also suspected that, like the active mutual fund industry in its 1990s’ heyday, this could be a case of survivorship bias, with a few rags-to-riches stories distracting from more common stories of mediocre performance.

Hedge funds’ performance in recent years seems to be bearing that out. (By contrast ETFs, whose returns are typically tied to the stock market, have benefited from one of the longest bull markets in history.)

Why should you care if a bunch of rich guys blow their money chasing ephemeral investment returns? One reason, is you might be among them, even if you don’t know it. Pension funds are among the biggest hedge fund investors.

The good news: They too are embracing indexing, if not specifically through ETFs. Calpers, the giant California pension fund, said last year that it was dumping hedge funds, while also indexing more of its stock holdings.

Unlike ETFs, hedge funds — because they need to justify their rich fees — often suffer from short-term focus. In recent years, one popular strategy has been so-called “activist investing,” where a hedge fund buys a big stake in an underperforming company and demands changes.

While the stock market often rewards those moves in the short-term, many investors worry moves like cutting costs and skimping on research ultimately make those businesses weaker, hurting long-term investors. It’s no surprise then that one of activist investing’s most outspoken critics is BlackRock Inc. As the largest ETF provider, BlackRock represents the interests of millions of small investors.

And finally, there are those fees. The surging popularity of low-cost investments such as ETFs will inevitably focus more attention on fees, putting pressure on active investment managers — and even hedge funds themselves — to slash prices. And in the the end, that benefits everybody.

MONEY wall street

Shhh…E.F. Hutton Is Talking Again

A storied financial brand far removed from its glory days makes a comeback, modeled after...Uber?

Bring back shoulder pads and the mullet. E.F. Hutton, another 1980s throwback, is in the financial services business again. The big question: Is this once iconic brand worth anything?

Hutton is launching the website Gateway to connect investors with independent financial advisers, estate lawyers, accountants, and insurance agents. The firm will vet its roster of financial pros, which individuals can access for free.

But this is really about helping advisers find clients. The advisers will pay Hutton a fee based on revenue they collect from clients that find them on the site. Stanley Hutton Rumbough, the grandson of legendary founder E.F. Hutton, is leading the brand’s revival from within a relatively new entity called E.F. Hutton Financial, which was incorporated in Colorado in 2007 and has no legal relationship with the old E.F. Hutton. The new firm likens itself to car service Uber in that it takes a small cut of the business it generates for advisers.

Hutton was a Wall Street heavyweight 40 years ago and is best known for its advertising slogan: “When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen.” The firm’s ads ran for years and typically featured crowds of people leaning in to hear the advice of a Hutton broker. (That’s one in the video above.) This was a powerful image during the bull market that started in 1982. After the lost decade of the 1970s, investors were getting excited about stocks again. The Hutton ad suggested that only through a broker could you gain an investing edge.

In some ways, the suggestion was ironic—coming just ahead of the massive insider trading scandals of the late 1980s, when dozens of Wall Street players, including Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, were found to have skirted the rules for their own advantage. So much for the broker edge, which in those cases anyway was about illegal stock tips sometimes in exchange for suitcases full of cash.

Hutton became embroiled as well, and in 1985 pleaded guilty to 2,000 counts of mail and wire fraud, and paid more than $10 million in penalties in connection with a check-kiting scheme. The firm would make bank withdrawals and deposits in such a way that it gained illegal access to millions of dollars interest free for days at a time while waiting for the checks to clear.

A further irony lies in reams of new data that show that over the long haul stock pickers tend to underperform simple, low-cost index funds. Over time, the fees that active fund managers charge overwhelm their ability to pick winning stocks. This is now so well understood that the good old-fashioned stockbroker is a dinosaur. Today, industry leaders like Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley employ financial advisers or wealth managers who counsel clients in all aspects of their money life.

Founded in 1904, Hutton ran into capital issues following the 1987 stock market crash and disappeared in 1988 amid a spate of mergers that included Shearson Lehman Bros., American Express, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Citigroup. Former Hutton executive Frank Campanale tried reviving the brand three years ago. Campanale ditched the effort for a job with the established asset manager Lebenthal and Co., but continues to have a financial stake in the Hutton brand.

With a checkered past and four decades removed from glory, you have to wonder how much the Hutton name is worth. Then again, Michael Milken has resurfaced as a philanthropist and neon is back in style. Power up the flux capacitor, Doc. We’re going back the future.

Editor’s note: This article was updated to clarify that: 1) E.F. Hutton Financial is a different company from the original E.F. Hutton brokerage that ran into legal troubles in the 1980s; and 2) Mr. Campanale has retained a financial interest in E.F. Hutton Financial since his departure.

 

TIME Economy

What Did We Learn From the Dotcom Stock Bubble of 2000?

Nasdaq board
Chris Hondros—Getty Images A passer-by looks over the prices on the Nasdaq board in Times Square in New York, April 3, 2000.

It was 15 years ago that the tech-stock bubble burst

Fifteen years can seem like a long time — and the year 2000 can seem like a different world. Back in those halcyon days of the early new millennium, America was enjoying a post-Lewinsky Scandal, pre-9/11 glow. The Yankees were winning World Series. Justin and Britney were America’s hottest couple. And the “dotcom” economy was chugging along, with new internet-based companies seeming to pop up every single week.

But in March of 2000, 15 years ago, one of those things came to a crashing halt. The dotcom bubble, which had been building up for the better part of three years, slowly began to pop. Stocks sunk. Companies folded. Fortunes were lost, and the American economy started to slip down a slow mudslide that would end up in full-on recession.

Today, in the middle of another boom in technology-based businesses, let’s look back at what happened to the early techno-tycoons — and what, if anything, we can learn from their mistakes.

The Buildup

The dotcom bubble started growing in the late ’90s, as access to the internet expanded and computing took on an increasingly important part in people’s daily lives. Online retailing was one of the biggest drivers of this growth, with sites like Pets.com — you know, the one with the cute sock-puppet mascot starring in the funny ads — getting big investors and gaining a place in American consumer culture.

With the investment and excitement, stock values grew. The value of the NASDAQ, home to many of the biggest tech stocks, grew from around 1,000 points in 1995 to more than 5,000 in 2000. Companies were going to market with IPOs and fetching huge prices, with stocks sometimes doubling on the first day. It was a seeming wonderland where anyone with an idea could start making money.

The Burst

In March of 2000, everything started to change. On March 10, the combined values of stocks on the NASDAQ was at $6.71 trillion; the crash began March 11. By March 30, the NASDAQ was valued at $6.02 trillion. On April 6, 2000, it was $5.78 trillion. In less than a month, nearly a trillion dollars worth of stock value had completely evaporated. One JP Morgan analyst told TIME in April of 2000 that a lot of companies were losing between $10 and $30 million a quarter — a rate that is obviously unsustainable, and was going to end with a lot of dead sites and lost investments.

Companies started folding. (Pets.com was one.) Magazines, including TIME, started running stories advising investors on how to limit their exposure to the tech sector, sensing that people were going to start taking a beating if their portfolios were too tied to e-tailers and other companies that were dropping like flies.

During the 2000 Super Bowl, 17 dotcom companies had paid $44 million for ad spots, according to a Bloomberg article from the following year. At the 2001 Super Bowl, just one year after that bonanza, only three dotcom companies ran ads during the game.

Does history repeat itself?

The shadow of 2000 dotcom bubble burst looms especially large now, as the economy is in another era of huge growth in the tech sector. Chinese e-tailer Alibaba had a history-making IPO last fall. Companies like Uber, Palantir and AirBnB are “Unicorns,” start-ups held privately and worth more than $1 billion — so-called because, for a long time, people thought they couldn’t really exist.

Are we in for another bubble burst?

Entrepreneur and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban thinks so, arguing recently on his blog that the difference between the 2000 bubble and today’s economy is that today’s bubble isn’t really about the stock market. It also includes private “angel” investments, which can’t just be sold off like stocks. And that, he says, is a problem:

So why is this bubble far worse than the tech bubble of 2000?

Because the only thing worse than a market with collapsing valuations is a market with no valuations and no liquidity.

If stock in a company is worth what somebody will pay for it, what is the stock of a company worth when there is no place to sell it?

Essentially, Cuban thinks that despite the huge investments many start-ups are getting, there just isn’t any real cash in those companies. Eventually, that will become apparent, but the investors will be stuck.

Some claim that we’re safe, though, that there’s more scrutiny from investors today. In response to Cuban, entrepreneur Amish Shah wrote on Business Insider that investors today aren’t looking for the type of quick return many were in 2000. Instead, they know that private investment is a long-term process, where earning a profit would likely take years. Plus, he adds, investors today are so wary of what happened 15 years ago that they’re careful. In other words, whether or not the world has learned anything else from the problems of the year 2000, one thing won’t be forgotten: it was bad, and nobody wants it to happen again.

Read next: How the Cheap Euro Is Hurting Your Investments

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

TIME stocks

The Average Wall Street Bonus Was $172,860 in 2014

A trader works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange shortly before the end of the day's trading in New York July 31, 2013
Lucas Jackson—Reuters A trader works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange shortly before the end of the day's trading in New York July 31, 2013

But that's only a 2% rise on the previous year

Despite falling profits, the average bonus on Wall Street rose to $172,860 last year, according to a report released Wednesday by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

That marks a 2% increase from 2013 and is the highest average payout since 2007 — right before the financial crisis.

The bump comes as estimated pre-tax profits fell by 4.5% from $16.7 billion in 2013 to $16 billlion last year.

“The cost of legal settlements related to the 2008 financial crisis continues to be a drag on Wall Street profits, but the securities industry remains profitable and well-compensated even as it adjusts to regulatory changes,” DiNapoli said in a press release.

The New York Office of the State Comptroller, whose main duty is to audit government operations and operate the retirement system, has been tracking the average bonus paid on Wall Street for nearly three decades. When it began recording in 1986, the average payout was $14,120. The highest average bonus was $191,360 in 2006.

After two years of job losses, the industry added 2,300 jobs in 2014 to a total of 167,800 workers.

TIME Economy

What’s Really to Blame for Weak Economic Growth

The George Washington statue stands covered in snow near the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York, U.S. Wind-driven snow whipped through New Yorks streets and piled up in Boston as a fast-moving storm brought near-blizzard conditions to parts of the Northeast, closing roads, grounding flights and shutting schools.
Jin Lee—Bloomberg via Getty Images The George Washington statue stands covered in snow near the New York Stock Exchange

Finance is a cause, not a symptom, of weaker economic growth

After years of hardship, America’s middle class has gotten some positive news in the last few months. The country’s economic recovery is gaining steam, consumer spending is starting to tick up (it grew at more than 4 % last quarter), and even wages have started to improve slightly. This has understandably led some economists and analysts to conclude that the shrinking middle phenomenon is over.

At the risk of being a Cassandra, I’d argue that the factors that are pushing the recovery and working in the favor of the middle class right now—lower oil prices, a stronger dollar, and the end of quantitative easing—are cyclical rather than structural. (QE, Ruchir Sharma rightly points out in The Wall Street Journal, actually increased inequality by boosting the share-owning class more than anyone else.) That means the slight positive trends can change—and eventually, they will.

The piece of economic data I’m most interested in right now is actually a new report from Wallace Turbeville, a former Goldman Sachs banker and a senior fellow at think tank Demos, which looks at the effect of financialization on economic growth and the fate of the working and middle class. Financialization, a topic which I’m admitted biased toward since I’m writing a book about it, is the way in which the markets have come to dominate the economy, rather than serving them.

This includes everything from the size of the financial sector (still at record highs, even after the financial crisis and bailouts), to the way in which the financial markets dictate the moves of non-financial businesses (think “activist” investors and the pressure around quarterly results). The rise of finance since the 1980s has coincided with both the shrinking paycheck of most workers and a lower number of business start-ups and growth-creating innovation.

This topic has been buzzing in academic circles for years, but Turberville, who is aces at distilling complex economic data in a way that the general public can understand, goes some way toward illustrating how the economic and political strength of the financial sector, and financially driven capitalism, has created a weaker than normal recovery. (Indeed, it’s the weakest of the post war era.) His work explains how financialization is the chief underlying force that is keeping growth and wages disproportionately low–offsetting much of the effects of monetary policy as well as any of the temporary boosts to the economy like lower oil or a stronger dollar.

I think this research and what it implies—that finance is a cause, not a symptom of weaker economic growth—is going to have a big impact on the 2016 election discussion. For starters, if you believe that the financial sector and non-productive financial activities on the part of regular businesses—like the $2 trillion overseas cash hoarding we’ve heard so much about—is a cause of economic stagnation, rather than a symptom, that has profound implications for policy.

For example, as Turberville points out, banks and policy makers dealt with the financial crisis by tightening standards on average borrowers (people like you and me, who may still find it tough to get mortgages or refinance). While there were certainly some folks who shouldn’t have been getting loans for houses, keeping the spigots tight on average borrowers, which most economists agree was and is a key reason that the middle class suffered disproportionately in the crisis and Great Recession, doesn’t address the larger issue of the financial sector using capital mainly to enrich itself, via trading and other financial maneuvers, rather than lending to the real economy.

Former British policy maker and banking regular Adair Turner famously said once that he believed only about 15 % of the money that followed through the financial sector went back into the real economy to enrich average people. The rest of it merely stayed at the top, making the rich richer, and slowing economic growth. This Demos paper provides some strong evidence that despite the cyclical improvements in the economy, we’ve still got some serious underlying dysfunction in our economy that is creating an hourglass shaped world in which the fruits of the recovery aren’t being shared equally, and that inequality itself stymies growth.

TIME Innovation

Five Best Ideas of the Day: February 10

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

1. Is the technology that is supposed to increase resilience actually making us vulnerable?

By Colin Dickey in Aeon

2. Stock buybacks — usually to prop up a corporation’s perceived value on Wall Street — are draining trillions from the U.S. economy.

By Nick Hanauer in the Atlantic

3. The Navy of the future wants to use lasers and superfast electromagnetic railguns instead of shells and gunpowder.

By Michael Cooney in Network World

4. An after-school culinary skills program gets teens ready for work — and thinking about food in our society.

By Emily Liedel in Civil Eats

5. The next wave of bike lanes in London could be underground.

By Ben Schiller in Fast Co.Exist

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME

Investors Sink Their Teeth Into Shake Shack’s IPO

Shares of Shake Shack more than doubled on the first day of trading

Shares of Shake Shack more than doubled on the first day of trading Friday, as investors feasted on a chance to get a piece of the New York burger chain before it opens hundreds of additional restaurants in the U.S.

Shake Shack’s stock was trading at around $49 per share early in Friday’s session, a roughly 133% gain above the $21 initial offering price that was set on Thursday evening. The company had initially anticipated a share price in the range of $14 to $16, but investor enthusiasm prompted the company to raise that range by $3 on Wednesday. Shares are trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “SHAK.”

A bet on Shake Shack, a fast-casual restaurant operator with just 63 global locations, is an investment in a company that could one day become the next Chipotle. Those two chains are the model that all other fast-casual chains could one day aspire to achieve. Fast-casual restaurants have menus that are filled with food that consumers perceive as healthier fare than what fast-food competitors sell, but without the table service found at casual dining chains.

Though Shake Shack is growing — generating nearly $79 million in “Shack sales” for the first nine months of 2014 — there are some worries that growth at stores that have been open for at least two years has slowed.

MORE The 17 Most Influential Burgers of All Time

Shake Shack can be seen as more thrilling investment than McDonald’s , which this week saw the resignation of its CEO after a string of poor sales. But the newer chain is also facing stiff competition from other fast-casual burger chains such as Smashburger and Five Guys. And McDonald’s, while it faces major challenges, still booked $4.8 billion in profit last year.

Burger chains are in prime position, at least when it comes to prevailing trends in the restaurant world. Nine billion servings of burgers were ordered at U.S. restaurants and foodservice outlets last year, an increase of 3% from 2013, despite weakness in traffic at other restaurants, according to research firm NPD Group. That indicates the burger chains can court rising consumer interest in their core menus.

History was on Shake Shack’s side when it debuted on Friday. The fast-casual chains that have debuted on the market the past decade have reported an average gain of 95% on their first day of trading, according to IPO ETF manager Renaissance Capital. If Shake Shack’s early pop holds until the end of the day, it will have reported the best first-day performance among the seven restaurant chains that have gone public over the last 10 years.

Of the now seven fast-casual chains Renaissance Capital tracked, only Chipotle has been on the stock market for greater than two years. It listed in 2006 and has gained over 3,100% from its IPO price, suggesting investors are willing to place a bet on what could be the next huge concept in the category.

This article originally appeared on Fortune.com

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com