I've always assumed they're basically legalised bribery, but I'd be interested to hear the best non-cynical explanation. Off the top of my head, I guess it could be a way of buying status-by-association, showing prospective clients and employees that you're a serious player with money to splash around and connections to power. (Which I admit is still a fairly cynical explanation.)

Why does comic-con pay famous actors to appear? I assume because it attracts the type of audience they see as their customers.

Hedge fund billionaires, bankers and policy makers on the other hand aren't going to show up to listen to what johnny depp has to say. So you have to pay for someone who will be draw for them. The higher the status of the customers you want, the more you'll find yourself paying.

> Why does comic-con pay famous actors to appear?

In the case of Comic-Con, they do that because their audience who pay for their tickets are more likely to pay if the actors they like are part of the experience.

In this case, we are talking about companies paying people exorbitant sums for no other reason that at some point the speaker may be in a position to affect the flow of government largess.

Even "networking" in this context is geared towards signaling to friend & foe that you now have inside reach to people whose actions or even mere words can move mountains of money in one direction or another.

Totally different.

By the way, this is standard textbook economic analysis and it would not be different if the names and political parties were switched.

I have a hard time reconciling the fact you claim to be making a dispassionate analysis, and yet cannot find a single accomplishment of Janet Yellen that would merit her being an in-demand speaker, except her ability to ‘direct government largesse’. If you were trying to make a sincere argument, I suspect you’d find a few reasons people would value her ideas.

> being an in-demand speaker, except her ability to ‘direct government largesse’

She was a decent economist. Her work not associated with politics ended as the 20th century was in the rearview mirror. Take a look at her bibliography[1]. The interesting non-proceedings/non-Fed papers end in the 90s.

There are many other economists who are just as good (i.e. capable of talking at length in sleep inducing tone without providing any deep insight but making general statements about topics that sound like they should be interesting). No one pays them a bazigillion bucks to read their policy papers out loud.

What evidence do you have that she gets paid the bucks due to her attributes as a speaker?

[1]: https://econpapers.repec.org/RAS/pye21.htm

That’s not the only reason to hear her opinions, but among the group that can afford to pay those fees, her ability to direct largess is their most important reason.

As someone interested in economics, I would like to hear a speech by Janet Yellen. She is intelligent and interesting and even has a unique voice along with her Brooklyn accent that makes her even more interesting.

I have organized business events and while I haven't ever been involved with hiring someone as high profile as Yellen, I can certainly understand why she could command an $800k speaking fee. I have seen speakers with much less cachet (very little chance you have ever heard of them) draw $50k speaking fees.

Also, this wasn't one speaking fee for Yellen, it was multiple multi-day events over s period of time.

People are paying $250k for a single speech from Malcolm Gladwell or Seth Godin and they are presumably not getting any political benefits for hiring them. So I see nothing odd about Janet Yellen getting $800k total for several speeches.

> Totally different.

I don't see how they are different at all. The talker is used to bring in a certain type of person they're looking for. How they convert that persons attendance in to a return for their business is irrelevant. Comic-on doesn't just make money on tickets, bringing those customers in also leads to them making more transactions inside

> In this case, we are talking about companies paying people exorbitant sums for no other reason that at some point the speaker may be in a position to affect the flow of government largess.

That's conjecture and no we aren't. We were specifically discussing “wall street speaking fees” and why they demand such a high rate. Which there are clearly other valid business incentives other than the one you've landed on.

As to whether this specific case had nefarious motives. I don't know enough to have a strong opinion either way.

Imagine a world where you, personally, pay $300mm a year to financial professionals in your employ to help you manage say ...$10bn

Let’s say you take that $10bn and manage a portfolio with ~30% a year volatility.

So you pay $300m to manage a bunch of assets that move around by ~$3bn a year.

All of a sudden paying $500k for a speech, a dinner, and a the start of a relationship with a top 10 government policymaker, seems like a bargain.

Same reason Clinton and Obama can do the same after the leave office. Part wisdom, part networking.

Doesn’t have to be nefarious to be a good investment when your business is that scale.

Some might argue that public officials being paid extraordinary sums by private investment firms in exchange for access and influence is nefarious in itself.

Some might argue that you should provide evidence and arguments that support your allegation that’s she’s selling influence.

If you cannot see the conflict interest here then there is a big problem.

You cannot have people responsible for policy also being paid by organisations that they are meant to oversee. The biggest thing that keeps a democracy a democracy is trust in institutions. The last two decades we have lost an immense amount of trust in our institutions, and it is going to be very difficult to get it back. Speaking fees of $800 000 for former public servants and public servants to be anointed does not help.

Sometimes it is people with too much money wanting to see someone in person to argue with them or help them validate their views. See this excerpt from the Ezra Klein show (note that PG is not an official, there is zero point in bribing him):

---

What do you think of Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies as a broad category?

PAUL KRUGMAN: It’s a solution in search of a problem. I’ve done this. I’ve made quite a lot of money on Bitcoin.

EZRA KLEIN: No kidding.

PAUL KRUGMAN: Not by investing in it, which I would never do. But by being the designated enemy at Bitcoin conferences and getting paid speaking fees.

[LAUGHTER]

---

I assume it's organized to attract and bring it wealthy individuals, who I suspect are not the easiest to get time with. When you think about it, it's a small price to pay to get a large group of billionaires in the same room and what their prospective business/donations could be worth depending on what you're selling/promoting.

Just think the type of people you get in to the same room who normally wouldn't give you the time of day if you had obama agree to give a private talk.

I've worked at places like these that have exorbitantly paid speakers at events - I think 'status by association' is actually a reasonable answer. When your typical employee is making a few hundred thousand a year, and you throw company parties that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars - paying 50k-100k for a headline speaker is just part of it all. You have people planning these events trying to impress a group of hard-to-impress people ("Meh, the free lobster bar was better last year") - you would probably pay as much to get a super famous pop star to show up, and for these firms, bragging about Janet Yellen being at your party is probably worth a lot more than bragging about Lady Gaga being there.

> Can someone explain what these “speaking fees” Wall Street pays are really about?

Status, connections (implied or otherwise), exclusivity and, sometimes, education.

However I've also seen speakers (in the pharma industry) who just turned up and gave a mediocre speech on topics we were already cognisant and then return to their job as Key Selection Maker at Hospital X with a fatter wallet then they arrived, and having spent a few days in a sunny location with some very drunk sales reps.

Some of those type of speeches are why at least one prominent pharma executive is in jail. Bribes were paid to doctors as "speaking fees". Of course, they needed to actually make a speech of some sort to keeps things from being easily discovered. I'm guessing a lot of these speeches were very much "phoned in".

Speaking engagements are more than lectures. You meet with people and talk over lunch/dinner/drinks. You build an actual relationship with the regulator so that when you have a problem, you already have a good report with them.

You can only do this when they are not officially working for the government of course. But government/consulting is just a revolving door.

how is there not any roi when she’s now treasury secretary