weekender

One clear example of my point >"Enrolling in a job that doesn't require anything besides being physically healthy enough to go to kill people in other countries that are thousands of miles away is really a reason to be proud of?" this is a dishonest stereotype of the military with no purpose other than to inflame and insult. It makes your request for an honest discussion invalid. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

This is obviously an attempt to offend and create attention for yourself. you should expect to be bashed, not for requesting an honest dialog but for purposely insulting American Veterans with the dishonest stereotyping of them and their purpose. I would say shame on you but im guessing you have none and it would only feed your craving for attention. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

its your money. why let someone else hold it for you? you dont have to put it in the bank. that was an example. you can put it good use. Buy medication, food, shelter etc.... "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

If you own, even a little, you have to pay interest for having money that is not yours. I didn't check it, but I think I am on the safe side if I assume that the interest that you'll have to pay the bank for lending you money is higher than the interest they'll pay you for putting yours in their pockets. Otherwise I'll get a loan, and I'll pay the interests of that loan with the interests that this loan is generating in my bank. I would become rich very fast. You are very confused. You are speaking of something completely different, owing back taxes. I am discussing paying your current taxes on time. my comment was a humorous take on his situation of having too much withheld or too much payed in quarterly estimates. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

it was a mistake, on your part. you let the gov't hold your hard earned money interest free. you should try to be flat or actually owe a little. this way the money you earn is in your hands collecting interest or being put to use. edit to add: my post was meant to be a humorous take on him either withholding too much or paying to much on his quarterlies. Why give the gov't your money to hold for you when you can keep it and put it to use. it is your money. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Which was the primary cause for the housing bubble burst that triggered the mess we are still in so, hell, lets do it again And then we can blame the banks again http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html While i would agree there is a lot of misdirected animosity towards banks, i cannot agree the primary reason for the housing bubble was this sort of policy. I'd say banks chasing yields due to low interest rates was a large impetus for mortgage backed securities. which became a motivator for banks and mortgage brokers to create more loans, lowering credit standards....housing crisis. of course its a lot easier to just blame poor minorities or evil criminal bankers. depending on your party, of course. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the debt is charged against earnings. it does not just vanish, as you constantly and falsely repeat. If you have $4 in earnings and you charge $2 against that, you end up with $2 in earnings. It has not disappeared. You seem to have gotten your knowledge of write offs from Kramer on Seinfeld. He made the same mistake as you. For those so inclined, you can find all of this information on the public filings. The companies normally announce their charges in the newspapers in front of or during their earnings calls. Nothing magically vanishes. Dont take my word for it, look it up. Unlike our friend Ohchute, You dont have to sound foolish on the topic. (edited to correct typo's) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Where do you get your financial information? Finance and banking is a quite broad area. This sentence and your comments on other threads with mention of entities such as “stock companies” leaves me scratching my head; I can’t understand what you’re talking about. The concept of the US 401K plans does put individuals more in control – it would be a useful addition for other countries to incorporate. You’re angry and wish America could go back to 1955; we get that. We just ask that your rants are phrased so as to be comprehensible. You can read about it here. Since corporations couldn't hold the money someone else had to. And what industry might that be be? Wall Street/ corporate America. Allocate money from a persons pay check to buy stock from the very firm they worked if they wanted, is , well pretty self serving. And who lobbied the IRS to adopt the plan? Stock firms/ public firms and are tied to wall street. Mom and pop sell no stock and compete with wall street titans, the reason wall street is anxious to end all small business in this country and their doing a pretty good job of that. Just walk down Kst in Georgtown DC and you'll know exaclty what I'm talking about. No bistros left, Starbucks, Gap stock firm have infiltrated pushing the little guys out. This is about marriage, not about gov't backed retirment plans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401%28k%29#History you do not have to buy stocks with your 401k. it is a vehicle for you to save money without paying normal income tax on it. it is not a stock fund and was not created for the purchase of stocks. this was all explained to you on your last 401k thread. im only posting this so people dont get confused by your lack of understanding. Banks love small companies. HP started in a shed, google in a college dorm or shortly after. Small companies are the next big companies and banks stumble over each other trying to find the next big thing. small successful companies are lavished with attention from banks hoping to gain their business. you are clueless about finance as evidenced by all your post. Bond funds are a part of 401. Everyone knows that but a large percentage of money in 401's is invested in stocks or mutual funds. Of course you know all about banking and finance. Perhaps you could tell us why most all the banks are paying huge fines for fraud dealings? i do not know all about banking and finance. I know enough to see your lack of understanding of the topic, however. this is evidenced by most of your posts and specifically your complete lack of understanding of 401k's. they are not funds of any kind create by brokerages as you incorrectly repeat. they are a form of pension plan created by the IRS. you are free to buy what you chose in them. You do not have to buy "stock companies" if you chose not too. Or any fund of any kind. perhaps you should read the link you posted earlier. your ignorance is only slightly greater than your arrogance with hilarious results. thanks "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Where do you get your financial information? Finance and banking is a quite broad area. This sentence and your comments on other threads with mention of entities such as “stock companies” leaves me scratching my head; I can’t understand what you’re talking about. The concept of the US 401K plans does put individuals more in control – it would be a useful addition for other countries to incorporate. You’re angry and wish America could go back to 1955; we get that. We just ask that your rants are phrased so as to be comprehensible. You can read about it here. Since corporations couldn't hold the money someone else had to. And what industry might that be be? Wall Street/ corporate America. Allocate money from a persons pay check to buy stock from the very firm they worked if they wanted, is , well pretty self serving. And who lobbied the IRS to adopt the plan? Stock firms/ public firms and are tied to wall street. Mom and pop sell no stock and compete with wall street titans, the reason wall street is anxious to end all small business in this country and their doing a pretty good job of that. Just walk down Kst in Georgtown DC and you'll know exaclty what I'm talking about. No bistros left, Starbucks, Gap stock firm have infiltrated pushing the little guys out. This is about marriage, not about gov't backed retirment plans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401%28k%29#History you do not have to buy stocks with your 401k. it is a vehicle for you to save money without paying normal income tax on it. it is not a stock fund and was not created for the purchase of stocks. this was all explained to you on your last 401k thread. im only posting this so people dont get confused by your lack of understanding. Banks love small companies. HP started in a shed, google in a college dorm or shortly after. Small companies are the next big companies and banks stumble over each other trying to find the next big thing. small successful companies are lavished with attention from banks hoping to gain their business. you are clueless about finance as evidenced by all your post. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I'm pretty sure (with an open mind) that as a practical matter, you can, and cannot, do that any more or any less in a military court than in a civilian court. In the military, you simply "admit" to your attorney you're guilty, and then say so during your guilty plea colloquy before the judge. I'm only a civilian lawyer, but have done a lot of criminal defense, and I know and have known a lot of JAG lawyers - they assure me that guilty plea bargaining - which includes defendants grudgingly "admitting" to certain charges - occurs all the time in the US military. (DavJohns or Lawrocket, correct me if you disagree.) Technically, it's a violation of most (maybe all?) states' civilian lawyer's ethics codes to participate in your client pleading guilty to a given charge if he flat-out denies to you that he's guilty of it. And in most states, the guilty plea colloquy includes a question like: "Are you pleading guilty to (X) because you are in fact guilty?" and if you don't say "Yes" to that the judge won't accept the guilty plea. My educated guess is that a JAG lawyer would tell his client something like "just so you know, if you tell me you're not guilty, or if I'm certain you're not guilty, my duty requires me to inform the judge, and if I do, he'll probably reject your guilty plea." i'm not lawyer. i understand your point. the person who explained it to me gave me the facts. your giving me your opinion and the real world application of the facts based on your legal experience. I cannot intelligently reply. this person implied to me that what you described does not happen. with that said, i understand that this person, being a career JAG and judge is motivated by pride. they very well might want me to believe it does not happen as you described. i do not know where the full truth lies. maybe another JAG can comment that is not my sibling. your post certainly makes sense and could very well be true. i unfortunately cannot add much more to the conversation. nothing intelligent anyway. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

you cannot confess to a crime you did not commit in the military. its common in a civilian court. so the journalist has done a poor job explaining what really is happening or is dishonest. He is charged with a crime. he must defend that charge. in a military court, you cannot plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid a conviction on the greater. i know i didnt word that like a lawyer because i am not. i do know a JAG very well and that is how it was explained to me. Army JAG to be specific. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I completely understand the provision of services (i.e. putting buyers and sellers in tough) as a valid way to acquire wealth, and agree that it's valid to make a profit if the goods acquire more worth on the way. I do think that the provision of the service is more akin to wealth creation than the acquisition of profit because of its appreciation. However, for all the same reasons that I think advertising has limited value in the greater scheme of humanity, the creation of markets for sophisticated financial instruments, that can then be manipulated around "the little people," is also rather detrimental. Before objecting to "the little people" comment, consider skydivers' reactions to whuffos' evaluations, scientists to non-scientists, etc. Then consider that money is the common vehicle for value trading for the non-participants in the financial markets, so the impact is more direct. I've probably been too blunt (believe it or not, I've been accused of that in the past ), but it's the best I can come up with right now. But just as most skydivers trust most of the whuffos that they know, I have a feeling that this "analysis" I've put forward only applies to anonymous financial folks, and not ones I can actually put a name or identity to. Wendy P. i dont think you are blunt but discussing a different topic. your comments are valid but on a much larger topic than i was addressing.My example was a very specific and simple one for the exact purpose of not confusing lay people. Everyone can understand buying something at risk and selling it higher, or lower. For the record, my example was not a natural trade, one where a buyer and seller is matched, as you implied. Mine was a prop trade where i purchased an equity at my own risk. I did this again on purpose to avoid including any other parties to the trade. In short i respect your concern about derivatives but its a larger topic i am not interested in discussing. I feel its to difficult to discuss on a forum because of the scope of the business and complexity of derivatives. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

And still revenue wealth. The mafia has revenues but it doesn't create wealth. honest question given a real world scenario. i am not trying to win and argument but am curious to your thinking. feel free to not answer but please do not change the scenario to fit your opinion. i am a market maker in a stock. i negotiate a price and purchase stock from an institution. the position can go against me but in this case rises and i sell it for a profit later in the day. my firm pays me a percentage of that profit at the end of the month. i spend that money to buy a house, car and other items to live. IMO i created personal wealth. i also created revenues for the firm to expand and hire more people who do the same. they also purchase houses, cars and other items, spreading the wealth to others outside our firm. this creation did not detract from anyone else's earnings, nor did i take them from anyone else's assets. that is my opinion. In your opinion, am i just skimming or creating wealth? I am not trying to win an argument but truly curious your opinion on creation of wealth. i hope you can answer, knowing my example is of my job, without any insults. I have some old gold coins. They are worth more now than they were worth 25 years ago. Did I create wealth in any way by keeping them in a drawer? No, I did not. And neither did you in your example. At first i assumed you changed my scenario to meet your bias. With more thought i honestly think you believe they are the same and that no wealth was created. Thank you for your answer. i find your thinking oddly fascinating. you have a very narrow definition of wealth. with this clarity i find you more of a strange man than an angry man, which i have called you in the past. i apologize for that. i think i might take less offense to you going forward. Well, by your definition I have created wealth by storing some old gold coins, because I can sell them at a profit, creating revenue for myself, and buy a house, car and other items to live. I, however, don't consider that an act of CREATION so much as an act of manipulation. well sort of, but not really. you would need to replace the coins, a tangible and commodity with an equity security. which is the example i gave and you chose to ignore. then you would need to purchase the equity security, assuming risk, then sell it at a higher price realizing a profit. i would agree in your scenario you have increased your wealth but not created it. i have no idea what you mean by manipulate since its a simple purchase and sale. i in no way affected the price of the security. the market forces did that. i assume you could not help yourself and are trying to insult me by implying my work is manipulation thus attaching a negative connotation to it. thought we put that behind us, i suppose not. anyway, i think we both need to agree that our definition of wealth creation is different and walk away. i can do that without any further insults and hope you can. have a good evening. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

And still revenue wealth. The mafia has revenues but it doesn't create wealth. honest question given a real world scenario. i am not trying to win and argument but am curious to your thinking. feel free to not answer but please do not change the scenario to fit your opinion. i am a market maker in a stock. i negotiate a price and purchase stock from an institution. the position can go against me but in this case rises and i sell it for a profit later in the day. my firm pays me a percentage of that profit at the end of the month. i spend that money to buy a house, car and other items to live. IMO i created personal wealth. i also created revenues for the firm to expand and hire more people who do the same. they also purchase houses, cars and other items, spreading the wealth to others outside our firm. this creation did not detract from anyone else's earnings, nor did i take them from anyone else's assets. that is my opinion. In your opinion, am i just skimming or creating wealth? I am not trying to win an argument but truly curious your opinion on creation of wealth. i hope you can answer, knowing my example is of my job, without any insults. I have some old gold coins. They are worth more now than they were worth 25 years ago. Did I create wealth in any way by keeping them in a drawer? No, I did not. And neither did you in your example. At first i assumed you changed my scenario to meet your bias. With more thought i honestly think you believe they are the same and that no wealth was created. Thank you for your answer. i find your thinking oddly fascinating. you have a very narrow definition of wealth. with this clarity i find you more of a strange man than an angry man, which i have called you in the past. i apologize for that. i think i might take less offense to you going forward. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

telling me my opinion of your pay is moot makes my point to you. no matter how you try to spin it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

And still revenue wealth. The mafia has revenues but it doesn't create wealth. honest question given a real world scenario. i am not trying to win and argument but am curious to your thinking. feel free to not answer but please do not change the scenario to fit your opinion. i am a market maker in a stock. i negotiate a price and purchase stock from an institution. the position can go against me but in this case rises and i sell it for a profit later in the day. my firm pays me a percentage of that profit at the end of the month. i spend that money to buy a house, car and other items to live. IMO i created personal wealth. i also created revenues for the firm to expand and hire more people who do the same. they also purchase houses, cars and other items, spreading the wealth to others outside our firm. this creation did not detract from anyone else's earnings, nor did i take them from anyone else's assets. that is my opinion. In your opinion, am i just skimming or creating wealth? I am not trying to win an argument but truly curious your opinion on creation of wealth. i hope you can answer, knowing my example is of my job, without any insults. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Earnings is already defined by the tax code. The shareholders vote who is elected to the board to represent them in the running of the entity. It is a private entity that can pay its employees and board members whatever it chooses. it does not have to prove its pay is earned to you, only the shareholders. If you do not like HD's severance package, purchase enough voting shares, elect yourself or someone like minded and change it. Or dont shop there. I think you are paid too much. you dont do nearly as much as other employees or those of other DZ's that are better run and dont spend their time jerking off on the internet. See, i can do that same and sound just as silly as you did. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

there is no flaw to my argument because im not arguing with you. there is no point to it. you completely ignore any point i make because your definition of wealth and creation is a deep held personal belief. a religious like one based on your personal dislikes of certain people and industries. i get it. you dont need to try to convince or insult me. i truly understand your position. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

now it's really getting thin - who then creates wealth, give me your three top careers. I'd like to understand your definition. I'll take three guesses 1 - I guess the miner that actually takes precious metals and stones from the earth....(by your logic, I assume he didn't create it either, he just took it from the government put it in play, but it was always there..) 2 - the sun (fusion certainly counts) 3 - Internet porn site - you seem intrigued there Sorry to burst your bubble but Apollo doesn't REALLY drive the sun across the sky every day. I'd define wealth as materials (in a broad sense, to include food), energy and knowledge. So I agree with miners, farmers, fishermen, hunters, those who turn raw materials into products (manufacturers, oil refiners...), inventors, designers, engineers, research scientists (non inclusive list). Those who don't create wealth aren't necessarily as useless as telephone sanitizers and marketing execs. Plumbers, car mechanics, dry cleaners and even bankers certainly provide important services. Even porn sites provide a service to people who can't get a real girlfriend. your definition is very different than mine. anyone who can increase revenues is generating wealth IMO. start a plumbing service and expand it to two operations, to me is wealth creation. take 50million of your friends money and turn it into 75mill, that is wealth creation. you disagree but fortunately many see things as i do. Which is good for me because my compensation is based solely on my revenues generated. I'm glad you are not on the bonus committee. You seem to have created your own definition of wealth creation for the sole purpose of denying credit to people you personally dislike. I dispute that revenues = wealth. If we all took in each other's laundry we'd create revenues, but we wouldn't be creating wealth. using your example i would agree with you, however, that is not what i described nor what banks do. In your imagination they do. this is based on your dislike of banking. you created your own definition of wealth based on this dislike. there was no need for you to create examples to prove your definition. i understand your thinking. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I have a couple of probably quite naive questions about this. First, I thought the 46% growth was in stock value. How does stock revenue relate to revenue? If I buy stock in company X, and later sell it at a 46% increase to somebody else, it is my understanding that that 46% would come to me, not that it would go to company X. Now, company X may well hold some stock that they could use as collateral to raise capital, or maybe they could sell some of it. Nevertheless, I just cannot see how a 46% increase in stock value means 46% more money coming into Yahoo's accounts. What am I missing? Second, I have read/heard from several news sources that a motivation for banning telecommuting is to reduce the Yahoo workforce by forcing those employees without the commitment or ability to physically come into the office to quit. Indeed, a constant mantra these days seems to be that companies are racking up huge profits but they are not hiring, which is why we have this crazy "recovery" in which the financial sector is doing great, business profits are way up, yet unemployment remains stuck at almost 8%. Why hire when you can threaten/bully your employees into working 60, 70, or 80 hour weeks for 40 hours of pay? People I know are required by their employer to clock out at 5, then go back to the office for another 4 or 5 hours "off the clock". And, they all know that even asking for vacation marks them as lacking in "company spirit", moving them to the top of the layoff list. So, why do you say growth in revenue means jobs are being created? As far as I can tell, the relationship between the two is tenuous at best, certainly not cause and effect. Don i can answer the first part for you even though you are asking him to clarify. the share price has risen 46%. the second poster worded it wrong. so you are right to assume that your individual profit on a stock sale does not directly effect the underlying companies revenues or earnings. most likely he meant to say a 46% jump in share price.... not a 46% growth in revenues. if it was the later he is confused not you. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

now it's really getting thin - who then creates wealth, give me your three top careers. I'd like to understand your definition. I'll take three guesses 1 - I guess the miner that actually takes precious metals and stones from the earth....(by your logic, I assume he didn't create it either, he just took it from the government put it in play, but it was always there..) 2 - the sun (fusion certainly counts) 3 - Internet porn site - you seem intrigued there Sorry to burst your bubble but Apollo doesn't REALLY drive the sun across the sky every day. I'd define wealth as materials (in a broad sense, to include food), energy and knowledge. So I agree with miners, farmers, fishermen, hunters, those who turn raw materials into products (manufacturers, oil refiners...), inventors, designers, engineers, research scientists (non inclusive list). Those who don't create wealth aren't necessarily as useless as telephone sanitizers and marketing execs. Plumbers, car mechanics, dry cleaners and even bankers certainly provide important services. Even porn sites provide a service to people who can't get a real girlfriend. your definition is very different than mine. anyone who can increase revenues is generating wealth IMO. start a plumbing service and expand it to two operations, to me is wealth creation. take 50million of your friends money and turn it into 75mill, that is wealth creation. you disagree but fortunately many see things as i do. Which is good for me because my compensation is based solely on my revenues generated. I'm glad you are not on the bonus committee. You seem to have created your own definition of wealth creation for the sole purpose of denying credit to people you personally dislike. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

everyone have a nice weekend. i will be gone and not responding. you can beat me up on monday if you wish. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I really enjoy hearing bankers talk. "Selling off debt at a loss." I always wonder about the person buying debt, especially if the debt is worthless. Bank A says to floundering Bank B: I"ll buy your trillion dollars of debt fo r$1 and other valuable consideration (which includes a kckback to the seller for a couple of million for doing the favor.) Bank B gets rid of a trillion on the balance sheet. All legal. No questions asked. The head office is where the bass sits. I guess you're not the boss especially when you seem to not be aware what a public firm is, a stock firm. As opposed to a mom and pop, a not stock firm. But then there are private firms that have stock but they are not traded publicly. Wealth is created by making profit. Banks have a great luxury as they get money from the gov't for free from which they make more money, including loaning the same money back to the the Feds. The debt is not worthless if someone is buying it. its sad you do not understand that. its very easy, you sell debt to someone who pays a discount with the assumption it will go up in value at a later date. that is basically the reason for all security transactions in the secondary market. nothing odd or uncommon about that. you would know that if you were not clueless about finance as evidenced by all your posts. there are only a few people between me and the head of my bank. so you really should not assume i am such a peon. i can understand that assumption based on how much time i have to mock you, though. so i will let it slide, i probably would assume the same. "head office" is not a term anyone who understands or works in finance would know. you made it up. i cannot be expected to understand imaginary terms you create. nor have i heard of "admen, front end paper or stock firms." they are all imaginary terms used by someone clueless about finance. it is truly comical that you take the time to explain your made up terms to me as if im the dolt. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

you have a point. its based on your dislike of the profession and manipulation of the English language, though. hah i feel we do create great wealth. we provide the capital to people with good ideas. And where did that capital come from? Did you create it out of thin air, or skim it from a real creator of wealth? some of it is ours and others is outside investors. i have mostly worked for privately held banks, partnerships with alot of their own capital at risk. including my current job. we are paid for our services. its not abnormal. i understand you feel it is shameful. im not bothered. i am proud of my job. we recently financed a water facility. we took some of the profits from the deal to hire a disabled veteran. the rest will be used to finance another deal. i feel its creating wealth and important. not to mention people appreciate clean drinking water. edited to add: i am aware municipal water facilities do not create wealth even though needed. hiring new people does. that was my point. also, i am aware my post was a bit dramatic. it was meant to be since most of you think i am an evil man. wanted to show you all a softer side. . No I don't think it shameful at all and to an extent I think it a valuable service, like plumbers who clean sewers and drycleaners who get stains out of clothes. However, don't kid yourself that your indistry CREATES wealth. All it does is move wealth around and take a cut off the top. Someone else created it. thank you for admitting my services are valuable. we will just have to disagree on wealth creation. you seem to believe the pie never grows. i do not believe its a zero sum game. as if the dealer handed out a finite amount of monies and we fight over it. you do, and why you keep saying we skim or shuffle. you showed how classy you are by insulting plumbers and dry cleaners trying to take a cheap shot at me fyi. you could have achieved that without implying their job is lowly. you are not a nice person. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

ohchute>"The guys in the head office like people like you. Worker bees who don't have much of a clue about the world or even about the industry they work in. So tell me: WHERE DID ALL THE TOXIC DEBT GO FROM THE LARGES BANK PONZI ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH that now, after a recent stress tests of banks, everything is fine and dandy...." why are asking me where the debt is? you can find this information in any newspaper or 10q/10k. some banks went out of business and their debt was bought, JPMS holds alot of BEST debt. Barclays absorbed the debt of LEHM who they bought. the banks still hold a ton of this debt and are slowly selling it off and loses realized. This should be very easy to understand if you had even a basic understanding of a balance sheet and could read a newspaper or work your interweb machine. This is all easy to find. Your really should be embarrassed to be asking. its hilarious to imply it someone vanished from plain sight. that is a mathematic impossibility. Its all public information and widely available. the banks take charges on these loses all the time. pick up a paper or do a google search before you come here and humiliate yourself. what is a "head office?" is this where the "admen" work who push the "front end paper" for the "stock firms". you really should stop making up terms. it makes your already complete lack of understanding that more comical. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante