weekender

He doesn't say "his" government. And he's right. Unless you live in a cabin in the (unincorporated and non-blm) woods, make your own weapons, kill your own food, and somehow manage to get rich off of doing that, you absolutely rely on other people in order to make it in this world. Absolutely nobody accomplishes anything in this world without a LOT of help from other people. There is no such thing as a "self made" millionaire. It's a myth. I think you two see things far to extreme. IMO the President was saying you cannot build a business today without the infastructure like roads and highways and the internet. Things brought to you by society or as he likes to point out the gov't. Its pretty true and i feel he is emphasizing this because Romney is painting the picture that gov't hurts and does not aid private business. Which is an extreme point also. they are running for office after all. as far as self made men being a myth i think you are being way to literal on purpose to help your point. Most reasonably moderate people would feel if you created a new business, not inherit it, you are self made. in my experience that is the most common usage. for example, Donald Trump is not self made but his father, Fred was. one created the other just expanded a business. they are both rich but one is more admired than the other in US society. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Very very true! So what is going to happen next? The rates will climb fast? im not going to pretend to know. im assuming, like all traders who do stuff like this, they moved the market very little. the money is made by scalping little amounts on large trades. you cannot move the market so much that regulators notice. so my best guess is nothing will happen with the rates. Just a guess, we would need an actual Libor trader on here to comment. I'm guessing they are in a meeting right now though, hah. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

One thing about the Libor scandal i actually found a bit humous in a gallows sense. from what i read the traders involved were colluding to keep the offers down. by doing this they were keeping the libor rates artificially low. this is a criminal act as far as i can tell but it actually would benefit anyone getting a loan. so by colluding to fix the Libor rate they actually helped anyone borrowing money at any given time. thats kinda humorous. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I worked downtown on 9/11. passed through the WTC like many others that morning. i walked down 75 flights after the planes hit. Was a few blocks from the towers when the fell. THAT was a terror attack. that made people fearful. I'm betting you never even heard of Standford or Raj till i mentioned them. let this one go. you cannot convince me that any reasonable person would believe the three men i mentioned were terrorists. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

How so? Take the word apart. Terror http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror A state of intense fear A frightening aspect A cause of anxiety A terrorist is one who brings about "a state of intense fear, uncertainty or anxiety" Thus these men can and should be tried as terrorists for in sighting terror in our financial system which at this moment in time is more powerful and more important than ever before. Furthermore, I highly resent you utilizing and falling back on the "But the money was insured" line of logic. For I can fall on the conservative line of "Well who pays for the insurance?" We the people do. And the "victim" goes from a simple old lady who lost everything she had with Madoff to all of us who lost $50 out of our pockets over and over again. I'm sorry but as I have said before, defending the actions of these criminal bankers is like me trying to defend the insanity that is Iran. I'm sorry I can't. All I can do is just distance myself and demonstrate that I am better than those miserable bastards. Hence why I am so dumbfounded when I hear and see conservatives attempting to argue for more freedom for folks who have demonstrated their ability and willingness to bring about great terror to our society. Again please note I'm not saying all bankers are evil or lacking of moral fiber. We are talking about 1% of 1%. But the damage they do! My god! The damage they do..... I dont defend their actions. you missed the point. i stated they were punished. being sentenced to die in prison is the harshest punishment you can receive in the US for this crime. Nearly the harshest you can recieve for any crime. I argued for more regulations. Read my post. again, you missed the point. im not a conservative. you know that. i told you in a PM my wife is a very active member of the Dem party. again, missed the point. i stand by my, "silly", comment. no reasonable person would consider the three i mentioned terrorists. your attempt to prove your point makes mine. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Thus we are all victims with respect to insider trading the same way we are victims when a bank is robbed. What? That has nothing to do with the point we were discussing. It also doesnt make much sense. What if i dont have an account at that bank? not to mention my money is insured so how am i damaged? you need to focus on one point at a time. as i recall, you claimed that society should punish these people more harshly. i gave examples of how they are. i specifically use Raj to show how without even a specific victim or loss, the punishment was harsh. expecially by historical standards. your terrorist comment is just plain silly. no reasonable person could label those men terrorist. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>You want to go back and maybe change that one? >I'm sure you know full well that those you have called >out in your post were criminals and that there were >victims to their crime. I do not. You dont seem to understand my point so i will be more clear. Insider trading is not a crime with a direct or specific victim. There is no one specific person damaged by the act. it erodes confidence in the broader markets and that is why its illegal. 11 years is not a light sentence was my point. not when you compare it to historical sentences for insider trading. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>But maybe society has had a change of heart? Bernie Madoff will die in jail. Allen Standford will die in jail. Raj Rajaratnam got 11 years for insider trading. A crime with no direct victim. Society does punish people for financial crimes. you arent aware of it or ignore it because it doesnt fit your theme. "Bankers evil, I'm good/victim. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>But the most you can hit them with is check fraud right? >Not right you can hit these guys with the book like we do bank thieves right? you are starting to get irrational and i wil most likely walk away from this thread. you are welcome to discuss your violent homo erotic fantasies without me. my only reply is that society has decided that violent crimes are treated harsher than non violent crimes. these laws have been on the books long before the most recent crisis. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Weekender, So what do you think can be done to prevent this in the future and or to limit the damage that can be done to the system both in terms of financial losses as well as loss in trust? Is is a simple issue of the laws not being well written enough, are there not enough well educated regulators or is it more complicated? i said it in my other post. make them quote electronically and forbid them from talking to each other. Thats how the equity markets got rid of this problem. In this day and age someone can figure out a way to post the quotes somewhere. as far as regulators i think there are not enough. we dont need new rules because this stuff is already illegal. we need more eyes on the screen. Finra is hiring, which is great but the SEC is not. They have no money because the same pol's who claim we need more of them wont pass a budget. Also, its so obvious but the SEC needs less lawyers and more ex-traders. They rely to much on Finra to catch people. Make it a competition, a race to see who can catch the bad guys. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Loss of individual freedoms due to increased gov intervention in my life Must be some nice individuality, if you're inapt to pay the bills of your medicine men. I really do enjoy my HC (incl. smaller additional insurance) - my brand new teeth were about 15k EUR. My share? 400 EUR. All for a brilliant smile And the *gov intervention*? What, where? Never seen it, really ..... Enjoy your *individual freedom*, you're free to live under a bridge, roasting some dog foot as your medicine men are driving you into ruin Your free choice, man your comparison is very simple and unfair. the US has 325mill people and growing. we have almost half not making enough money to even pay income tax. we also open our borders to people from third world nations to come and try to improve their life. If we were like Germany it wouldl be easy. But we are NOT a mostly white european closed nation. (closed to mass immigration, that is.) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Upheld. its official. on the tape "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I respectfully disagree. this Libor situation happened because the market was not properly regulated, IMO. this reads exactly like what the equity OTC guys did till the mid 90', untill the regulators stepped in and stopped it. Colluding with traders at other firms was rampant before then. everyone did it because they felt it was how the markets worked. problem is, when you ask other market makers to move their markets to help your bank, your causing harm to your customer. thats exactly what the Libor guys were doing as far as i understand. i'm kinda shocked in this day and age the traders could get away with that for so long. didnt they learn anything from the equity markets? make them post electronic markets and dont allow them to speak to each other, alla the equity otc markets. that would stop it cold. its not like the regulators didnt have a huge example to learn from. traders cheated and regulators didnt notice and should have. thats how i see it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>But let's be honest, some one smart enough could in theory get away with this level of fraud for a very very long time. Stack aside a good nest egg for him and his family. Such that when things do go down...if they do go down...he does a few years...comes out and goes off and lives a good life in Florida. >It does happen right? im not into what ifs. If a bullfrog had hip pockets he would carry pistols, right? be honest. does it happen? I do not know of one case. everyone ive ever seen lose their license did not end up on easy street. actually its usually the opposite. lose their house, car, wife, girlfriend etc... i'm sure you can find a few example's but i dont believe its the rule as you imply. which, as you say, lets be honest. IS what you are implying. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

dont apoligize, its your opinion and i dont really care. i never comment on your hatred of the business. go back and read all my posts. i comment when you state opinion as fact or when you just plain make it up. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Better? IMO, its still just plain inaccurate to how the world works. BUT it is not a complete fabrication of your mind stated as facts like the last one. this at least reads as your opinion and somewhat coherent. So yea, its much better i suppose. (i say with a smile) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Are you stating that the broker telling the bidder that "... you're about a nickel short" to inform the bidder that they were 0.05 percent below the winning bid or "... you're about a dime high" to inform the bidder that they were 0.1 percent above the winning bid was not the same as showing bids? no i am not really saying that because that is not what they are saying. Considering the testimony, conviction, and fines it appears that is exactly what they were saying ... they were convicted on the facts presented, not the article in Rolling Stone. his article is an inaccurate account of what happened. I get it because i actually undertand what they are saying. the author didnt. discussions while checking levels are different than discussions while getting a firm quote. if you dont understand then just let it go. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>And like I said we are screwed because at best these >guys will get a little talking to and be back to doing the >exact same thing under a new name in 2 weeks. if there are any resonable people left reading this i will chime in for their edification. in order to start work at a firm you must have a clear U4. for a lack of a better term its your license. you must also get finger printed and have them sent to FINRA and the FBI to be checked. No one is going back to work in 2 weeks after any fraud. Normally, once your U4 is marked you leave the business. Your unemployable. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Are you stating that the broker telling the bidder that "... you're about a nickel short" to inform the bidder that they were 0.05 percent below the winning bid or "... you're about a dime high" to inform the bidder that they were 0.1 percent above the winning bid was not the same as showing bids? no i am not really saying that because that is not what they are saying. the conversation that the author quoted was not the one where collusion takes place. that was my point. he missed the actual crime.colluding is getting people to move their FIRM bids and offers so you can then purposely give your customer a worse price to benefit yourself. I'm not saying that didnt happen but it didnt happen in the convo i quoted. i will try to explain. in order to trade non quoted OTC securities, as these were. you call people and ask for a level. NON firm. so their bid and offer quote is only for informational purposes. rule of thumb you must call at least three to get a fair market. if one guy is out of wack with the others you can tell him he is not inline. Using whatever jargon you chose. that is legal and what he claims is illegal through a lack of understanding. the collution would have taken place during a firm transaction. the second phone call he did not quote. to be clear i am NOT defending anyone. My point all along is that the author does not understand the subject and quoted a legal converstation as illegal. so i dont trust his "facts". "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i have bought 3 homes in my life. each and everytime i had to sit down and sign very clear paperwork explaining what i was borrowing and how much i would pay in 30 years. am i the only onel? In order to buy anything other than a common equity i also had to sign paperwork confirming i understand the risks involved. am i the only one? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

The broker was not allowed to disclose competing bids. Thus using code (or as you suggest, common jargon) such as "... you're about a nickel short" or "... you're about a dime high" to let the competition know that their bid was too low or high so that they could adjust it and win the bid with the minimum required amount was a crime (hence the convictions and fines). colluding is purposely moving your market to disadvantage your customer. that is a crime. it is NOT a crime to do any of the things in the paragraph i quoted. THOSE comments were not the crime. giving "levels" is not showing bids because they are not firm. he missed that. thus i found his article unreadable. I know it sounds like I'm being pedantic but in trading the language can be very confusing to a lay person. the author was confused. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Have you been to wall street in recent years? >The "Family" went "legit" and i assure you that they >didn't go into the garbage industry! >Maybe it's all the Long Island accents, but there are >times there where it feels as if I'm on the set of the >Sopranos. Hookers and blow included. I'm going to stay away from the bulk of this thread because its just the same old silly-bankers evil everyone else good. with that said, your are a complete dolt! Wall Street has always had NY accents because it mostly made up of NY'ers. IT IS IN NEW YORK, duh. Do you even think before you make these comments? I started 20 odd years ago, i would venture to say there are even less NY accents now than in the past because kids have moved from all over and its no longer just a bunch of Italians trading and Jewish kids banking. way more diverse. edit to add- i am calling Shah a dolt in a humorous way. it was not meant to be an actual insult. sorry it did not read that way. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

oh, so maybe then all lead should be illegal. I've used non lead so long i cannot remotely sympathize with those still using it. you want to hunt pay up a small amount AND become a better shot, hah. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I'm not defending anyone. if you are caught colluding on a securities trade your going to lose your license and go to jail. thats why the phones are recorded. If they did it, i hope they go down. i could not read the entire article because the author has no understanding of the securities markets. it was hard for me to understand his complete lack of understanding. he kept saying the traders were using "code", which is not true at all. they were speaking in common jargon used in most transactions. for example,"This, basically, is how a lot of the calls went. The provider would tentatively offer a number, and the broker would guide him to a new bid. "You have a little bit of room there," he might say, or "That's gonna put you about a nickel short." Guiding the bidders to the lowest possible bid was called "figuring out the level" or being "in the market"; obtaining information about other bids was called "giving an indicative" or "seeing the market." all of those comments are legal and normal. this is why i could not read it. if a crime was commited he missed it. it wasnt there. you can tell someone they are outside the market. its like telling a car dealer his offer is way higher than the last dealer you saw. not a crime. anyway, i dont know what happened but i wanted to say that the article is so poorly written by someone who doesnt understand the crime that it makes it hard for me to believe his "facts". he will not be working at the NYT or WSJ anytime soon unless he does some more work understanding what he is writing about. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

So people are not obeying the law. Or the birds are getting the lead from somewhere else. i have no idea. those are the only reasonable explanations out there in my opinion though. for fun i will suggest a more non reasonble explanation but one not to far fetched. Someone is exaggerating the impact of hunting on a beloved animal for political gain. i dont know Cali that well but do know they have a pretty powerful green/anti anything they dont like movement. i can only imagine how much they hate hunting. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante