weekender

good regulation is what we have with stocks. trades must be reported. holders are reported. financials are reported. firms must disclose their exposure etc... non of this is new or considered a large hindrance. anyone who has traded in third world markets welcome our regulations. we need to figure out how to regulate derivatives like stocks. i have no idea how to do it and so far neither does anyone else. we need to work on it because they are here to stay. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

+1 i dissagree, good regulation maintains a fair and orderly market. its why our stock markets are the world standard. i might not like the day to day hassles of everything being followed and tracked but you surprisingly settle in. As long as i believe it protects our market i dont care if people listen in on everything. with that said, however, most problems come from unregulated securities. mortgage derivatives are a perfect example. they are to complex and unique for regulators to follow. they dont trade on exchanges but by contracts. there aren't enough people to regulate each contract so the gov't leave the onus on the participates. It failed recently and i have yet to hear how to fix it in an intelligent way. maybe these guys are on to something. not saying they are but at least they are thinking of actually regulating as opposed to the typical BS you hear. taxes arent regulation, nor are price caps and fixed markets. (edited to clarify point) i dont want a world regulator. sorry, if it reads that way. What i saying is the main problem is no one can figure out how to regulate the unregulated. my point is that we need to start thinking of HOW to compile this data so it can be followed. this is at least a start to a smart conversation. instead of the usual jail every BS. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

If he just suffered grave losses due to leverage and hubris, that wouldn't be criminal. But he claims to not even know where the money is, implying a failure to keep records at all. I know you have to keep every scrap of paper under the sun, have all external communication archived, even IMs...for his firm to fail to do this makes a strong implication of fraud. First thing i thought when it was announced that money was missing was a crime was commited. it is possible, i suppose, but i cannot figure out how you missplace money without fraud being commited by someone there. I am no accountant and record keeping is done way above me but i agree with you. if the money is missing thats WAY different than just lost in the market. usually my post are explaining how just because you dont like something doesnt make it a crime. not here. i smell a rat. my previous posts, i would imagine, tend to show i am not reactionary about this stuff. to be clear. i do not believe the loss's are a crime, sadly. i do believe the missing money is most likely a crime. two different points. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

if that article explains it i am confused. the author uses specific terms inconsistently and as if they are interchangable. for example, he refers to broker dealers able to borrow then explains how it works referencing the rules for a prime broker. they are not the same thing. one can be the other but they dont have to. so which is it? can a prime broker do it AND a broker dealer or both?? the author seems to think bank, broker dealer and prime broker are all the same. they are not. in addition, he used equities as an explanation for a commodity transaction. they dont even have the same regulators or rules. that makes his comparisons meaningless. by using jargon he doesnt understand he made the article impossible to understand. its a shame because he probably could have made a good point if he took the time to understand what he was saying. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I'm no expert on commodities but the rules are bit different and need to be changed. you are, as i've read and understand, permitted to take customer money and put it in a principal account overnight. provided you meet a collateral requirement. this principal account then can be traded. its never been a problem before because regulators and traders figured whats the worst than can happen overnight. oops we now know. So as i see it, MF lost so much overnight it couldnt put the money back into the accounts. This happened becuase they were so highly leveraged and the underlying securities movement was great. Not normal and obviously not accounted for. Sadly, it looks like it isnt a crime. YET The rules should be similiar to equities, no client money mixed with principal money. Can anyone explain to me why commodity rules are different? i have no idea. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

im very liberal when it comes to social issues. have no issues at all with homosexuals. never had, even when i was younger and it wasnt cool to be accepting. i am not religious and was raised to not care what people do in their own time. with that said i dont buy it at all. people hate for many reasons. im sure some are self loathing but you will never convince me that people that hate gays are actually gay. in my life experience they are typically religious or a bit prudish sexually. I've known alot of hateful people in my life and really doubt they are secretely arroused. makes way more sense to me they are just hateful. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

And the Fed didn’t disclose the amount of their lending. Question: who owes a duty to the American people? both sides will say they did it to protect our society. if people actually knew the size of the problem it could have caused a panic. thats been the company line from the beggining. No one asked but i believe it would have. I've seen the markets tank on far less. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Limburg lands in Paris!!! Whats new to you is not news to the world. That story is from 27 November. It isnt a bigger story because its not that surprising. It's 4 days old, still "NEWS". And apparently it DID suprise some people: The amount of money the central bank parceled out was surprising even to Gary H. Stern, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1985 to 2009, who says he “wasn’t aware of the magnitude.” It dwarfed the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year. “TARP at least had some strings attached,” says Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, referring to the program’s executive-pay ceiling. “With the Fed programs, there was nothing.” Bankers didn’t disclose the extent of their borrowing. On Nov. 26, 2008, then-Bank of America (BAC) Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis wrote to shareholders that he headed “one of the strongest and most stable major banks in the world.” He didn’t say that his Charlotte, North Carolina-based firm owed the central bank $86 billion that day. I dont know how to define "news". 4 days to me is old but i understand its all relative. My comments were to Shah. he has a habit of just learning of something and assuming its breaking. This story is not breaking, its 4 days old. That was my point. Ok, so i will concede that some people were surprised. IMO, they should not have. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Limburg lands in Paris!!! Whats new to you is not news to the world. That story is from 27 November. It isnt a bigger story because its not that surprising. This is how gov't' helps banks, nothing new. People have been upset about this from the beggining. Gov't loans money to banks and they loan it at a higher rate for profit. the story isnt that this happened but that the amount was not fully disclosed. You would have got that if you read the Bloomberg article as apposed to watching a fictional comedy program. Shah, you never cease to amaze me with how you think something you just learned is new. now change the subject as you always do. (i am smiling,fyi) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

What I find interesting is he wants the gov to do something about this And as it is turning out these gov officials, right and left, are using thier positions and doing insider trading to enrich themselves! So he is supporting those who are worse than he condems i dont follow, sorry. Who are you saying wants the gov't to do something? Who are you saying is supporting those who are worse than he condems. Paulson? the Pres? me? not being obtuse, just not sure of your point, thanks i think we all can agree congress needs to change the rules on their own trading. Paulson isnt a member of congress and did NOT trade on any info though. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

bankers are evil and the 1% run the world. republicans are behind all this except GSCO who gave more money to Dems and Obama!!! there its been said so if thats all you want to add you can move on to another thread. I think its a very interesting story and would love to see this thread not devolve into some right vs left, have vs have nots bs. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

"After a perfunctory discussion of the market turmoil, the fund manager says, the discussion turned to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Paulson said he had erred by not punishing Bear Stearns shareholders more severely. The secretary, then 62, went on to describe a possible scenario for placing Fannie and Freddie into “conservatorship” -- a government seizure designed to allow the firms to continue operations despite heavy losses in the mortgage markets." http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LVDZC507SXKX01-53FDT6STR4PRVU9B7CRTDL62J0 If you read the entire article you will see there is NO evidence anyone traded on this info, therefore, no crime. Also, Paulson violated no rules or laws because insider trading puts the onus not on the deceminator but the recipient of said info. there are times you must discuss non public info but there is never a time you have the right to trade on it. Paulson sought the counsul of people he trusted. these people are PM's and many former GSCO friends. Nothing odd there, since thats who he knows. he is a former GSCO chairman so his friends will be important. BUT why didnt he take more measure to insure they didnt trade and to provide them more cover if they acted correctly by not trading? as it is now, some have clearly stated they didnt trade on this info, others have yet to be so clear. it will be easy for the SEC and other regulators to catch them if they did since trading is so higly regulated. Why didnt Paulson make all of them sign something? Were they all so naive to think this meeting would not come up again? im guessing no, arrogant yes, naive no. to me it proves that insider trading laws need to be more clear when it comes to public employees. I'm guessing even if they didnt trade on it, how can you ever prove they didnt tip someone else off? you cant. to me that is the crime and it will never be prosecuted. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>I'm a single guy with two cats.... gee kinda redundant, one confirms the other "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

DUUUUUDE.... he is the 1%.. he DESERVES his toys... he is at the very least trickling down some of the wealth.. right??? 1. If he earned the money, it's his to do with as he pleases. 2. He's under no obligation to trickle down or share anything...it's his money. I bet he even votes for those Family Values politicians.... who are as morally bankrupt as he is not for nothing but he is a hedge fund manager from West Chester county and a has a law degree. That pretty much insures he is a Democrat. West Chester and Bergen County NJ are very Democratic communities and where those people live. Not to mention really rich hedge fund managers tend to be democrates. mostly because that is who controls the local elections. if you want to be involved in politics you join the Dem party. i'm speaking from real world experience. (not from being rich but living in one of those counties, hah) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

because something is new to you does not make it new. because you now understand something does not mean it was missunderstood by others all along. sorry if that sounds condecending. picture me smiling when i wrote it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I must have started about 3 or 4 replies in this thread and then deleted them, because it's pretty much a wasted effort. you shouldnt do that imo. you might have value to add and many people come here but dont post. thats my attitude anyway. who cares if the op doesnt get it, you might help someone else understand something they are not experienced in. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

you have a great habit, as i mentioned over and over, of stating your personal opinions as fact. your reality does not match mine. i graduated school 20yrs ago and do not see any greater push for revenues than before. some have argued that our system of quarterly reporting causes short term decisions that are not beneficial over the long term. thats most likely true but is not new, so a mute point in relation to your argument. companies have always looked to avoid taxes, thats much older than me. i again, do not see companies acting disproportionately different than they have in the past in respect to taxes. I read balance sheets and value companies for a living. In my 20 years i have studied thousands and thousands of publicaly traded companies. i do not agree with your premise. there is no increased effort for profits or tax avoidance. you make bold sweeping comments based on personal opinons then change the subject the moment someone points out your premise is flawed. in this thread alone its happened repeatedly. your hilarious but frustrating. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i do not think there is more pressure due to your reason. historically speaking when people retire they move from riskier securities, ie stocks to less risky fixed income products. such as bonds and notes. (real notes, not the ones you made up at the biggining of this thread, i say smiling). so if there is more pressure its not coming from retirees. they tend to seek modest gains. i believe retail brokers refer to it as moving from "growth to income". so by your reasoning companies would feel less pressure to show greater gains since there would be less people seeking the higher risk stock securities. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

What did you eat and how did you pay your rent for all those years while you were working for free? (edit... sorry i realized after posting you were asking him a very specific question. i read it quickly. im leaving my post though because it might answer another question) i cannot speak for other industries. Interns at banks are almost always students. very few are recent grads but many here have posted that that number is getting bigger. it could but its still fewer than students. like most students your parents pay for your expenses. at top banks the interns tend to come from top schools and their parents tend to be pretty well off. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i explained to you very clearly i understand the hypothetical. your entire post did not address my point. you stated something as fact based on first hand knowledge. in this case your friend from the world bank. i said you are wrong and explained why based on actual industry knowledge. you then make a long off topic post again about a hypothetical i did NOT dispute. you state your opinions and your friends opinions as fact. i have no problem with your hypotheticals but do take issue with your suppossed facts and inside info from your "friends". that is my point. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>As for a manager getting a bump in pay if you lay people off? Simple, reduce the work force by 10% keep the same level of output production collect bonus for saving the company money. >What's so hard about that? It's called cutting the fat off the system. Problem is when you have cut away all the fat and are not cutting bone. i understand how it could work as a hypothetical. my point is that you claimed it not to be hypothetical but a fact of how bulge bracket Wall Street firms work, based on a friends story. like this post about a friend, your just plain wrong. They get a bonus based on production and how many people they manage. the bigger the group the bigger the title and bonus. no one tries to make their group smaller. that would only make them look smaller. you and your friend are wrong or just making up stuff. again... "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I don't freaking know how that one works out either...but that's what one of the guys who co-owns the company said while we were enjoying his box seats at the stadium. If it sounds bogus and you can't understand how it could possibly be true...perhaps it's NOT TRUE? Given your history of misunderstandings, that's where my money goes. *I did like how your earlier rant thread today managed to work in dating frustrations again. another Shah story about a friend who does.... blah blah blah. either he or his friends just make this stuff up. i hope no one actually thinks what he posted makes any financial sense or is even remotely true. it isnt. and no, its not becaue i dont understand finance. it makes no sense to me because i DO understand finance. this is just like his friend at the World Bank who told him bank managers get a bonus for doing lay offs. total fantasy i will repeat as i always do when he speaks of finance. you cannot come here with made up stories and expect no one to call you on it. there are people here who understand the financial industry. including notes. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

your post normally seem pretty moderate to me but this one is a bit more extreem. IMO, his friends ARE special because they are HIS friends. he should have the right to choose who benifits from his wealth. also, the country does benefit because he already payed taxes. with that said i dont feel taxes are ever fair but life isnt fair so people need to get use to it. what i want is an estate tax that prevents families from being rich indefinitely. i dont want to live in Victorian England. on the other hand i dont want to see people have to sell the family business to cover the taxes, which i've sadly witnessed in my own family. Whats the magic number? i dont pretend to know but its not 0 nor is it 90. I cannot in anyway relate to most of you, so sure its has to be one extreme or the other. i dont find problems that easy to solve. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

No it's not. Trading in the stock market continues as we type. Heck these squatters are not even on Wall Street. actually they were there today. Wall St was even more crowded than normal. so you have the 9/11 anti terror barricades, cops, tourist and then the OWS crowd. people were pulling their hair out trying to get to work. Wall St sucks. no good deli's either. which is really all that matters. viva la midtown "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Don't forget they are hoarding grain in Chicago!!! it should be no shock to anyone that people from GSCO are in high places. its one of the most difficult and pretigious banks in the world to find employment. Typical interview process last months and includes about 23 actual interviews in addition to multiple dinner and drinks. They attract some of the brightest people form the best universities and financial world. they advise every major corporation and instititution that matters. their alumni are in strong demand everywhere. not just governments. I dont see an evil scheme. i see former bankers being recruited for their valued experience. But i tend to be middle of the road politically and not prone to conspiracy theories. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante