Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 12:51PM

I love how my boy Boone bitch slaps Liesman whenever he gets the chance. Guy is a complete tool. These people have no clue what they are talking about half the time. Im down with Becky Quick, she appears to be DTF

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 12:52PM

CNBC would love to take the blame for the next failure. Frankly, they will have nothing to do with the balance sheet of that i-bank. Look at major regional banks, one is on its way out and they haven't even mentioned the bank.

Speaking of "rumor-mongering" is a way to blind the public from the truth about the ponzi scheme that spun out of control for these masters of the universe

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 12:55PM

Jeez....typical Republican attitude. Blame the guy who calls 911 to report the fire.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 12:57PM

Vor uns liegt ein weites Tal
Die Sonne scheint mit Glitzerstrahl

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:02PM

To George Smiley at 12:57pm

I love 15th century German poetry too!

John Le Carre

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:06PM

@12:57 - call tech support and let them know you're having problems with your spellcheck.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:13PM

while i agree with the general sentiment of the people posting the above comments, it is important to understand and acknowledge that our financial system is based on confidence.

meaning that i can run around and start rumors that bill gates is a pedophile and a kid touch-er, but if it ain't true, it don't matter to the viability of the concern because microsoft sells an actual product.

if i have 5 billion with LEH prime and i start a rumor that i might pull my $ from LEH prime, well, that's a different sort of game because it causes people to stop transacting business with LEH. epsecially if whispered the rumor to one of those grimey pinheads from CNBC and they start shouting about it on the TV's that populate every trading desk in america.

you can argue all day that LEH shouldn't place itself in a position where they should be able to be damaged by these rumors, but then you really don't understand how finance works...

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:20PM

@113, are you kidding me? So if I say that LEH should actually assess risk vs return I dont know how finance works? Let me ask you this, how come Paulson was smart enough to see the downside to the tune of billions in profit but LEH and all the other firms weren't? Thats just a stupid comment

"I dont make money, I print it"

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:21PM

CNBC needs to merge with the Spice Channel in order to survive.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:26PM

Pleaaaaseeee CNBC fire Erin Burnett! I can't take her anymore. By mistake I change channels for two minutes, and in those two minutes she already fu... up. Her and Rachel Ray, I cannot understand how they are on TV. They should have a show together in which one cooks and the other just talks out of her ass while reading some market news she clearly doesn't understand.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:28PM

I would LOVE see Maria Bartiroma give her news breifs topless!!

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:30PM

hi 1:20. hope you're having a nice day.

please don't call my comments stupid. mostly because they're not, and less so because it's not nice. you consider yourself nice, right?

perhaps there is no reason for firms like BSC and LEH to exist. perhaps there is no reason for firms like MER and GS to exist. add JPM to that list. personally, i hate the culture of most banks and brokerages and believe their front offices are populated with the very worst sort of cretins and dirtbags and detest that they breath the same air as i do.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:33PM

erin burnett is the one who looks like she was just doing bong hits. all the time. right?

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:37PM

so you think smart guys who are paying 1700 bucks a square foot for manhattan real estate with their bonuses and their 15% taxed partnership bonuses are "assessing" their risk?

weeeeeeeeeeeee~!!`11

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:39PM

@1:37 Looks like some sore loser cannot afford the 1700bucs/sqf.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:40PM

bucks.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:41PM

1:30 --- then you definitely don't understand how finance works and are indeed stupid, as someone earlier pointed out. Moron.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:43PM

@130, Im not trying to be mean, but the comments earlier are a little short sighted. Also, you dont want to breath the same air as them? Thats interesting. Let me tell you something, the IB's play a huge role in the marketplace, you better hope you are breathing the same air as them. The problem with them, and it has gotten worse over time, is that they are too busy chasing fees to stop and take a look at what the hell they are trading.

Long live Trish Regan

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:43PM

The South, the Midwest and B&T Land are full of morons.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:43PM

hi anal_yst

i said front office for a reason.

have a great day.

love,

former bigshot front office type

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:43PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121599986960249953.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop

Collapse of Steve and Barry's has Andrew Ross Sorkin looking for rumor mongers who drove the firm to the brink. Prior to the firm's demise rumors swirled that, they were not "profitable" and that their business model included selling clothing at a loss and making up the difference on volume. The scurrilous rumors worked their customarily cancerous course causing clothier's collapse. Can Chris Cox cast a blind eye to pernicious plundering provoked by prurient plungers?

(p.s. nice work wharton, best business plan since another alumn of yours brought us Trump Mortgage)

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:48PM

1:43 - i thought i was pretty clear in my first comment that capital markets (i used the ubiquitous term - "financial market") are really important and based almost solely on confidence.

them i went back and read what i wrote and maybe i wasn't that clear.

so now i am.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:48PM

"that their business model included selling clothing at a loss and making up the difference on volume."

How do you keep selling something at a loss and make up the difference by selling more of it??...am I missing something?

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:55PM

hi 1:39pm.

i wouldn't pay $1700 a square foot for anything, anywhere.

but that's mostly because i own a lot of nice places which i paid $100- $150 a square foot for back in the early 90's. my yearly rent rolls exceed my purchase prices in some cases. ain't that cool?

but i was fortunate enough to be making a lot of coin in the very early 90's as an arrogant young wall street dickbag. sort of like you.

have a nice day.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:57PM

Someone told me Becky Quick is sporting a ring. Any truth to that? I missed her this a.m.

If it's true, I'd figure Becky would flaunt it to Erin B. and Melissa Francis by wearing it on her middle finger to show to the camera.

-BeckyBootFan

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:58PM

@148, thats fine. I would say that smart fundamentals play a huge role also. Seems like a big problem with IB's is that they tend to copycat each other based on what is hot at the moment. If they stuck with their own approach they would be much better for it. You cant give people who make 120K a loan for a 750K house, its that simple. Owning a tranche with the least risk is great until people stop paying their mortgages right?

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 1:59PM

@1:48

ARS is that you? no worries, mate, it backs out when you clean depreciation out of your contribution margin. That's how steve and barry generates all that free cash flow. you can return to your coloring now.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:01PM

1:58pm - i agree with every single word you wrote in your last comment.

especially the copycat mentality part.

panic buying is a disease on wall street.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:03PM

@1:55 Wouldn't you pay $1700 a square foot for Bessie's fun parts?

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:03PM

ya, anal, prob is if all your buds are wall street types you start (in the words of sen moynihan) defining douche-baggery down.

mix in finance guys in with the general pop and you have massive dbag tail risk.

love djais though, me and gaspa used to drop e-bombs there in 97.

cheers.

-retail

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:08PM

lol @ "fun parts"

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:10PM

@201, thanks. You are my homeboy. I mean look at BSC as the perfect example. Do you really think that they should have gotten into the mortgage game? They had a big clearing business that was very profitable and a really good bond desk, along with a good retail brokerage business. Why not stick with that? Ignorance and greed(along with shoddy management). Ace, Jimmy and the boys should have been shown the door years ago, the game had clearly passed them by. Sad state of affairs

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:15PM

@2:10

lol @ "homeboy" ...thanks, i think? lol

i'm really starting to believe that most of the real brains on traditional wall street have left for greener pastures.

less regulation and 15% taxes.

investment partnerships run the show now.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:16PM

no cluz, my bad, it's def love/ hate, just a bit fed up of late.

DB is great bc JC is one of the few, if only, guys that shoots straight when it comes to the banking issues, and i still run a small book, so the comments are a great sentiment indicator.

plus, bess is, no joke, the funniest writer out there. period.

-retail

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:20PM

it cracks me the up that these hedge funds are literally conspiring to help put the brokerages where they where spawned from out of business.

that's some twisted shit.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:20PM

it cracks me the f up that these hedge funds are literally conspiring to help put the brokerages where they where spawned from out of business.

that's some twisted shit.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:21PM

Mongo like candy...and alliteration

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:22PM

@217, their silence is the thing hurting them the most right now, besides the billions in toxic debt on their books

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:23PM

Anal_yst@1:40pm,

Those "tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pretty normal people" you refer to all feed at the same trough as "the few who caused the shitstorm in which we currently find ourselves".

All those worthless prospectuses made from shit paper that were prepared by some of those "pretty normal people" are evidence of their involvement.

I believe that @1:30 is correct in his views. I'll add that increased regulation is coming to an I-Bank near you, and it won't be pretty for all those people working in said I-Bank.

Recklessness = Regulation.

Criticize CNBC, the Fed, the SEC, Congress, Treasury, the White House, the homeowners, the bagholders, the mortgage companies, the realtors, and anybody else you think deserves criticism. No matter what any of you tools might think to the contrary, Wall St brought the "shitstorm" down on all of us, and Wall St is going to feel a lot more collective pain as a result.

I think that another 50,000 job losses on Wall St will be a good starting point.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:27PM

CNBC= Calling Nothing But Crap

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:35PM

@2:33

the old boys club fucks up every once in a while, the public freaks out, and congress puts the boys in time out.

up until now, investment partnerships have been protected from regulation because:

1. the public doesn't give a fuck about the problems of rich people

2. most politicians are rich and have most their wealth invested in hedge funds.

my feeling is that the press is going framing all this financial failure as the result of the lack of regulation of hedge funds. and wall street in general.

with the likelihood of obama becoming our next president supported by a radicalized democrat congress, i just can't see how anyone in their right mind doesn't very clearly see what's coming down the pike, at least as clearly as i can see it.

and i'm stupid.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 2:50PM

Idiot@2:15 and Double@2:20pm,

Those "investment partnerships that run the show now" won't be running that show for too much longer. Congress is salivating at the thought of eating their lunch.

Fucking hedge funds and private equity partnerships are next up on the shit list of Congress.

That day can't get here soon enough. This country doesn't need hf's and pe's. All they've done is enriched themselves and their small cadre of 'investors' and said "fuck y'all" to everyone else.

I-Banks that are regulated just like retail banks, HF's and PE's (especially the publicly-traded ones) taxed and regulated into oblivion, and commodities exchanges that are free of the reckless IB/HF/PE influence will restore us to the pre-1999 period of relative tranquility.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 3:01PM

2:@3 said - "No matter what any of you tools might think to the contrary, Wall St brought the "shitstorm" down on all of us..."

Sigh. I just hope that all the people who actually sold off their houses in time locking in massive profits, the millions who spent trillions of home equity money on plasma tvs, vacations, cruises, flashy cars, expensive clothes over the past 7 years (which they by their own level of effort couldn't even dream of in their lifetimes) also thank Wall Street for all the fortune bestowed upon them THEN!

It will never cease to amaze me that so much angst about the economy exists in high school dropouts who have a standard of living that is unimaginable for billions of others with similar skill levels around the world.

It is funny to watch people complain on TV about the cost of filling gas into their 40k SUVs. Someone should tell them that there are billions of skill-less and unedcuated people in this world like them whose entire village's lifetime consumption will probably never reach 40k.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 3:02PM

hey 2:50 those comments were both made by me and i'm on your side here. lol

you hurt my feelings.

especially since i identified myself as "stupid" in the comment right above yours where i said that investment partnerships ("hedge funds") have been protected from regulation because the voting public doesn't care if rich people lose their money and most politicians of any importance are wealthy and have most their money invested in hedge funds through blind trusts.

and politicians hate losing money much more than normal people hate losing money.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 3:07PM

this country needs to regulate MBA's and Lawyers in much the same way we regulate liquor licenses.

meaning that we should limit the number of each based on population or some other metric.

most lawyers and MBA types are far more dangerous than liquor.

i should have listened to my mommy and became a pediatrician.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 3:15PM

4 million $600 (effective cost) iPhones sold in the US. A few 100 million $200 iPods. About 50 million Xbox/Playstations/Wiis - avg cost $400. 10 million Grand Theft Auto 4 units sold - $59 per unit. Annual revenue from movies/sports etc = a few hundred billion.

Assuming that the 'Wall Street types' are the only ones enjoying those discretionary spend based entertainment thingies - they must be raking it is! The rest of the country is so destitute. Damn those finance people!!!

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 3:24PM

guest@3:02,

@2:50 here. My apologies. I was busy ranting and thought that you were defending the assholes.

@3:01, Keep on tooling along as you try to defend the indefensible. Nine years of sheer recklessness by the fucking Wall St morons is about to end.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 3:35PM

2:50 said - "This country doesn't need hf's and pe's. All they've done is enriched themselves and their small cadre of 'investors'"

I hope you are aware of the fact that the biggest cadre of 'investors' are actually pension funds and their likes. And guess whose retirement account looks better as a result of that?

2:50 also said - "will restore us to the pre-1999 period of relative tranquility"

You mean to say the whole 1998 thing was 'tranquil.' And LTCM was a candy manufacturer?

Seriously, you would find a lot more giving credit you for your uninformed views on DailyKos. Please right here http://www.dailykos.com

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 3:42PM

guest@3:07pm,

I'm with you. Lawyers + MBA's = Dangerous to All.

guest@3:15pm,

All that XBox/IPhone/Theft/Sports math you did is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Whether someone buys an IPhone or gets paid for kicking a field goal doesn't make my 401(k) go down. Nor did it cause me pay $5.08 for a gallon of diesel for my car yesterday. Nor does it make my grocery bill and my utility bills 35% higher than they were six months ago. No, Wall Street fuckups caused those things to happen.

On this site, you may still get some agreement from others like you. In general though, the country hates the fucking words "Wall Street".

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 3:50PM

Idiot@3:35pm,

Last I heard, pension funds were taking it in the ass. Also "pre-1999" should have read "pre-1998". BTW Idiot, I remember 1998 quite well. The shit lasted all of about a month. It was a non-event compared to what's going on now.

Anything else?

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 3:51PM

@3:35 - i'm all for the concept of investment partnerships but when you have these huge capital formations so closely intertwined with traditional money centers, you create a whole lot opportunity for bad stuff to happen.

there must be some regulation and/or oversight.

not a perfect analogy but i'm sure you wouldn't support the concept of a limited amount of pharmaceutical employees being able to form private partnership to produce pharma products with no FDA guidelines or regulations, right?

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 3:52PM

WTF @ 3:42.

The country hates "Wall Street" for the same reason the rest of the world hates the USA - envy.

Why do you think GS gets about 1000 applications per 1 first year anaylst spot (no doubt going to 5000)?

GREED IS GOOD!

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 3:58PM

i challenge any person on this board to give a reasonable argument as to why investment companies should be highly regulated but investment partnerships should not be regulated at all.

it makes no sense.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 3:58PM

Yup. Its not as if the rest of the country voluntarily gives up on working on the Street. THEY ALL WOULD IF THEY COULD!!

Sadly, they cant. Its like the whole class hates the jock who is screwing all the hot chicks while there are getting none.

The analogy is similar! If you are working 9-5 and would be lucky to pay off the credit card bill for the airfare to take your brood to Disneyland that one time, of course you will hate someone who is not in such a predicament!

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 3:58PM

guest@3:51pm,

@2:50,@3:50 here.

Great points. Great analogy. Thanks.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 4:10PM

guest@3:58(1),

I don't expect to hear even one compelling argument that could make sense out of nonsense. You are safe with your challenge.

GREED@3:52,

You are such a fucking idiot; it is almost astonishing.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 4:11PM

Two negative comments on E. Burnett! And they are in agreement with my views! (1) She reads a teleprompter and doesn't have a clue about what it all means; and (2) she frequently seems, as one commenter put it, like she has just stepped away from a bong.

People who hate Wall Street -- try to make a living on Wall Street from 2007 to the present and foreseeable future and see how you like it.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 4:13PM

For every dollar in wall street financed cash out purhases, home owners took on debt they will have to pay back. Not so for the bonuses and carry of said wall st types. Not to mention, that higher housing costs caused by easy money securitization circle jerk more than canceled that out on a cash flow basis.

As for pensions and PE/HF, they will be or are bag holders for long tail of reckless risk taking. These are not the "investors" previous posters are talking about.

The real tragedy here is all this money could have been used for real investment, whichs creates lasting wealth for investors and improved living standards for all. Rather than trying to out gamble one another, through betting on each others ponzi schemes. Worse yet, capital was not just sequestered or even destroyed, but drove mal-investment.

How many medical, argricultural, or energy breakthroughs have postponed or lost, while spending our debt on mcmansions and gas guzzlers that make us need them more?

As for current commodities situation, lets see everyones positions and transaction history. We can then see if too should be layed at feet of Wall St. That is not counting second and third degree effects, such as increased consumption due to said mal-investment and impact of MBS flight on dollar devaluation.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 4:15PM

3:50 - "Last I heard, pension funds were taking it in the ass. "

Look dude - lets analyze how your thought process works

- First you say that all the hedge funds / PEs have just "enriched themselves and their small cadre of 'investors' " (2:50)

- I point out that most of the investors are actually pension funds (3:35)

- Then you say that "pension funds were taking it in the ass" (3:50), without agreeing or disagreeing with whether pension funds ARE actually those 'small cadre of 'investors')

So hf/pe 'cadre of investors' are raking it in, they are pension funds, but pension funds are taking it up their asses.

Nice logic. I can see why you envy others - if I has so dull a mind, I would too. And yes, I would also be attracted to millitant left wing radicalism / communism - because only dull minds can get fired up about an ideology which has been wholly proven to be wrong.

Good luck.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 4:21PM

guest@4:13pm,

I like your post. Unfortunately, idiots like GREED@3:52 aren't listening. They'll just keep tooling along till all the wheels fall off their beloved printing press. You know, the one that "prints money".

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 4:24PM

hi 4:15

i'm not the guy you're arguing with (guy - please pardon gender assumption)

i'm the other guy calling for regulation of investment partnerships.

and i'm as capitalist as they come.

i was a high level front office type at fancy wall street firm for a long time. i also worked at a fancy investment partnership for less time after that.

do you disagree with me that hedge funds need to be regulated?

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 4:29PM

oh, and i'll presuppose any snarky response that i'm bitter and got laid off from bear stearns...lol

although i will admit that i got a little burnt out and took my buy-out and ran.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 4:31PM

@4:28

i'm going to guess, and this is just a guess, that if cnbc is speading rumors that lehman is looking to go private, then what that really means is that they opened their books to someone with deep pockets and it wasn't good.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 4:33PM

guest@4:15,

2:50/3:50 here. Just keep tooling along defending the indefensible. Keep squeaking about logic and about some finer points that may support your views. Problem is, very few people are listening to your story. All those "dull minds" are about to have their way in Washington. Keep on stroking dude. I'll quote another poster, "Try your left hand for awhile."

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 4:37PM

4:24 said - "do you disagree with me that hedge funds need to be regulated?"

Yes. Private pools of capital can and should be allowed to invest any which way. Its their capital. And contrary to public opinion, hedge funds and PEs havent just 'enriched themselves.' A large number have actually gone bust.

So what is the problem with that? A few have consistently made a lot of money (RenTech for example) and maybe that is a proof of their superior money making abilities! So why begrudge them for their skills? What prevented others from doing the same?

You bigger problem seems to be with 'wealth', that too wealth made through financial markets. You seem to express no similar disgust for why movie stars / athletes should mint millions (again - a few of them, not all). Also, why should a freckly college student from Harvard be able to steal his classmates' online networking idea and become worth a few billions?

You are not a capitalist - you are a dyed in the wool socialist. No capitalist argues for greater regulation of private capital. The current problem is not due to absense of regulation but its PRESENCE. Everyone (hfs/pes) included knew of the implicit govt backstop - so they acted accordingly.

4:24 also said - "i was a high level front office type at fancy wall street firm for a long time"

Those kinds do not waste a whole afternoon on a blog for/by low level wall street analysts - especially in as exciting times for financial markets as these.

And those kinds have also had acquired sufficient humility, grace and maturity not to preface any comment to someone with 'Idiot.' When you know that you are good, you dont need to make a blatant demonstration of it by showing someone else down.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 4:49PM

I think there will be regulation, and it might do some good. Commodities is where it might start, even before mortgage related activities/markets.

However, I too being a stuanch capitalist, think an even more fundamental market based transformation is underway.

Financial services firms may be finally facing the challenges of globalization and information revolutions, after only having enjoyed the benefits.

Technology has commoditized much of their business, and capital/wealth is no longer concentrated in the hands of their traditional clients.

Wall street was able to maintain its premience through leverage on the one side, and financial engineering on the other.

Many manufactures tried the same thing during their time of transition. Finance was different because when the product is information, there is an infinite potential for variation. You can only try so many gimics with televisions and cars, to maintain your rents in face of lower cost labor and automation. Ironically, a lesser percent of those variations are actually value add with financial instruments, especially on a risk adjusted basis.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 4:54PM

@4:37,

You are an idiot. There are two of us posting the same general message.

Movie stars and athletes don't make the fucking economy collapse. Only your brand of unregulated, reckless, greedy gambling does that. Capitalism. Is that what you call it?

I sure as fuck hope that regulation gets here soon.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 4:54PM

lol @ 4:37

i didn't call anyone an idiot.

that was someone else.

how i choose to waste my time is really up to me, no? i mean i was pretty clear about the fact that i'm "retired".

what exactly do "those kinds" do in your experience? do you always use language that?

i came across this site because i'm researching whether or not i want purchase some public debt in certain financial companies.

seems like a good idea to me. do you have any opinion on my idea? you seem like a bright guy...

btw - my question was why investment companies should be regulated per investment acts but not investment partnerships?

please try again.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:04PM

Let's not forget that all of this is due to a bunch of fat retarded deadbeats that couldn't pay their mortgages.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:07PM

guest@5:04pm,

Hahaha. Please try again. Maybe you'll eventually get it right.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:11PM

All the firms which supposedly took on extra risk are getting crushed, some have gone bankrupt/sold. What more regulation do you need?

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:11PM

I mean if banks cannot trust good hard working americans in the land of opportunity, then who can you trust?

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:16PM

Well, to be fair, it's also due to the debt from "fat retarded deadbeats" not being recognized as risky, bundled so its origins were disguised, and leveraged to its risky maximum.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:19PM

@5:04

lol...so when a commercial plane crashes into the ground because it wasn't properly maintained or the pilot was drunk it's the passengers fault?

so if i lend some bum on the street a thousand bucks it's not my fault when i don't get paid back?

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:24PM

4:54 said - "I sure as fuck hope that regulation gets here soon."

You see, therein lies the problem, something that double digit IQ people like you find difficulty in grasping.

The kind of philosophies that 'regulate' 'greedy capitalism' are also the kinds where artists and athletes are not paid millions - better still they are on a fixed salary and not allowed to FAIL (the consequences of which go much beyond just not getting paid).

Similarly, regulation also makes sure that no wide eyed 20 yr olds sitting in their parents' garaged can dream of being worth a few billion in a few years. Hence, the zeal dies. And guess what happens without that zeal? You wouldn't be sitting in an a/c room typing away on a computer 100 times faster than the ones used to send man to the moon, exchanging banter with someone a thousand miles away.

Yes, even this online forum that you seem to take for granted was the result of one round on uncontrolled 'greed' where the financial bastards threw good money after the bad (pets.com?), wnriching themselves while sucking the blood out of the poor prole's first borns.

Then it went bust, there was a correction and a new bubble arose. What socialists like you will forever live in denial of is the fact that EVERYONE lives driven by the aim of getting more and better. However there are some (many?) who are more concerned with how much more someone else is making rather than what they are themselves.

Guess that, have a world poll on what they think of the lifestyles and earnings of all in America (other than bankers). They can throw a much harsher spotlight on you (relative to where they/you stand) than what you throw on the Wall Street types (relative to where they/you stand).

As I type on this site, I see three ads - portfolio.com, etrade and hedge answers - neither of which is essential to the survival of humankinds. The site employs some folks and I doubt that this is an immensely ROE positive operation.

Yet the investors persis, hoping that once they have a suffient number of HNI site members/vieweres - they can some stake to someone.

Greedy? Who knows? But you certainly seek to benefit from it.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:25PM

@ 5:11

oh, it's gonna change.

especially with the democrats taking over with big majorities. we're not talking pragmatic bill clinton democrats here. we're talking about radical wealth re-distributors.

think '34 and '40.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:26PM

It looks like the monster has run amok. Now the mob is outside the castle screaming for Dr. Frankenstein's head.

Let us also not forget that today is July 14th, otherwise known as Bastille Day. This day commemorates an event that touched off the vile thing called the French Revolution.

I was in the neighborhood this afternoon. Thought I'd drop by to see how everyone's doing. I see you've been busy.

The Guy from Delaware

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:27PM

"so when a commercial plane crashes into the ground because it wasn't properly maintained or the pilot was drunk it's the passengers fault?"

If the passengers saw that the pilot was stumbling in with a bottle of rum in his hands and/or the plane was visibly rusted with parts falling off - and yet they decided to go for the ride because a free dvd player was offered with every ride - absol-fucking-lutely yes, they are ALSO to blame!!!

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:28PM

@ 5:19 Would the bum be blaiming you for all his maladies after he defaults?

P.S. Plane analogy not valid at all. But your hard work on earning that online associate degree is still recognized. Your mom should be so proud of you.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:33PM

This comment is directed at the people on here fighting the good fight in defense of capitalism. Please, pretty please, stop responding to the dumbasses. I've been up since 5 AM on the West Coast and really am too cranky at this point to listen to this shit.

Next time they say something stupid, just remember, responding would be like mud-wrestling a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it. If you just ignore them, they'll go away. I promise.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:34PM

@ 5:28

lol @ the p.s. good stuff.

i already said that my mom wanted to me to be a pediatrician but i had to go out and get that silly MBA.

the plane analogy is valid. i'm supporting my argument that some industries which serve and or affect the public need to be regulated. you can disagree with me, i don't know it all.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:36PM

Oh, thank the lord, TGFD is back. Hopefully with his patented brand of sex and crazy.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:39PM

hi 5:33pm

and my daddy told me never to argue with a stupid person because they kill you with experience. btw - you're reading this stupid shit, not listening.

unless you're as stupid as i think and you have to have someone read this crap to you.

this is fun.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:48PM

WestCoastNutJob@5:33,

Hahaha. "fighting the good fight in defense of capitalism"? You must already be dreaming. Go back to sleep.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 5:54PM

5:34 - "i'm supporting my argument that some industries which serve and or affect the public need to be regulated"

We know, and we also wanted to let you know that you are not the first - the original communists beat you to it by about 91 years.

The thing is this. You want to 'regulate' all industries which are critical (of public-affecting, as you would put it), and by regulate you mean cap profits, reduce money people can make etc etc. And this would encompass finance, energy, pharma, healthcare etc I would assume.

On the other hand, 'fluff' industry folks - in your belief system - should be allowed to make as much money as they want to as they do not really directly affect the public. This includes arts, entertainment, sports, hospitality, information technology, legal industries etc I would assume.

We get that part. Now here is a lesson for you - people respond to incentives. See how people have started using public transport and more fuel efficient cars with a rise in fuels prices? Or how discount retailers are seeing more sales as people downgrade?

Similarly, your 'regulation' in the long run will drive all ambitious/smart/talented people as well as discretionary funds away from the 'essential' industries towards 'fluff' industries.

Now here is teh million dollar question. What do you think will happen in an economy where all incentives are aligned towards participation in 'fluff' industries and away from 'essential' industries?

Herein lies the tragic flaw with all communist-driven argument. They do not believe that people respond naturally to incentives. They think that people can be forced to just do something which they (the leaders) declare is for the 'greater public good.' Hence there is little surprise so as to why their stupid little experiment invariably fails.

A free market capitalist believes in incentives and does not classify things into 'essential' and 'fluffy'. If people think that entertainment is 'essential' then so be it. People will automatically set an appropriate premium and talent will be appropriately attracted.

Communists like you will never accept (or understand) that people deserve to exercise their free will. You will always tend to mold people according to your viewpoints - hence your obsession with 'regulation'. Hey, if regulation was was people desired of their free will, you wouldn't have to impose it - it would occur by itself.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 6:00PM

@5:54 I am with you comrade. My vote is for Perestroika.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 6:04PM

@5:34

China.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 6:04PM

@5:54

China.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 6:10PM

Guest@5:36PM...

Thank you for your vote of confidence.

I'll make it a point to post more of the "Sex and Crazy" that DB readers are so fond of. Not today though. I'll also try some moderation, but I may not be successful with that approach. After all, I can't overcome my nature.

BTW, I've been working on something that I will loosely call my "Treatise on Women". It's not finished, but I may send some of it to Bess and Carney for their comments. I will not post it directly. They can post it if they like, but I don't want to "plug up bandwidth" with something that is too long.

BTW #2, this is a good thread today. Lots of action from opposing viewpoints.

The Guy from Delaware

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 6:31PM

Commenters who like the sex and crazy emanating from TGFD/TOGFD are welcome to him. I'm not so happpy that he (they) is (are) back. However, the world has gone so crazy that it shouldn't suprise me that he (they) popped up again. Remember the day TGFD/TOGFD's head started to spin 360 degrees on his neck, and we got nearly incomprehensible posts from four different related personalities and a note about how to maximimize veteran's benefits by being crazy?

Bess and John, if you post this guy's Treatise on Women, please do so in a clearly marked post easy for readers to avoid. Some of us find enough sex and crazy in every day life.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 6:32PM

Post@5:54 = Nonsense.

No one here has yet to articulate what is wrong with putting commercial-banking-type regulations on I-Banks and with barring IB/HF/PE participation in the commodities markets.

WTF are the "capitalists" afraid of?

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 6:44PM

@6:31 you can never have enough sex and crazy in everyday life. Well, at least I can't.

@6:32 "Nonsense" is not really a well-articulated response to 5:54 either. Pot, meet kettle.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 6:45PM

lol @ 5:54

talk about serious reaction formation.

did you even read what i wrote? do you understand the question i'm asking?

well, i at least read what you wrote (ugh) and here's a tasty little tidbit:

"The thing is this. You want to 'regulate' all industries which are critical (of public-affecting, as you would put it), and by regulate you mean cap profits, reduce money people can make etc etc. And this would encompass finance, energy, pharma, healthcare etc I would assume."

news flash:

the finance, energy, pharma and healthcare industries are all regulated by federal and state authorities...

outside of the airlines and telecoms, you listed the 4 most regulated industries in the country.

before i keep typing i just want to make sure you're aware of this.

please stop trying to be so patronizing.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 6:59PM

Guest@6:31PM...

I'm not being critical of your stance against me. Last week when I monitored DB for a few hours, I saw a post that said "I'd like a large serving of Sex with a side of Crazy, thank you". Someone else said that he wouldn't mind having TGFD back, but "in moderation".

I picked today to visit again. My "Treatise on Women" may surprise you. So far, I've excluded any salacious material from the piece. It is more mental than physical in its scope. Again, I have yet to decide what I'll do with it.

I'm not looking for any input at this point, and I may still just abandon the work altogether.

The Guy from Delaware

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 6:59PM

@6:45 @5:54 was talking about your twisted little Marxist definition of 'regulation', specifically capping profits, reducing compensation, etc. And I don't think that's too common here.

Also, @6:04...it'd be hard to call China communist by anybody's definition these days.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 7:03PM

hi investorcluzo,

do you support the concept of the 34 and 40 acts?

how about state regulatory agencies? should we do away with drivers licenses?

of course government isn't as smart as the private sector. is there a sane person in this country who believes otherwise?

my only only argument is that the old boys tend to fuck it up once in a while and then congress gets involved and then the rubber band stretches the other way.

which is what's going to happen here.

SOX, anyone?

ugh.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 7:16PM

cluzo@6:58,

Your "private sector" cheerleading is almost nauseating. I'm astonished that in the wake of what is going on, you still think that the "private sector" is best-equipped to deal with and to resolve this current debacle.

Me thinks that one day you're going to wake up to find a new Wall St, one you don't recognize. Ten years of this fucking "private sector" calamity is enough.

Wall St kept on "dicking the dog & dicking the dog". Now what have we? That fucking dog has given out. Time for a different approach. Evidence of he need for it is all around you.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 7:25PM

cluzo@7:16,

This isn't about the "hand in the cookie jar" routine any longer. It's gone way beyond that and for way too long. Your attempt at scholarly insight is laughable. Still defending the indefensible, you are.

Get some new material. The old shit is really starting to stink.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 7:29PM

6:45 said - "...outside of the airlines and telecoms, you listed the 4 most regulated industries in the country..."

Thank you for accepting the fact. At least we are on the same starting point.

One look at the posts from your 'side' out of the last 100 odd would show varying levels of anger/dismay at the supposed 'unregulated' nature of Wall Street and also vatying levels of glee at the supposed backlash / decapitation that is going to be unleashed on Wall Street in the near future in the form of enhanced regulation. Here are some selec statements.

"You got to be crazy to believe it doesn't need effective regulation."
"I sure as fuck hope that regulation gets here soon."
"No one here has yet to articulate what is wrong with putting commercial-banking-type regulations on I-Banks and with barring IB/HF/PE participation in the commodities markets."

I would assume all of those are FOR greater regulation. So your sudden acquiescence to the fact that finance specifically is already highly regulated is welcome.

Then, you made sure that you completely avoided answering anything with regards to the fundamental flaw in the 'regulating industried which impact the public good' spiel. Just in case you forgot - this is what you said at 5:34

"i'm supporting my argument that some industries which serve and or affect the public need to be regulated. "

I just provided arguments towards why your 'argument' is completely invalid. Yet you ask me "do you understand the question i'm asking" ??? Excuse me? Do YOU recall, know or understand what you are talking about?

The flaws in your argument can only be exposed if one goes step by step through what would happen if your 'public good regulation' were to come into being.

Those are the very steps that you seek obfuscate - a favorite tactic of the 'regulation' crowd. Given that the regulation is against public will and just the brainwave of a few, your ilk seeks to hide the true cost from the public by shoving it onto corporations, hoping that the public will never figure out that they are the ones actually paying for it. Peeling away that layer of obfuscation will unfortunately (and most certainly) come across as patronizing to you. But it isn't the 'patronizing' part that really troubles you, is it?

Of course, you can nor lapse back to the old pitchfork routine as someone aptly did here "eep squeaking about logic and about some finer points that may support your views. Problem is, very few people are listening to your story."

And I think this statement totally captures the fatal flaw in your side's socialist thinking.

"Movie stars and athletes don't make the fucking economy collapse."

Know who can make the economy collapse? Someone who actually supports it. By your very definition, movie stars and athletes are meaningless to the economy (I dont agree, but evidently the 'regulate more' crowd does).

So you would place income caps / profit restrictions on the 'esssential' industries to drive people out of there? SO if someone invested in oil exploration at a time when oil was $30 and now oil is $120, you want 'windfall profits.' However, if someone funded a movie and it turned out to be an unexpected hit, someone funded a music album and it sold like crazy - you are totally cool with it.

And somehow in all this, you are blind to the fact that if you set up the system like this - very soon you will have all money chasing movies and new albums and no new oil fields being discovered. And given your own definition of movies and albums being useless to the economy, you think that would me awesome?

You side is either being intentionally dishonest or just plain dumb. I not quite sure of which is it. I feel like being charitable and assuming the first but I somehow feel it is the second.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 7:31PM

cluzo,

Please answer the query in my @6:32pm post if you can. No one else seems able to do so.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 7:32PM

the bottom line is that "wall street" is going to blame this crap on hedge funds. i suspect george soros will be dragged out of his office with pitchforks and hung from the nearest tree.

once the press gets on board with this storyline the public outcry will force serious regulation of investment partnerships.

think of SOX on steroids.

this is exactly what will happen. the only guess you have to make is which 2 party leaders want to have their names attached to some 3000 page act.

my guess is the 2 poorest senators from each party. they'll be the guys (all the chicks are rich, right?) who punish hedge funds.

most national politicians are wealthy and have all their invested assets in hedge funds. they don't want to fuck themselves.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 7:41PM

@7:29 Is seriously retarded. And that's an insult to retards.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 7:42PM

7:03 said - "should we do away with drivers licenses?"

Was that sarcasm? You actually think that the process of handing out drivers license has anything to do with people actually knowing how to drive (or being legal, if we were to assume that was the only aim)?

And lets assume that drivers licenses actually are given out on the basis of driving ability. Then given the fatality rate on roads, would you not classify it as a huge huge huge gigantic fucking disaster of a 'regulating' system given that half a million people have been killed on the roads in the last decade alone!!

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 7:45PM

@7:29pm,

You're in a world of hurt dude. You obviously spent a lot of time preparing that monster post of yours. Problem is, you didn't clarify anything. Are you drinking pretty hard tonite, dude? If you are, I can understand why your mind is in a fog.

Try this one out: Answer my 7:31pm post to cluzo.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 7:49PM

hi 7:42.

more sardonic than sarcastic. so you sort of missed it. but a good try on your part.

how else can they give out tickets?

lets try something which may be a little easier for you wrap your mind around.

pilot license.

you support that idea, right?

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 8:01PM

investorcluzo is correct.

the repeal of the most important provisons of glass-steagall will turn out to be more damaging to this nation than 20 NAFTA's and 20 Iraq wars.

i'm surprised it took this long for them blow it all up.

i thought they were greedier than that.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 8:07PM

7:49,

Keep trying. Unfortunately you once again picked a very wrong example. It so happens that I have a PPL (just VFR, thats level 1 for you) and the checkride with the FAA 'examiner' which led to the formal award of the license was a mere formality.

I wouldn't (and certainly my instructor and the compnay that owned the plane wouldnt) let me fly the plane if I couldn't - FAA or no FAA.

Now if some rich guy feels like buying a plane and trying to fly one he does not know how to - he is more than welcome to. How different is it from any other form of stupidity?

And as far as commercial flight go, the airline itself will not let a pilot who cannot fly handle a multi-million dollar jet. And if some rich dude (once again) buys a multi-million dollar jet and folks get on without knowing of his flying skills - their stupidity - they die!

In all this, once again I fail to see how the tax-payers funding an agency to hand out licenses maked things any better. If anything, airplane owners / airline companies can set mutual guidelines for what they consider to be flying skills. Once again - why is government involvement required?

That certainly was easy to wrap my head around, wasnt it. It seems someone other than me is having issues with wrapping his/her head around something.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 8:24PM

7:32 - "i suspect george soros will be dragged out of his office with pitchforks and hung from the nearest tree."

Ummm, soros actually owns the pitchfork mafia and funds their pitchforks. Wow, his money invested in moveon is realling paying dividends - now you think HE is the victim and not the perp.

Nicely done, soros.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 8:37PM

@ 8:24

nicely played.

lol!

perhaps i should have said stevie cohen or one of his old gang of three.

i forgot that george soros owns the likely next president of the united states.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 8:43PM

lol @ 8:07

maybe i'll let you fly my crappy little piper arrow turbo sometime. i know it's probably beneath a heavy hitter like you...

the fact that you're arguing against the concept or function of the FAA is frightening and reveals that you're full of bovine patties.

have a nice evening, weirdo.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 8:53PM

I see we have a serious libertarian amongst the ranks!

They're usually the first ones to get robbed and raped.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 8:55PM

8:43,

You missed the fact that I did not wholly argue against the concept or function of the FAA. But I do wholly question why this should be a tax-payer funded federally imposed thing.

And given that you brought DMV and then FAA into the discussion, shouldn't you be justifying their existence? Apparently you are incapable of doing that becuase you have been conditioned to think that they are essential and have been there forever - and hence MUST be serving some purpose.

What next? The government agency for dating and sexual contact? I mean, you can get a ton of shit from some chick who hasn't passed certain regulatory checks and the consequences could be serious. So I am guessing that you dont even go close to any chick who is not government certified? Or do you just replace government with mom?

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 8:57PM

You forget. Serious libertarians also believe in guns seriously. It's actually the other way round. It is the serious socialist liberals who are in a perpetual state of getting raped and robbed - just that they have been made to belive that it is necessary for 'greater public good'.

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 9:15PM

what the heck does "funded federally imposed thing" mean?

let's cut the rhetorical bullshit.

i'm not here to argue politics or religion.

i'm here to to find out if it's a good idea to buy some financial service debt.

apparently this board is supposed to be full of young analysts who happen to work for financial services companies. i'm looking for some inside insight.

i'm a fucking registered republican and i think ann coulter is sexy so please save your ron paul inspired lectures for the less informed.

as far as "certified chicks" - wake up pal, private industry is certifying everyone and everything these days. i bet you know your credit score better than you know your own telephone number.

i hope you don't have a facebook page - your compliance dept. likes to check that shit out. oh, so does your insurance company when you apply for life insurance.

certified - lol

Posted by guest , Jul 14, 2008 11:57PM

You are all missing the point - You are pretending we operate in the vacuum of the US. SOX has already created by accident a viable financial market in Europe and China, and maybe Dubai, anywhere but here.

The more regulation there is in the US, the more finance is going to happen not in the US. It's already happening, plenty of companies are doing IPOs and other deals not in NYC.

The real fall out of all this is not that we're going to have more regulation in the US, boo hoo -- It's that NYC will cease (is already ceasing) to be the Financial Capital of the world.

Follow the money. And it won't be in NYC. Sadly. That is the real cost.

Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 12:08AM

Over a hundred messages and I still have not seen the correct answer. All problems at CNBC originate with Gasbagarumor. He is a cancer.

Posted by guest , Jul 15, 2008 1:24PM

@8:55 I am all for government regulation of chicks. In fact, lets bring back the old Times Square. LB building to be converted into a henhouse.