cauxion
Recent Comments
-
Contact Us
Editorial Staff
- Executive Editor
- Bess Levin
- Editor
- Matt Levine
How Can We Help You?
- Send tips to:
tips@dealbreaker.com - For tech issues email:
web@dealbreaker.com - For advertising or events email:
advertising@breakingmedia.com - For research or custom solutions email:
services@breakingmedia.com
- Dealbreaker is published by Breaking Media.
For a full list of our sites, services and staff visit breakingmedia.com
Markets
-
Most Read
- Bonus Watch '12: Barclays 30 comments
- Bonus Watch '12: UBS Investment Bankers Thought Zero Was The Minimum Bonus? They Thought Wrong 8 comments
- Expert: If You Want To Date A Wall Streeter, You'd Better Learn To Read A 10-K ASAP 105 comments
- Bonus Watch '12: UBS Suggests Senior Staff Get Comfortable 9 comments
- And To The Employee He Saw Wearing A Name Tag, Exchanging Business Cards, And Sipping The Free Bottled Water Like Some Kind Of Common Noob: Your Days Are Numbered 26 comments
Topics
AIG Bank of America Barclays Bear Stearns Ben Bernanke bonuses bonus watch Charlie Gasparino Citi Citigroup CNBC David Einhorn Deutsche Bank Dick Bové FOREX Galleon Group Goldman Sachs hedge fund managers Hedge Funds insider-trading Insider Trading Fest(ivus) 2010 Jamie Dimon John Paulson JPMorgan Ken Lewis Lawsuits Layoffs Lehman Brothers Lloyd Blankfein Made-off MBA v CFA Merrill Lynch Morgan Stanley Obama's Economic Superfriends performance Raj Rajaratnam RBS SAC Capital SEC Steve Cohen taxes Tim Geithner UBS Vikram Pandit Warren Buffett-
Let's take bets on how long this new venture will stay in business... I got $2 (lol) that says this business fails by the first quarter of '09!
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."
Hmmm... time to go car shopping perhaps.... I was never a fan of GM cars, but I do kind of like that new Lucerne. lol
Simple solution.... Bonuses should be based on the percentage of stock picks they get correct. Problem solved! Anything else and you are asking for trouble.
Ummmm... I think we kind of veered off of the topic again.. lol.. Bottom line, no one knows what the hell Cioffi, or Tannin, or any one else was thinking when they got caught up in this sh*t. I mean it's normal for people to be blinded by that dense fog of profits surrounding you....problem is, they never see that 30,000 pound tractor trailer filled with horse manure heading straight for your little drop-top aston martin DB9 Volante. Maybe that was the case with Cioffi.. Or maybe.. he just didn't know what the hell he was doing. Either one of those scenarios wouldn't surprise me one bit. One thing I have learned during my brief career in finance is that this industry is filled with people who are on both sides of that fence...
Yeah, I caught Gas P breaking the story a full 3 minutes before Bloomberg. Say what you want about him, he does often break a story before most of the other media outlets.... But yeah, I saw this was one coming about 10 minutes after the Spitzer story broke, and my thoughts were reaffirmed about 3 minutes after his press conference. This is just the beginning though. I wonder if the majority of the defendants in the cases Spitzer brought will be appealing in the very near future.... I'm interested in seeing how this one turns out.
Lehman had to have known this was coming months before it happened. I'd be willing to bet you a grilled caciocavallo podolico cheese sandwich that Lehman had their lawyers getting their sh*t together for potential lawsuits WHILE they were painting that rosey picture of their finances. Someone tell me something.... what is the difference between the actions of Lehman and Cioffi & Tannin (C&T)? Virtually nothing if you ask me....
This is hilarious!! lol... You guys are 100% correct, they got Dodd on the cheap. I wonder how they are going to try and explain this one way.
I think we veered off of the topic just a bit but that is ok. I agree with 2:30 pm in that Angelo had many enemies in the finance/mortgage world. I also think that this smells of political back-stabbing, which would not surprise me one bit. I now live in Washington, D.C. and many of my close friends work on Capitol Hill. Our semi-weekly happy hours have been quite interesting as of late. This "scandal" has definitely replaced our normal discussions on foreign policy, the economy and the daily shenanigans of our chosen "leaders of the free world"... Actually, from some of the cap hill whispers that I've been hearing, this latest thing with Angelo ties in to the rest of our topics, so maybe "replace" is not the correct word.. Something to ponder perhaps. I will be keeping my eye on this story to see how it develops but this is very interesting to say the least.
I agree 100% with 12:38 pm. The negatives associated with an analyst owning the stocks that they cover FAR outway the so called positives. Though flawed and in need of some tweaking, I think some variation of the current system should stay in place. Me personally.... I don't trust any analysis done buy the stock analysts on the street, and I know my views would not change if they were somehow required to hold the stocks they cover. This coming from a former equity analyst (buy side)....
Very interesting...
Interesting way of dealing with the issue. Though I applaud the effort, it is not his place to make a decision such as that. His job is to uphold the law, which he is not doing. This is a very interesting story, and one that I will be following very closely.....
Yeah, what else is new? This shouldn't be a shock to anyone. Whether you think it is right or wrong, it's common practice...
I think anyone who has ever had any exposure to counterparty risk at an I-bank knows the ramifications of letting a major investment bank fail. I definitely think that the Fed knows that the street may try to get a little more reckless due to their assumption of a guaranteed backstop. ...but really think about it.... These banks are so inter-tangled that letting a large one go bankrupt is just too risky. The banks are like a loose piece of string on your shirt. You pull one end and the next thing you know the whole seam is coming undone. I've worked in the back-office, middle-office and front-office at various times in my short career and I think that I have seen enough to be able to truly understand why it is the Fed could not let these banks fail. I think it is close to impossible to get a true understanding of what is going on at an I-bank if you just worked in the front-office, or just the middle, or just the back-office. Being exposed to all three gives you a better understanding of how these firms operate. I know about the various types of exposure that these banks have with each other. I worked in counterparty risk for a year and I know how much trouble we would have been in if Bear or LEH fails. You just can't risk it, ESPECIALLY in an election year!!
You know, this was actually pretty funny.
Yeah, I don't know if that is the reason why the herd is quiet. I think (actually I know) they're quiet because they see all of their friends at the brokerage and bank houses getting thrown out on their a$$e$ and they're afraid because they still have another 3 years worth of payments on that new porsche and a balance of $52.34 in the checking and $154.33 in their savings account...
Is it me or does Gas P. always look real greasy? I might send Kernan an email to tell him to hand that guy a deep cleaning facial cleansing wipe... a paper towel or something.. But yeah, he broke the story... sounded out of breath while he was reading it too. Must've sprinted to the phone after that second year analyst at LEH tipped him off....
With or without Callan, LEH is f*@ked.... And anytime you have a tax accountant running corp. finance at an (I)-bank you are in A LOT of trouble! I don't care how great an asset it is to have a tax acct. on your team.