cy
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: UBS Investment Bankers Thought Zero Was The Minimum Bonus? They Thought Wrong 8 comments
- Bonus Watch '12: UBS Suggests Senior Staff Get Comfortable 9 comments
- Expert: If You Want To Date A Wall Streeter, You'd Better Learn To Read A 10-K ASAP 103 comments
- Opening Bell: 02.09.12 36 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 23 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-
Well done, #34.
Stewart made Cramer his bottom bitch. Unfortunately, Stewart's thesis was that Wall Street and short term traders systematically loot the long-term "401k investors" and that there is a conspiracy between CNBC and these short-term traders. This is obviously nonsense, and it does us all a disservice by getting the we-need-to-tax-short-term-transactions camp all whipped up into a froth. Otherwise, props to Cramer for taking his beat down like a man, and props to Stewart for not getting chummy, but actually calling out Cramer on all his bullshit.
10- Yeah. Unbelievable. "That" is how he would like to remember the fed? I wonder if Friedman would give the fed the same high marks were he to see what has taken place now. Greenie- You still have yet to explain, given all you know/believe about markets setting prices vs. central planners setting prices why a group of 20 or so old men would be better at setting interest rates than a market process. Also, you still have yet to acknowledge that when you artificially depress interest rates, you are going to cause an undersupply of savers and an oversupply of borrowers. THIS is what creates unsustainable investment booms. Not "fraud." Here is an interesting quote from the article, "If we are to retain a dynamic world economy capable of producing prosperity and future sustainable growth, we cannot rely on governments to intermediate saving and investment flows." NO FUCKING SHIT?! So then why do we have a Federal Reserve that tries to do exactly that??
Has to sell causes his ARM is about to reset.
Gang, This is a little silly to argue over who the "real" big spenders are. If we pull our heads out of our "I'm a democrat, so republicans are the bad guys (or vice versa)" asses, we'd come to realize that WHOEVER comes to power will spend as freely as they can get away with. This is why we have (had?) a constitution in the first place. BOTH REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS are completely at fault. Who's really at fault, however, is ALL OF US for letting ourselves be so easily fooled into following a "two party" system when both parties deliver the same exact thing. Washington (probably unknowingly, they're not smart enough for this) has effectively implemented a "divide and conquer" strategy against the population. While the two parties sit around and argue about absolutely immaterial issues like whether you should be able to say "fuck" on TV or whether gay people should be allowed to marry or not, we're having the wool pulled over our eyes as our freedoms are continously eroded and our resources are systematically confiscated. DEMOCRATS are not the answer, and REPUBLICANS are not the answer. The answer is legally enforced limited government that emphasizes peace and individual freedom above all else.
AB, #8- I can't tell if you're being serious or not... If you are, take a moment to think about who obviously loses in that scenario... consumers. If you say, well you can either buy a malibu for 20k or a camry for 20k, I think the people have overwhelmingly chose the camry. If you say, well you can buy that camry, but you have to pay an extra 4k in tariff, you are taking that 4 grand from the consumer to subsidize the malibu. This is obviously harmful to the consumer, but that's not all. The 4k that comes out of the consumer's pocket would have been spent on something else, so you've destroyed jobs somewhere (wherever that 4k would have been spent). So while you may be protecting the worker that produces the malibu, you're doing it at the expense of another worker somewhere else. Since it's not obviously clear who that worker is, it makes it very tempting for politicians to save those that are highly visible. However, again, there have been no net jobs saved, and, in fact, probably some jobs destroyed, because we're not allocating our scarce resources as efficiently as we possibly can.
5- Ron Paul simply wants a currency that cannot be printed out of thin air at the whim of our government or bankers. Think about it, which would you rather use for a means of exchange (because that's all money really is)... Something that's difficult to create more of, or something that can be created at will, esentially stealing from the current holders?
Is there not a healthy treasury CDS market in which ratings agency downgrades trigger payment?
EP, please stop being yet another media type who proclaims Greenspan the "high-priest" of laissez-faire. This is like saying Richard Dawkins is the high-priest of christianity. Greenspan was head of the most ANTI-free market institution currently in existence. Trying to centrally-plan the price of capital is just as bad as trying to centrally-plan the price of butter or lawn furniture or anything else. Actually, it's much worse, because when you inevitably set the price wrong, you devastate an entire economy (not just the lawn furniture market.) Then, the masses cry out that "the free-market has failed." Had we let markets set interest rates, instead of a room full of old men, this entire episode could not have taken place.
27, 28- This process would be happening with CDO's, except the government refuses to let the people who hold CDO's go bankrupt. Were C to go bankrupt, their positions would be liquidated and we could move forward. However, since everyone seems to think that the earth with be knocked out of its orbit and tumble towards the sun if a major bank goes bankrupt (btw- it wouldn't), we're not getting to see that process take place. Can someone explain to me why our government is now in the business of making a scarce resource (housing) artificially expensive? Does this strike anyone else as morally bankrupt?? Also, why are we worried about helping homeowners when homeowners are ostensibly richer than non-homeowners? This is reverse robin hoodism, and its disgusting.
Stanford Investment Model- The objective of the Stanford Investment Model (SIM) is to provide consistent returns regardless of market volatility, and it is based on the investment philosophy that has been used successfully for all of Stanford's proprietary funds. We target a consistent yield or income stream as agreed upon with our clients, while monitoring risk and managing the overall volatility of the portfolio. Our strategy for diversification to minimize the effects of market volatility is sophisticated and far-reaching. We pursue true global diversification with relentless intensity to meet our objective of targeted returns. We carefully consider asset classes, investment strategies, sectors, and regions of the world that most investors either don't have easy access to or rarely receive information about. SIM was developed first and foremost to minimize the downside risk of a portfolio. We recognize taking risk is essential to achieve investor goals, but there is a difference between accepting the risk the market gives you and managing that risk. Although we may not outperform the indices during a bull cycle, our investment strategy is one of long-term consistency through bull and bear markets. The Stanford Investment Model offers investors a truly different view of wealth management.
8- How do you reconsile the idea that (in huffy voice) "we need to keep banks alive," and the idea that banks shouldn't be allowed to charge interest rates that cover their defaults?
President Obama is giving Jared $1 billion and a mandate to consume as many subs as humanly possible. Think of the job creation! Think of the stimulus!
Funny to me how the people bitching about wall street comp are the same people who rushed to pass the tarp in the first place. If wall street wants to pay its people $20 billion in a year when it lost $100 billion plus, great, but don't coming crying that you need taxpayer money when shit blows up in your face. It was retarted to give them the money in the first place.
Geithner's out of his mind. If china doesn't have a dump truck full of dollars to plow into the US treasury market, how is the government possibly going to finance its vomit-inducing spending programs? If china is willing to send us manufactured goods in return for slips of paper (which I won't call worthless, but definately soon to be worth a lot less), why would we want that to stop?
I think there was a christian group at either my high school or college called "Agape." Might have a biblical meaning?
42- Do you have a link?
37- If your homeboy has the book you claim he does, he'll be working again within a month. 41- I've yet to hear cogent arguement as to how "bankers stole money from non-bankers" during the good years. Just because you're making a lot of money does not mean you're stealing from those not making as much money. Care to explain?
Yeah. If this guy had been stopped beforehand (minority report style) this whole global recession thing could have been avoided.
This would have been an excellent time to join the sea-level high club.