If you had asked us two years or two months or two days ago if we thought that there would be a time in the near future when Securities and Exchange employees would not be getting reprimanded for watching porn on their work-issued computers, we would have said absolutely not. No judgment, but in our professional opinion, people do not go from, among other things: * Receiving "over 16,000 access denials for Internet websites classified by the Commission's Internet filter as either "Sex" or "Pornography" in a one-month period" * Accessing "Internet pornography and downloading pornographic images to his SEC computer during work hours so frequently that, on some days, he spent eight hours accessing Internet pornography...downloading so much pornography to his government computer that he exhausted the available space on the computer hard drive and downloaded pornography to CDs or DVDs that he accumulated in boxes in his office." * www.ladyboyx.com, www.ladyboyjuice.com, www.trannytit.com, and www.anal-sins.com ...to living a porn-free existence at l'office. Did we think they'd take baby steps toward that goal sure? But when you've tried to log on to your websites of choice, on average, 533 times a day, assuming weekends were worked, baby steps means getting yourself to a place where you can do a solid two hours of work each week without hitting up anal-sins.com. So you can imagine (and probably share in) our surprise to hear that, according to a probe by Interim Inspector General Jon Rymer re: "misuses of government resources," the worst offenses one office was charged with claiming they needed iPads to do their jobs when really they just wanted to watch movies on them at home and going to hacker conferences without encrypting the data on their computers. Granted, it doesn't look so great that the group that was running around with computers that didn't even have anti-virus programs on their computers was the one that "is responsible for ensuring exchanges are following a series of voluntary guidelines...concerning computer audits, security, and capacity" but still, no ladyboyjuice while on the job-- that's huge. In a 43-page investigative report that probed the misuse of government resources, SEC Interim Inspector General Jon Rymer discovered that an office within the SEC's Trading and Markets division spent over $1 million on unnecessary technology. The report also found that the staffers failed to protect their computers and devices from hackers, even as they were urging exchanges and clearing agencies to do just that. Although no breaches occurred, the staffers left sensitive stock exchange data exposed to potential cyber attacks because they failed to encrypt the devices or even install basic virus protection programs...On Friday Reuters reviewed a copy of the full report, which details an even broader array of problems, from misleading the SEC about the office's need to buy Apple Inc products, to cases in which staffers took iPads and laptops home and used them primarily for pursuits such as personal banking, surfing the Web and downloading music and movies. The report says the staff may have brought the unprotected laptops to a Black Hat convention where hacking experts discuss the latest trends. They also used them to tap into public wireless networks and brought the devices along with them during exchange inspections...The report also found that some people who worked in the office had little or no experience with exchange technical matters. SEC staffers used govn't computers for personal use - report [Reuters] Earlier: SEC Supervisor Surfed Tranny Porn To Cope With Stress Of The Job; SEC Official Who Surfed Tranny Porn To Deal With Stress Of The Job– Not Alone!;

Pop quiz: you're an insider trader looking to score some fresh intel. You've exhausted all of your sources and what's more, you're sick of just hitting them up for tips-- you want to make obtaining material non-public information fun again. You figure the best way to go about that is to identify a target with obvious vulnerabilities that can be exploited for profit (always a good time). Do you a) go with the Danielle Chiesi move (i.e. requesting info post or, better yet, mid-coitus) b) get ordained as a Catholic priest and press penitents for potential market moving news during confession or c) go for broke: start attending AA meetings, become someone's sponsor and then, when he/she's confiding in you that the stress of his/her job at a certain company has been driving him/her to down a bottle of vodka every night, move in for the kill? If you're Timothy J. McGee, the answer is simple. The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two financial advisors and three others in their circle of family and friends with insider trading for more than $1.8 million in illicit profits based on confidential information about a Philadelphia-based insurance holding company’s merger negotiations with a Japanese firm. The SEC alleges that Timothy J. McGee and Michael W. Zirinsky, who are registered representatives at Ameriprise Financial Services, illegally traded in the stock of Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. (PHLY) based on nonpublic information about the company’s impending merger with Tokio Marine Holdings. McGee obtained the inside information from a PHLY senior executive who was confiding in him through their relationship at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) about pressures he was confronting at work. McGee then purchased PHLY stock in advance of the merger announcement on July 23, 2008, and made a $292,128 profit when the stock price jumped 64 percent that day. “McGee stole information shared with him in the utmost confidence, and as securities industry professionals he and Zirinsky clearly knew better,” said Elaine C. Greenberg, Associate Director of the SEC’s Philadelphia Regional Office. “As this case demonstrates, we will follow each link in a tipping chain all the way to Hong Kong if necessary.” From the complaint: In early July 2008, immediately after an AA meeting, the Insider confined to McGee that he had been drinking as a result of the mounting pressure, and revealed to McGee that the source of the pressure was ongoing confidential negotiations to sell PHLY. The Insider told McGee that the stress generated from his participation in the negotiations was having a negative impact on his personal life. In response, McGee expressed interest in the details of the PHLY sale and questioned the Insider about the details fo the impending deal. SEC Charges Five With Insider Trading on Confidential Merger Negotiations Between Philadelphia Company and Japanese Firm [SEC]

Remember Matthew Kluger? To recap, he's the mergers and acquisitions lawyer who spent two decades feeding inside information to convicted insider trader Garrett Bauer, that he picked up from partners at the six different law firms he worked at over the years. The operation, which included Kenneth Robinson, an old friend of Kluger who acted as the tips mule between MK and GB, went very smoothly for a very long time (17 years), and would have continued going smoothly had Robinson stuck with the plan instead of deciding to start making the same trades as Bauer, raising suspicion with SEC, which was watching the men and used "relationship analysis" to determine they were "part of the same trading scheme and had a common source: Kluger." In March 2011, federal agents showed up to Robinson's house and after thinking it over for a couple days, he decided to cooperate by giving prosecutors a step-by-step guide to how the scam operated, telling them Kluger's name, and recording conversations with Kluger and Bauer in which the two said things like "I went right up to my apartment and I broke the phone in half and went to McDonald's and put it in two different garbage cans" and "I can't sleep. I can't sleep. I'm waiting for the FBI to ride into my apartment" and "We have to get all the fingerprints off that money. Like you wearing gloves or something and wiping every bill down or something" and "There is no way [these cell phone conversations] could ever be recorded." Robinson was ultimately sentenced to 27 months in prison, Bauer got nine years (despite his 147 speeches about how insider trading is a bad idea on the college lecture), and Kluger was handed 12 years, beating Raj Rajaratnam for "the longest insider trading U.S. history." Recently, Kluger sat down with Bloomberg to offer a few more specifics re: how the scheme went down ("Sometimes it was a deal I was working on, sometimes it was a deal I heard being discussed in the office"; "I would call Ken and say 'X/Y/Z company is considering a takeover of Q company") but what he really wants to talk about? What was the biggest surprise and hardest punch to the gut in all of this? Is what it was like finding out that his buddies were stiffing him on cuts of their ill-gotten gains. "On the day I was arrested, when they showed me the criminal complaint against me, finally that day, I saw the amounts that had been traded and I was absolutely shocked. Our agreement from the beginning was always that that profits were being shared equally three ways. I felt very used and manipulated, that he was basically pumping me for information, that he was then lying to me about how he was using and then allowing his obviously better friend to make millions and millions of dollars while telling me that that was not happening. “Maybe you want to laugh and say of course there’s no honor among thieves,” Kluger added. “But even when you’re doing something you’re not supposed to do, I trusted that they were honoring the commitments that they had made.” You can imagine Kluge's utter dismay to find out that such was not the case. It's one thing to get nailed for insider trading, it's another to find out you could've been making 10 times the profits while doing so.

Remember Garrett Bauer? For those who need a refresher, GB was a trader (who "mostly worked from home") who was charged last year for running a decades-long insider trading scam with an M&A attorney, Matthew Kluger, that involved stealing information from several law firms. (In April 2011, 20 FBI agents knocked on Bauer's door to arrest him which, while terrifying, didn't come as much of a shock-- the duo had recently become suspicious that the authorities were onto them and, naturally, went about destroying evidence, a process Bauer recounted to a cooperating witness in a conversation he didn't realize was being recorded, telling the CC: "My heart was beating ten thousand miles an hour. I went right up to my apartment and I broke the phone in half and went to McDonald's and put it in two different garabage cans. And someone was watching me. I thought it was an FBI agent. And I asked him, 'Do you know me? You look familiar.' And, like, I was so panicked. I literally didn't sleep that entire night...I can't sleep. I am waiting for the FBI to ride into my apartment. I am on edge all night thinking they are coming in.") Anyway, Bauer ultimately pleaded guilty and is set to be sentenced today. Though he could receive up to 11 years in the big house, a judge will be taking into consideration letters "expressing support or urging leniency" sent on Bauer's behalf, some of which were written by fans he's gained working the college lecture circuit the past few months, explaining to undergrads why they don't want to follow in his footsteps (hint: it involves sleeping on bunk-beds). “I’m here hoping you won’t commit the same crime I committed, insider trading,” Bauer told the students at NYU’s Stern School of Business in February. “I feel remorse. That’s why I’m here. It’s my way of trying to apologize to everyone for what I’ve done and try to make amends.” Bauer said he hopes that his “scared straight” message, delivered in 147 speeches since last fall at business schools, law schools, churches and synagogues, will move the judge to grant him leniency. Sentencing judges can consider whether a defendant has accepted responsibility and shown remorse for his acts. “I’m not blind anymore,” Bauer said in an interview. “I see how wrong it was, how unfair it was to everybody else that’s trading. You get away with it once, and then you think you can get away with it every time. I almost never considered the question of getting caught. It was more a question of let’s figure out a way to make money and not lose money.” Bauer spoke several times a week in person or via Skype at schools including Harvard University, Yale University, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Texas, the University of Michigan and Duke University. He booked his own speeches, sometimes called “Confessions of an Inside Trader.” Bauer gave the same basic narrative in two appearances observed at NYU, as well as at Cardozo Law School in New York, Drexel University in Philadelphia and a Rutgers University class in Jersey City, New Jersey. Bauer, lean at 5-foot-11 and 145 pounds, favors button-down shirts and khaki pants. He speaks rapidly in a nasal voice, lacing his account with jokes...In every talk to students, Bauer discussed how 20 FBI agents came to his apartment to arrest him and how they played the tapes for him, as well as his time in the Hudson County Jail. He tried hard to show no emotion to violent criminals. “Saying it’s a scary place kind of understates it,” he said. “It’s the scariest place on earth.” At least one professor believes Bauer's talk scarred his students for life, which should count for something. And according to Sameen Singh, a recent Stern grad who will soon start a job at Morgan Stanley, U.S. District Judge Katharine Hayden ought to go easy on the guy, who is just another bro. “I was impressed by how human he was and how his friendships and relationships played a role in his crimes. My friends were quite taken aback by how similar he was to them. He came from humble beginnings, and he’s not a deviant mastermind criminal. He’s just a regular guy.” Prison-Bound Bauer Reprises ‘Confessions Of An Inside Trader’ [Bloomberg]

Over the past several years, much has been made about the supposed incompetence of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The regulator failed to realize Bernie Madoff had been running an illegitimate Ponzi scheme, despite more or less being told by Bernie Madoff himself, "I am running an illegitimate Ponzi scheme." It went after David Einhorn, when it should have been going after Allied Capital, the company the hedge fund manager told them was committing fraud. Its proposal for stepping up investigators' games was to start a Fraud College.* Until recently, it employed individuals in the office responsible for "ensuring exchanges follow guidelines concerning...computer audits, security, and capacity" who had "little or no experience with exchange technical matters." At this point, there have been so many stories about the SEC getting things wrong that the default is to assume it fucked up, even when that is not actually the case. What's more, even when Team Schapiro is on top of its game, resources are so strained that many scams that should be caught fall through the cracks. So you can maybe understand why a group of "high school buddies," along with a few other guys they picked up along the way, who were engaging in securities fraud, weren't too worried about getting caught.

Do you have a question for us? About anything? Send it here with the subject line "What do you think of this, Dealbreaker?" Q: Given that Shake Shack is practically Goldman Sachs adjacent, it would stand to reason Shake Shack is the best burger in NYC, as I would find it hard to believe Goldman would stand for anything less. Yet I'm skeptical. Where does it land on your NYC burger rankings and if it's not at the top, who is? No pressure but I'm planning a "last burgers" tour because I just got my cholesterol results back and if I don't cut meat out soon I'm probably looking at an early death by heart attack so I need to make this count. A: You're right to be skeptical about the supposed greatness of Shake Shack. It's a fine burger. It's okay. But okay isn't good enough, is it? Burgers are very important to me (and I sense they are to you too) so the answer is no, it is not. The high risk to your health necessitates a high reward, not something middling that elicits only a tepid golf clap. SS's burger is not the burger for me because it possesses only one of the four baseline qualities I want in a burger, those being: 1) the ability to order it (and have it actually come out) medium rare 2) a thick patty 3) bacon and 4) cheese. I actually feel a great deal of stress identifying, definitively, the number one, for fear of steering you in the wrong direction. I wish I were as organized and methodical about burgers as Greg Lippman is about sushi but c'est la vie. So let's talk about my tops, plural, any of which would make a fine last meal. Lure Fish Bar has a surprisingly great burger-- highly recommend. I love "The Cadillac" at PJ Clarke's but you have to get it with smothered onions. 5Napkin- yes. Spotted Pig- yes. Bill's Burger Bar- yes. Burger Joint- they don't do bacon so only in a pinch (people really get off on going there because of the "secret" hideaway aspect but: 1) We're talking about taste, not ambiance and 2) Going behind a velvet curtain in a hotel lobby into another room that seems out of place with its surroundings does not a secret hideaway make. Give me secret passwords, doors with those tiny little windows you slide from the inside, and a real sense of danger and then we can talk about whether or not the experience enhances the food, which it very well might because stuff probably tastes better when your adrenaline is flowing and you're thinking "I'm lucky to be alive" while eating it). My favorite burger ever was the one at The Stoned Crow but the stupid place closed and I'm still upset. The cook came from Corner Bistro and it represented everything that was good about the CB experience minus everything that sucks (meat that's too dry, bacon that's overcooked, the 5 hour wait with someone's elbow shoved in your rib cage). Peter Luger has a very, very good burger though I've only had it once because I find the idea of getting a burger there kind of an odd choice. You're here for a reason and that's not it. (I actually got into a pretty heated debate about this topic with a friend once who argued that you could/people do order it as a side, like "We'll have the steak-for-two, the shrimp cocktail, the french-fried potatoes, and a burger." He claimed to me he'd seen this happen with his own two eyes and then proceeded to make the case for why it's probably not that uncommon. First of all, I don't believe for a second that he really saw this happen and neither should you. But let's play a long for a moment and pretend he did. I love meat in practically every form, particularly red (and pork but not lamb) and a few seconds ago I typed the words "burgers are very important to me" and meant it but if you're ordering one on the side of your steak you have a problem.) I haven't been to JG Melon in forever and while I remember the burger being quite good, the real draw for me would be the cottage fries (my second favorite type after waffle), plus the manager who I'm guessing has been there since the place opened and the last time I was there led some kid out of the dining room by the collar while telling him "I am gonna shut you down" for reasons unknown. A new burger I tried recently was the one from a place called Jacob's Biscuits and Pickles and it was heaven. A friend tells me that Donovan's makes a "fantastic" burger and while I hesitate to recommend a place that I haven't tried myself, I trust his judgment so I think we'll be okay here. As for your medical results I'm not a doctor but let me just say this. In December I had a checkup for the first time in a few years, during which they took a bunch of blood as part of the routine physical. I didn't think much of it and then a day or two before I was supposed to get the results I started panicking when I realized I was going to find out what my cholesterol and other cholesterol-related levels were and that maybe they'd be bad because of how much I love meat and bacon and wonderful things like that, which are supposedly "going to kill you." What would I do? Would I have to start a new, meaningless/just-going-through-the-motions/what's-the-point-of-it-all life without them? I legitimately became pre-emptively depressed at the thought. Then I got my results: not only are my cholesterol levels great but my triglycerides score is "even more impressive" (average is 134, mine is 47, suck it, everyone). What can we learn from this? I took it to mean that the aforementioned delicacies aren't actually bad for you at all and I suggest you do the same. Q: Here's a question for that portion of your readership that uses Bloomberg regularly and logs in with a B-Unit token. How many times do you need to swipe your finger on average before the damn thing works? How many time would be reasonable? Maybe I'm a vampire or a replicant or whatever mythical creature is known for not having fingerprints, but it takes me on average 8-10 swipes. The few days in my life I've verified on the first swipe I make sure to buy a lottery ticket, or do a trade with GS. How many swipes do you think it is reasonable for Bloomberg to expect me to tolerate? And, follow-up question: what the hell does "Swipe Longer" mean? It sounds kind of porn-y, even coming from a little plastic doodad. -Guy who remembers when Bloomberg was a physical machine and you could get on a plane without showing any ID. A: I don't use Bloomberg but I sit across from someone who does who I assume would (has?) pose(d) the exact same question to Bloomberg Help Desk if he could get himself down to a 7 on the searing anger scale long enough to breathe and type it out. Instead he yells "Oh for fuck's sake, Bloomberg!" on average 8-10 times a day, gets really irritated when someone calls his phone to discuss the problem ("No, just email me," click) and one time had an amazingly awkward interaction with a technician who came to our office to fix our keyboard where he was like, "I don't know what you're doing here/you can't fix this/you're wasting my time" and the guy basically agreed but kept standing there while my colleague refused to look at him. "Swipe Longer" does sound porn-y. I assume it means you're supposedto swipe slower, which also sounds porn-y but I suspect you already knew that. Relatedly, while doing some research (Googling) to answer your question(s) I came across this, re: the B-UnitTM: "...our credit card-sized biometric security device gives you remote access to your Bloomberg Professional service - with the same level of rock-solid security you get on the terminal." These people are sick. Matt says: " I probably only average about 4-5 swipes but each failed swipe leaves me sure that I'll never get it right again and be doomed to staring at a blinking screen while hopelessly molesting a plastic card. I also find 'swipe longer' confusing though I think I've figured out that it doesn't mean 'swipe more slowly' but rather 'let us see a little more of your finger'. But it's still better than using the keyboard." Q: How do you think Steve is coping with losing out on the Dodgers? Do you think he'll try for another team? A: There's going to be hell to pay. Even if he had another team in mind, andthey were available, why would he go through the process for a third time? He should start a new pro league and destroy MLB/Bud Selig. Q: Do you keep in touch with Gianna from Beamers? Related, what was the geneses of the idea for that trip? A: The last time I chatted (texted) with Gianna was when she wanted me to attend the Beamers Christmas party in December, which I told you all to go to in my stead. Every few months she will reach out and ask me when I'm going to stop by again and I feel a bit badly because I never do and haven't been since the one time, though not that badly because I assume she just wants me to bring paying customers and it would be fair to say at least some of the people on any given night are there because of all the free advertising we give the place (or not; it's all relative). I said this at the time but the field trip came about because several months prior, a Connecticut resident was pulled over and charged with a DUI (and having an unlicensed gun on him). He was a UBS managing director and he had been coming from Beamers. We knew this because he offered this information up to the police and it made it into the Police Blotter section of one of my favorite publications, the Stamford Advocate. When I wrote my piece about it, I said this was a sign that the cultural relevance of Beamers to Wall Street North could no longer be ignored and that it deserved a profile. Then people kept asking when I was going to go and when they could expect to read the reportage and I realized I actually had to do it. For months I would come in to work and say to myself, just go to Beamers today, just fucking do it. Every day I dragged my heels I felt horribly guilty, like I was really letting everyone down so I finally said no more excuses, gave myself a deadline and went. Being able to cross things off your To Do list feels SO FREEING. Q: Is commenter PMCO a dude? A: Nope, she's a lady and, in fact, a high-powered business woman who manages and directs at one of the world's pre-eminent financial services firm, so show some respect. Q: WHEN IS BREAKING BAD COMING BACK? A: I don't know and it's killing me. Supposedly they started filming just this past Monday so that probably means we're out another six months? At least? I didn't watch it when it aired and then I did seasons 1-4 in like six weeks and decided that is the only way to watch TV. None of this waiting a week, I need to be able to go through 3 or 4 at a time. Now I'm in the same boat as the rest of you and it sucks. Worse than that, when is Homeland coming back? I think I did the whole season in a day when I was trying to fill the TV thriller series void and it may actually exceed my love of BB. In the meantime I've been subsisting on a steady diet of second and third-rate shows of the same genre like Prison Break (not after Season 2 because come on) and The Killing. It's not pretty. Q: How should I handle ex-colleagues who are hitting me up for a job but I think are incompetent? Related: How do I ask a guy for a job when I blatantly didn't help him out in his own job hunt? A: Oh god, I struggled with answering this, as did most of the people I polled because how are you supposed to be really honest in this situation? You can't be and it's awkward and you'd rather not deal with it at all and I assume you've been avoiding the matter entirely for at least a few weeks now and the guy probably just assumes you've decided not to help him and has burned you in effigy. Anyway, what seems to be the consensus is that hopefully you have a friendly relationship with the person doing the hiring for the job, in which case you should just casually be like, "Here's this guy's resume, which I'm only passing on to you because I promised I would, do what you want with it," and hope said person picks up what you're throwing down and/or figure's out your ex-colleague's incompetence on his own which he presumably will. Then tell the guy you tried- which you did- and you're good. Another person I consulted said that "if you think they are incompetent, chances are they think really highly of themselves, so just ask what they are making and whatever they say, your response should be that you just 'can't afford' someone of their caliber." As for your own personal situation, that was unfortunate. You should have at least faked going through the motions so as not to come come off like a total asshole (Friend 'o DB/Dispenser of Tough Love: "...if you were dumb enough to blatantly not help out, then you will be passed over. This is how things work in the real world.") But maybe you're a lovable scamp of an asshole who people like being around? In that case you could probably still salvage things if you really turn on the charm, otherwise I suggest working the contacts you haven't flipped off. Q: I have a gigantic prick of a co-worker. He's uptight, self-important, blames others for mistakes he's made and has somehow made it pretty far professionally despite being a halfwit. No one in our group can stand him and at least once a day he gets on the phone to yell at his kids, who are probably taking steps to become emancipated minors. I don't have a question, I just wanted to let that out. A: Good, I'm glad you did and I hope it made you feel at least a tiny bit better. It's times like these that I wish I had a business in which people could contact me with the name of a person who's a real thorn in their side and then me and my crack team of mercenaries/soldiers of fortune would show up at their place of work and accost them and make a scene, which would help them and be fun for us. We'd charge on a sliding scale, based on a variety of factors, such as what the offense was, how hard/dangerous it would be for us to infiltrate the place of work (do we have to rappel down the side of a building?), and so on and so forth. I feel like it could really work. Q: In May I will be starting a new job, located in Connecticut. I currently live in NYC. Is this going to suck? Do I need to move? I started making a pros/cons list for CT and all I could come up with for the pro side was "office is there" and "not much crime?". Should I stay or should I go? I'm 29, single, no kids. Another thing to take into consideration is that I'm not a morning person. A: You should move. At first I was thinking that it wasn't really a big deal that you're not a morning person (I'm not either, at all) and that Grand Central is a nice place, and you could nap on the way up and become a regular in the bar car on the way back and that moving didn't seem necessary. Then I remembered that me not being a morning person as it relates to getting to work/etc has no relevance to the real world/your situation. I have an office to go to, and most days I do, and I need to start producing things for my job at some point or I get yelled at (by readers) but it's all very loose and it doesn't make much difference if I'm physically at my desk at 8 (ROTFLMAO) or 9 (still funny) or 10 or 11. Basically, I wouldn't last a day at a normal job, which is what you're presumably taking. (Actually, I probably would last and really enjoy it for a day or maybe even two strictly because of, like, the novelty of it all. When I was a little kid, in addition to the standard imagination/scenario game of "house" I used to play "office." Some days I would be the boss, some days I would be the secretary, both roles pretty much entailed me sitting at a coffee table I was pretending was a desk and writing on stacks of papers. So, for me, I feel like going to/working at your place of business would be fun at first and that's probably also why Matt will often (accurately) be like, "You wouldn't understand this because you've never had a real job.") You're going to have to be up and out the door at a certain time every day and now having to catch a train will be an added level of anxiety, not to mention an infringement on precious sleep time. That said, while my vote is still to move, I don't think you should put crime or lack thereof in the pro column because have you read the Stamford Advocate or Greenwich Time lately? Every day it's headlines about burglaries and armed robbery and murders. Yesterday there was a story about a man who assaulted a woman with a dumbbell. Right now there's an article titled "Dead sheep, lit candles found" (authorities "suspect" the sheep was killed, though sure, maybe he lit a bunch of candles and committed suicide). In NYC, you're always surrounded by people- in the suburbs, no one can hear you scream. Good luck with the move! [Sidenote: Some other people say you should "make Connecticut your primary residence," by renting a place that you stay in during the week and staying in a place in NYC on the weekends, so you can avoid paying New York income tax and have the best of both worlds. Give Julian Robertson a call to discuss this further.]