weekender

>OHCHUTE wrote "So now that we know you have banking experience please tell us exactly how the sales guys at Standand and Poor rated the junk paper to AAA status so that the paper would be attractive to sell, so much so, they were having a hard time fueling the front end paper scam even by having people who didn't have a dime, apply for mortgage loans. I take it you never got your coffee shop the reason you're a tad huffy. And not a member of the club! I know business and there's a double standard." _________________________________________________ i cannot respond because your post makes no sense to me. S&P's salesmen do not give ratings. i have no idea what a "front end paper" is. S&P has nothing to do with mortgage sales as you seem to imply. You seem to have heard a lot of names and terms you do not understand and attempted to put them in sentences to make an argument. you failed. You should not argue finance. you have no understanding of it. pause for a moment and ask yourself. who is mostly likely naive about finance here? the guy who openly admitted to working in banking for 20 years or you? The guy who has openly admitted to working at GSCO and other IB's or you? I suppose it could me but doubt it. save face and pretend you have to go jumping or something. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

your post makes no sense to me. it seems to be long anger and short reason. perhaps its because of my 20 yrs experience in the business and actual knowledge on the subject that your post sounds childish and paranoid. Or perhaps I'm a moron who does not understand the banking industry, the law and world bank domination. i suppose, as you said, i'm "neive". "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Lawsuits are filed all day everyday. the topic is AIG considering joining a lawsuit brought by another party. They have decided to not join. Bankers are the reason for what? the reason your company could make payroll? the reason you are able to drive over bridges and through tunnels, fly into airports in airplanes, have clean water and not have sewer water in your street, have a stable food supply, medicine.... i assume that is what you meant. Bankers are evil and all those things brought to you from them should be outlawed. I speak about the Wall Street bankers and those who participated in what basically amounted to stealing money from our Treasury. Rating Junk to AAA by S&P employees who were in cahoots with insureres to sell bogus paper later called toxic debt which BTW has been conveniently swept under the carpet all while receiving BONUS money from your tax dollars. Yes I'm jealeous I don't have a coffee shop in Brazil due to receiving 4million dollar commission check for what amounted to FRAUD. But FRAUD is legal in Wall Street circles hidden by investments YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND. Please tell me where I can sign up to be one of your BANKERS and I'll gladly join the country club of the elite who are exempt from laws as they have their own laws and rules to protect what they do. Go do a ponzi like they did and see where it gets you. you can apply for a job at any bank and at any time if you would like. they have websites and the app process is very clear. i am shocked someone who understand finance as well as you didnt know that. you can also get a huge check from the gov't by exposing people who commit bank fraud. so by all means, do that too. i would be curious who these people are who committed fraud and were not convicted but also were given 4mill and now own a coffee shop in Brazil. i do not know anyone like that because they do not exist in my world. the real world. i wish i lived in your cartoon world, it seems so much easier than mine. i love coffee and 4 million dollars. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Thanks for your comments, they do help me to understand what is at stake for AIG a lot better. I'm glad they decided not to join the suit, and hope they don't suffer repercussions from their shareholders because of that. Your comment also prompts me to think about other aspects of corporate behavior and how that has changed (or at least is generally perceived to have changed) over the years. For example, I have the impression that it was more common for corporations to support philanthropic causes in the past. I wonder if this has anything to do with the general erosion of "sense of community" in modern society, so shareholders are less likely to approve of activities that don't improve their own bottom line. Being a shareholder makes you kind of anonymous, in that you are just one of many, and the company will take the "blame", so people are shielded from criticism when they force companies to disengage from community-minded activities. In times past people more-or-less accepted that if they were doing well they had an obligation to "give back", but that seems to be a quaint anachronism these days. Don i can only speak from my experience. small firms encourage public service. for example, im a volunteer firefighter and have always been given time off for training as long as its reasonable and requested in advance. when i worked at large firms it was mandatory. they had so many days you had to do something charitable and prove it. for example, when i worked at GSCO they actually picked you up at the office and drove you to Habitat for Humanity work site. Also, partners were required to donate a % of their bonuses to charity. People seeking partnership had to have a record of it before even being considered. this is the only job i have ever had so my experience is limited on this topic. i dont know about the impression nor care. i dont see anything different today except people have less money to donate. so i dont see anything different from the good old days. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Lawsuits are filed all day everyday. the topic is AIG considering joining a lawsuit brought by another party. They have decided to not join. Bankers are the reason for what? the reason your company could make payroll? the reason you are able to drive over bridges and through tunnels, fly into airports in airplanes, have clean water and not have sewer water in your street, have a stable food supply, medicine.... i assume that is what you meant. Bankers are evil and all those things brought to you from them should be outlawed. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

AIG has announced they will not be joining the suit. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

This sort of begs the question, is there any such a thing as corporate morality other than "do whatever is legal to make a dollar" in your experience? Is "gratitude for saving their ass" not fungible and therefor not part of the thinking? I ask because in normal human interactions there are lots of things one just doesn't do, even though there is not a specific law against them, because to do them makes things like trust, respect, etc impossible. It would be impossible to have anything like a human interaction with a person whose only value is to do whatever profits themselves, without any regard for the impact on other people, as long as their lawyers can keep them out of jail. Of course we are talking about corporations not individuals, but corporate decisions are made by real people; if they are willing to be total pricks in business, are they not likely to be total pricks as people too? Don Here is what someone smarter than me said when i mentioned it was tacky. they are in a catch 22. they know the US bailed them out and are running add's to thank them. But they will be sued by there own shareholders if Hank G wins this suit. They answer to their shareholders and will not be able to avoid a suit if money is handed to Hank G and his company. Dann if they do and damned if they dont. They are meeting today around 8pm and will make a decision. the fact that they are holding such high profile meetings shows their are not just "pricks" looking for a quick buck. They are trying to avoid damages from a shareholder lawsuit. damages that will hurt all shareholders. I find business in the real world is a lot more complicated than described on this board. i also find it a lot less evil than people here find. guess im dumb and evil, hah "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I'm with you. the lawsuit is brought by Hank Greenberg. He is bearing all the cost. AIG might attach themselves soley as a hedge in case the gov't pays out. They might not too, the decision has not been made. i personally find it in bad taste but im not a corporate lawyer or even a C level executive but i do understand why they might do it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

When Enron went under it was the largest corporate bankruptcy in history. They didn't receive one shred of help from the fed. We have this wonderful cleansing mechanism in a free market economy. It's called 'going out of business.' Enron was not an insurance company that, for lack of a better term, insured our banking industry. If AIG failed, then US banking system would have failed. Enron was mostly a real time electric and derivative trading company. The repercussions of Enron failing were tiny in comparison. Not apples to apples. I am not saying the bailout was good or bad. My point is that you need to find an apt comparison if you are going to make that argument. Enron vs AIG is not. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

a big difference is that you do not dive at your LDS(local dive shop), where you usually jump at your DZ and the pro shop is there. It is much easier in skydiving for the pro shop to add value to your life thus creating a more loyal customer. Many, if not most scuba divers do not spend their weekends at their LDS. i have been diving since the 80's and jumping about 5 years. I find my pro shop adds a large value to my experience justifying any markups. Which, fyi, they dont always do if you educate yourself on prices. I have never found that kind of value from a LDS. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i like your point and agree. i only commented because both of them made such definitive statements and that irks me. like most things, its a little more complicated. Just to set the record straight, I was asking a question to IBX, who lists his location as Germany. He made the original comment regarding "British Police". Thanks, as i reread it does make your post more clear. It also makes mine seem a bit petty now. sorry for that. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i like your point and agree. i only commented because both of them made such definitive statements and that irks me. like most things, its a little more complicated. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

They aren't. some are some are not. they have Armed Response teams. they also have protective details, swat teams etc. I'm speaking of the Metropolitan Police in London because i assume that is what you are speaking of. In my experience Americans say English and British to mean the exact same thing. I have no idea what goes on in the rural areas of England. Even less about Scotland and Wales. But again, i dont think that is what you meant by "British". to be clear, i was speaking to my fellow American when making the assumption of what he meant by "British Police". "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

"I just wish that more of the big time financial scammers spent time in prison with Bubba instead of taking home their multi $million bonuses." That would upset me too if it was true. in 20 years i have never seen anyone get a million dollar bonus who committed a crime. i have heard alot of people complain that others dont deserve their bonus for a number of reasons. including accusing them of wrong doing or as you say scamming. its just jealousy though. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

imo, its not a good sign or bad. this was such an obvious violation that it was given there would be severe punishment. they colluded to fix the market. thats right out of a movie or the 1990's. the real story is that the CTFC didnt catch them right away. lay people arent discussing that because they dont understand the markets. your funny, you post these stories all the time and seem to love to lump all bankers together but miss what i would consider the obvious headlines. i was waiting for you to post about Stevie Cohen but never did. it shows me you understand math well but finance, not so much. thats not meant to be mean. im just saying there are a lot of real stories of bad guys that you miss because this is just a hobby for you. my point is, for someone who loves to point this stuff out you really miss a lot of lay ups. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

1.5 bill is not really a big deal when you consider that the major institutions have about 10bill in litigation reserves at all times. just for some perspective. the traders in this case are being charged with a crime because they actually committed one. I'm glad to see its not just a fine and or suspension because what they did was so blatant and deserving of a severe punishment. colluding markets is about a wrong as you can get if your a market maker. the CTFC really dropped the ball and IMO this would never have gone unnoticed by FINRA, who regulates the equity markets. as far as a class action i do not believe that applies to a situation like this. the monies go to the CTFC, who should actually have been charged and fined for failure to catch them, imo. that cannot happen but would be nice if there was some super regulator they reported to. the the balance of monies go to the Dept of Justice. which will just give it to the treasury. there might be some minor players here but thats the gist of it. since its nearly impossible to find true victims, no one gets a payout. this was a crime against the markets, not so much a crime against a person. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

confirms my opinion of the photographer. id like to reiterate that i can understand someone not helping for many number of reasons. shock being a good one. if he stood there in terror, that would be forgivable. thae fact that he had the composure to photograph a dying man for profit, says alot about him. no decent person could do that. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Maybe it's my military background where we resort to training. As a matter of training, we would do what no decent person would do. This was a photographer doing what photographers do. He is no more or less culpable in the death than anybody else. That he took the photo I find to be irrelevant. I understand your point but it's just me. i too am a veteran. we had specialized training. i do not see a free lance photographer and a professionally trained soldier being an apt comparison. i'm pretty sure there is no professional free lance photo basic school. i highly doubt he has been trained and conditioned to react to a photo shoot the way a soldier would react to a near ambush. i could be wrong but doubt it. also, i never felt anything i did or was trained to do could be considered less than decent. perhaps your service differed. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

This was known. There were initial reports that "witnesses" were "traumatized." The motorman said that a number of people were waving their arms. Yep. But the focus is on the photographer. the focus is on the photographer not because he failed to help, most people understand that. he is the focus because he decided to take a picture. he made a concious effort to not help and then to take a photograph. if he just stared in horror i could totally understand and forgive him. the fact that he decided to grab his camera, aim and take the picture is why i choose to focus on him. no decent person would do that. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>how is this different? i'm going to answer with my opinion even though i understand it might have been rhetorical. IMO, it is not very different. i do not think a decent person could watch others suffer so they could profit from it. i do not put that much importance on that job. i know ton's of people in the business, have been the head of media relations at several banks over the years(not a full time job, just a task,fyi). they do it for the attention. they are not good decent people in my experience. not people i admire and it is actually the opposite. they all want to be famous and would gladly watch someone suffer it it aids them to that fame. i know there are exceptions but that is my opinion of the vast majority and certainly this man. again, no decent person would do that. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

A former colleague of mine, now retired, was testing a new camera and happened to be photographing a DC10 taking off at O'Hare in 1979, which also happened to be AA191, which crashed on takeoff killing all aboard. He was offered a lot of $$$ for his film by the media, but said he wasn't going to profit from anyone else's misfortune, and simply handed his film over to the NTSB. I'm with you on this. However, he claims the photo's were the property of the paper and if it was his decision he would not have published them. I would like to know if that is true. not helping is one thing. i understand there are many factors that could cause a person to not help. But taking the time to take a picture is horrible. no decent person would do that. he is a sick attention whore that was hoping to get a good shot. like most people in journalism they are in it for the attention. i would be willing to bet he was very proud of himself untill readers started to criticize him. i dgive big odds on it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Some of us work for a paycheck. We can't all be trust fund babies or day traders. Don day traders pay short term capital gains which is taxed as ordinary income,fyi. its clearly in the name, "day". im not an accountant but pretty sure if you buy and sell intra day, that is not considered long term. You might find it easier to insult a profession if you know what your talking about. i would suggest next time, "Some of us work for a paycheck. We can't all be trust fund babies or portfolio traders." "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

irrelevant - the corporation still existed regardless of who owned or managed it. Remember that corporations ARE people, the Supreme Court said so. the facts are relevant to a mature argument. my post is based on the facts of the situation and the reality of how a private equity firm runs its investments. your posts are just alot of anger and finger pointing. you purposely ignore the realities because it does not fit your model of one party being a victim and the other victor. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Unless they're with unions, apparently. Then it's OK to renege on them. the contracts were written by the previous management and owners, who went out of business. the new owners have now gone out of business. no one is reneging on anything. one of the parties in the contract no longer exist. my dad died before he paid me on a football debt, he did not renege on our agreement. the agreement is void because he no longer exist. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Sure, they support the contracts for execs, but allow them to break the ones for workers... i dont want to anger you more but usually they are not in contracts. this is done because a verbal contract can not be broken like a written one. yes, thats the opposite of the law but accurate to the law of business. lawyers and judges can go after a written contract. a person with a good reputation will not break a verbal contract. so the private equity guy's make promises that if the biz fails, they will pay them something. its not written because they want flexibility. i know that it seems odd to a lay person. for the record, the current owners did NOT promise the unions anything. the union deals were written long before they bought the company. this whole problem started because they wanted to not honor the old contracts. they wanted to create a new one for less money. its not that odd if you really think about it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante