weekender

I like your perfectly logical opinion. You felt the executives were overpaid thus the company is over valued and you didnt buy the stock. Pretty simple, actually. If everyone did this the salaries would come down to meet the market or the company would fail and someone else would replace them. I tend to do the same. I dont care what someone is paid relative to me. i care what they are paid relative to their companies performance. I'm not as picky as you but we are def on the same page with equities. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

you know i live in the same place as you, so yes im aware of our economy. i graduated in a bad economy also. i took a construction job because i couldnt find work in my degree. it was humiliating, i was openly mocked on the work sight for being a college boy. I DID have a enough pride to work for pay, though. If this was her first no pay job and she felt it might land her work, i could understand. she is 28 years old and its her 6th. at this point, she gets no sympathy from me. she is being a dope. to be clear. i don't think companies should do this. i do not see her as a victim of anything but her own poor judgement, though. i'm not cold blooded or mean. just rational. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i second this. you want to make sure you get policies that do not overlap. i have travel insurance, which is essentially a gap. they will pay medical expenses that my primary doesnt cover. no need to have two policies covering the same thing. you will not get a check from both, as far as i know. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I agree she is being taken advantage of but is not a pure victim. C'mon, at 28 yrs old you should not take an upaid intership. I dont get the victim mentality by some here. She is 28 years old, not a child. She purposely is working for free. It is not right that the employer is doing this but she is NOT a victim. She is a dope. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

You really think most wealthy Wall St execs are Dems because Wall St happens to be located in NYC? That's ridiculous to the point of laughable. i didnt say they were Dem's, i said they give money to Dem's, based on my experience. someone who has worked in banking in NYC for 20years. someone who has lived in Bergen County, solid Dem county for 15 yrs. also, someone who has attended many Dem fundraisers over the years full of guys just like me. Including plenty of fund managers, just like the guy the OP was speaking of. call me ridiculous all you want. all i can do is explain why i believe what i do. my opinion is based on actual experience working on Wall Street and living in NYC area for most of my adult life. (edited my post because i missread his. to be clear i think most give money to Dem's which is what i said. including myself. that was my point and i explained why i feel that way) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>What do you all think? I think its pretty normal. A rich Wall Street executive in NYC gives money to a Dem. That is par for the course in my experience. NYC is a liberal stronghold, the suburbs are solid Dem counties and where bankers live. Who does this surprise? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I've found people who clean the inside of their mask have less fogging issues. there is some science behind this and you can read about it on commercial products websites. if your going to use regular soap, like dish soap, i'd recommend Johnson's baby shampoo instead. this way if you get it in yours eyes less chance of it burning. My buddies and i use that for our masks. Scuba and Skydiving both. much cheaper than commercial products and seems to work fine. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I get your point about voting but we will have to agree to disagree. people get the right to vote for people who then run the day to day business. voting on pay crosses the line to me. im glad there is a mechanism that cleary shows shareholder sentiment about pay. like a stated above, no one goes to a shareholder meeting so this non binding vote is a step forward i still dont follow your institutional comments. sorry, not saying your wrong or right. your first post seemed to me you felt they have overweighted influence. i'd agree, its all based on math. more shares more influence. but that is usually good for retail holders since PM's (in my experience) sentiment is similiar to ricky retail when it comes to executive pay. that being they think its not always inline with performance. your second comment just seemed to me to be an argument on how you define an investor. not being argumentative, i just dont get your point. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

"Under the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, major U.S. companies are required to allow shareholders to have a "say on pay" vote at least every three years. The votes are not binding." Non binding means who cares? Lovely pointless element to that legislation. And since institutions dominate the voting shares, it's really about them, not the retail investors. It's non binding because common stock owners do not have a say in how a company is run. its not a democracy, its a public company who issues stock, not votes. its a good thing because it shames management and the board. it very well IMO will have an impact on compensation, and it should. Shareholders should be heard. i dont agree they should be voting on day to day operations, however. who has time to go to meetings? this is a positive step for shareholders. I don't get your institutional comments though. In my experience PM's have argued for years that compenstation is not tied enough to performance. that is why they become activist and sometimes, like John Paulson, force themselves onto boards to make changes. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

The industry must pay after two years of signing even if you die during an exluded event. This was done by the gov't because they were using deaths from excluded events in their actuary tables to calculate premiums. since they charged for it but wouldnt pay for it, the regulators cried foul. they came to an agreement of two years. This prevents people from buying a policy and then killing themselves basically gifting money to someone. agents are paid commisions and many will not admit this to you since they get more if you pay up. it IS fraud however, if you KNOW you plan to skydive or commit suicide. no idea how they can prove it, though. i might be off on the specifics but i know i'm pretty close. i was a licensed agent once, have bought insurance multiple times and my wife's an industry attorney and expert. Dont take my word for it, look it up. im told you this to aid in your research and understand why agents might not be so upfront. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Not sure it's what SkyDekker meant, but their supply is protected by the largest, most powerful, and most expensive military the world has ever seen. That's odd - I don't recall hearing about any American troops stationed along the Russian, Chinese or Turkish pipelines. it looks like i just copied your comment. you will have to trust me that we came to the same conclusion but hit enter after you. OR you could assume i'm a dolt who just stole your thought. either way, we agree, hah "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Not sure it's what SkyDekker meant, but their supply is protected by the largest, most powerful, and most expensive military the world has ever seen. ok, if that is what he meant that doesnt make sense to me either. Oil comes from all over the world. How does the US protect the Russian oil fields? Do we have our military in Canada, Mexico or South America? Not as i recall. How about Africa, North Sea and Asia? I will concede the Middle East and I suppose you could argue Texas. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Oil also gets a protected market and a defended and protected supply. I agree, they have played their cards very well. perhaps i am reading your response too literally but i do not understand it. how is oil a protected market? it trades 24/7 in every market world wide. it is arguably the most liquid, fungible commodity in the world. how is their supply protected? If it can be purchased anywhere at anytime by anybody. it would seem to me its not a very guarded supply. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I'm not clear whether he (or anyone else) really has much of a choice in this regard. Can you name a profession where the businesses are NOT focused on a ruthless desire to make money? The problems he describes are not unique to Wall Street. Indeed one reason why I think the Occupy Wall Street movement spread so quickly last fall beyond Zuccotti Park is that the basic criticisms offered by Occupy Wall Street really apply to the whole business community throughout the country and the world--not just to a few very well heeled Wall Street firms. One thing about Wall Street, though, is that it tends to be a world where you either get the big bonuses or get asked to leave pretty quickly. If he was there for 12 years, it probably means he was rising pretty steadily in the ranks--they would have cut him loose earlier otherwise. The culture hasn't changed--what's changed is that as he's moved up the ranks, he's interacting more and more with the top brass and gets to see more and more what GS is really all about. Finally I can't help but notice that, despite his claiming the higher ground ethically, he is still leaving a Wall Street firm at the usual time to leave a Wall Street firm: early in the year just after bonuses are paid in January. He still waited around to get his bonus (or, alternatively, to find out he wasn't getting much of a bonus this year). I think your post is very similiar to my thinking. to be clear though. my comment about his profession was that he chose to be a production employee. he chose to be measured by one metric, revenues. NOW he seems upset his career is soley about that. It's BS, he knew all along. there are plenty of jobs where you are evaluated by other metrics that assess your value. all back office people, for example. he chose production. live the sword, die by the sword. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i disagree with the attitude that seeking profits is bad for business. that is why firms exist. i do agree that GSCO has changed since it went public for the worse. Before they went public they were much more concerned with risk because they had skin in the game. They got wealthy still but nothing like when it went public. the money that was thrown around was so much that it can cloud your judgement. in the past you worked to make partner for a big payout. since it went public you worked for that year end bonus. your personal revenues were all you focused on. you could have two good years and never work again. that was not the case when it was a partnership. you cared about how the firm did as well as your personal bonus. My 2cents. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

He was there for 12 years. So perhaps he tried and failed. But my feeling is that something turned sour for him (say annual bonus or a promotion event) and he decided to do some bridge burning on his way out of town. Exactly. GSCO is no different today than the day he started. He was a production employee who was measured soley on one metric, revenues generated. he could NOT have been there 12yrs and not noticed what was going on around him. after all, this guy was in a very competitive job. one where he was expected to generate revenues constantly. he had seen many people underperform and get forced out in 12yrs. yet he stayed and collectice bonus after bonus. now, its very possible, it was his turn and he got forced out. he felt betrayed by a place he dedicated his youth too. live by the sword, die by the sword. this is the profession he chose. its all mute though. everyone knows banks sole purpose is to generate revenues. they aren't charities. They believe, as does GSCO, that they acheive this by doing right by there customers. Its a competitive business and you dont get customers by not focusing on them. GSCO has always had a reputation for not being as focused on customer service as others. reason being they felt you needed their product and people would tolerate it. this is not news to anyone who works in the biz. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

How are they holding your retirement funds hostage? If you are not happy with a bank or fund manager, you are free to take the money. you can invest it yourself or sit on it. No one forces you to give a bank or fund money. Can you explain what you meant by your comment? How would bringing back pension funds do anything? Who do you think the largest customers of banks are? Institutions, including pension funds. Ever hear of Calpers or Calsters? they are two of the largest funds in the world. They are also two of the biggest customers of the banks in the world. i dont follow your logic. Shah, does your school have a financial/trading lab? they are common now. they deconstruct how the financial markets work and explain how they are all tied together in a practical hands on way. I helped set one up at my alma mater. You should look into it because your comments make me believe you dont fully understand the industry. sorry if that sounds condecending, not my intent. for the record, i think anyone who commits a crime should be prosecuted, including bankers. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Nope, even more lucrative and less hazardous to become a banker and take government bailout money. its not hazardous because its not a crime, duh. also, all the bailout money was payed back with interest so you can sleep better now. finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/03/07/treasury-aig-42-billion/?section=magazines_fortune articles.cnn.com/2009-03-15/us/AIG.banks.list_1_aig-federal-bailout-money-bonuses-and-compensation?_s=PM:US Oh yes. You got one company, AIG, which is more accurate described as an insurance company, not a banker. AIG's bailout mostly went to cover the losses of BANKS, as detailed in the link. FACT - ALL THE BAILOUT MONEY HAS NOT BEEN PAID BACK WITH INTEREST. I dont dissagree with your "FACT" nor was my reply intended too. you highlighted one sentence from my post which does not show the context for which it was intended. i was responding to your post about bankers and crime. my response was intended to imply the banks paid back their bailout money and did not commit a crime. if it was unclear, i apologize and hopefully it is now. I going to take the high road and assume you were not purposely highlighting the one sentence to be misleading. as to AIG, i also agree with the other gentleman that AIG is an insurance company and not a bank. they payed out the money to their customers who were due, including the banks. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Nope, even more lucrative and less hazardous to become a banker and take government bailout money. its not hazardous because its not a crime, duh. also, all the bailout money was payed back with interest so you can sleep better now. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>If you kill a person and it's premeditated we fry you. However if you kill thousands of peoples hopes for a viable future due to stealing from them....you get what Madoff got...a nice comfy place to spend the rest of your life while your snot nosed kids enjoy what you stole? for the record, your completely wrong here. His children got none of his money. it was all seized. One of his son's committed suicide. So either you do not know what your talking about or you are a liar. either way, pretty lame I am not a defender of Madoff or any criminals, fyi. I just prefer people make their arguments with facts and not hyperbole and lies. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

can you be specific? your making general statements about criminals getting less time over other criminals. I'm talking actual criminals convicted of actual crimes by breaking actual laws. i know a few who did not get light sentences. The man who ran the Galleon fund, Raj, was given a nearly life sentence for insider trading. yesterday Allen Sanford was convicted of a ponzi scheme. max sentence is 230 years and most expect him to get at least 20yrs Kozloski(sp) from Tyco was convicted of numerous violations. serving 8.5-20yrs Madoff got life they all deserved what they got. I dont like cheaters it ruins the confidence of the market but those are not light sentences. So enlighten me, specifically who was convicted of a major securities crime and got a light sentence. I'd prefer an example of one where there is a clear victim also, like Madoff and Sandford. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I was offended and i clearly posted so. I appreciate your apology. i believe you when you say it was just venting. I disagree with you on almost all your post, however, i admire you for making an apology. It shows a strength of character. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

who is in charge here??? he has completely lost it. now he is making threats to people and their children? How is this within the bounds of this forum? Shah you know i work in banking. Are you coming for me and my family you pathetic loser? I'm also a white guy so i suppose i deserve to die for that too. I am doing my due diligence, should not be hard to figure out who you are since there are only a few DZ's in the area. The Sheriff's Dept and Bergen/Hudson county prosecutors office would like to know who exactly you are going to kill. Wont be hard for me, my wife is a member of the bar and knows tons of court and police officials. if the mods wont warn you i will. stop the posts. i will make you regret every word you have typed. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

There are as of today...no joke TODAY! 15 empty units. They sit on the market for a solid 12 months before they are sold. It is in your best interest to have these units filled......sold off....taken off the market. For the longer they are on the market the lower their sale value will go and the lower your property value will go! See where I'm coming from? This economy is not set up to sit back and ho hum it's about action! And the action that these old fuckes don't get is that the longer these homes stay empty and the lower their sales value the lower their property value....but only if they cared! They bought their places back in the 90's for only $100k. Thus THE OLD FUCKERS HAVE NO SKIN IN THE GAME! They could sell today for $150k and smile. The young folks all bought from $270-$330 which 5 years ago was the market rate. Thus the old fuckers have got to go! Move out or die out! Put people in charge who do have skin in the game! this has all been addressed in previous posts. it is not in my best interest to have someone who cannot afford the place buy it. yes, ive explained i would rather wait till someone who can afford it buy it. you ignored my response before and i assume will again. how does someone who owns something have no skin it the game? you make no sense. thats the exact opposite of the meaning to any resonable person i hope to god you are a troll because if you really are this dense, your housing problems are only the beggining of a long misrable life. logic is completely lost on you. good luck "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>that said there is no need for the old fucks to discriminate like this. they aren't and you know that. they dont want people buying units they cannot afford and then can easily walk from in a downturn. its been explained to you over and over. I'm one of them, a condo owner who would vote against your 3% plan. I'm protecting my asset from people like you, who openly admitted he wished he had a 3% loan to walk away from. Why can you not understand this? I'm starting to think your just punking me. making statement you could not possibly believe, ignoring logical responses from everyone and talking in circles. for a while i was embarrassed for you for not understanding your own problem. Now i'm the one embarassed for actually speaking with you. you cannot be for real. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante