weekender

>Realistically, there's no way for Congressmen to avoid knowledge of insider information. The only way to remove conflict would be for them to invest in blind trusts. Or perhaps they could just get stuck with the same limitations I've had at financials - no shorting, 60 day minimum holding period, preclearance of everything else. Certainly cost me some opportunities. a new law should do just that and then some. securities traders at investment banks are restricted from trading any security the company has under coverage. even new initiations. imagine how it feels to be long xyz corp in your kids college fund only to have your own firm initiate a sell. you cannot trade out of it, even though its going down. this is why most professionals have discrectionary accounts, which are permitted. once your left holding the bag because of your own firm, you learn quick. congress should adhere to the same laws. i doubt any reasonably intelligent person would disagree "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I get a great one on my condo! I mean it's freaking rocking! I may hate the thing and want to kill most if not all the old ladies in my neighborhood but.....hell it keeps my taxes LOW! If i made twice what I made, about what you made, I would pick up another investment property that was rented out and which paid for it self.... another tax deductions. And so on and so on. anyone who owns a home can write that off. its not a "funky tax deduction" for people making more than 250k. also, you cannot write off an investment property as you can your primary residence, so your wrong on that. what else do you have? similiar to your story about how investment bank managers get bonuses for laying people off, id like to remind you that you cannot just make stuff up and expect everyone here to not know any better. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Do they not have a fiduciary duty to the people they are supposed to represent? James you responded to me but im not sure if you are asking me specifically or just making a point. if i had to guess i would say no. in my experience a fiduciary must act for the sole benefit of the other party. i dont think thats congress's job. how do you do that with so many different constituents? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

If it's a congressional meeting, how can it be considered public if it's not something that hits C-SPAN? my example was that it was on C-SPAN so its public. yours is not so it isnt. its mute because after doing some reading it turns out they can trade on anything. the reason behind this is" congressional lawmakers have no corporate responsibilities and have long been considered exempt from insider trading laws" i'm willing to bet that personal ethics have kept people in the past from trading during these situations. our current congress does not have the same ethical motivations. probably time to change the laws. my 2 cents "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>You are correct >The congress has specifically exemptd themselves from insider trading rules and laws >Does not make is right im not sure if they exempted themselves. I understand you say so but i have never heard this before. it seems more likely to me that they can trade on the information because its speculative and public. anyone can see the voting and no one can technically be sure how a vote will go. Again, it might be offensive but not illegal. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

A true example Kerry was on a commitee that had just determined that a major drug was no longer going to be covered under medicare He sold all his shares in the company that supplied that drug The anouncement came two days later and the stock drop was big Kerry saved millions Insider or not? I'm sorry, i honestly dont know. I am not going to say it is or isnt, unless im certain. If he had a securities license, than yes certainly. he does not, as far as i know, so maybe it isnt. The laws are very specific and quite complicated. it could be that for some reason it is not considered inside information. How did he get this information? from public hearings that no one pays attention too? if so, than its perfectly legal. for example, if you are watching CSPAN and realize a law is going to pass that could affect your portfolio. you can trade on that. its public, just not well known. People pay HUGE money for that info because its legal. i assume that since he is not in jail it was legal. you might be offended but that doesnt make him a criminal. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Some of it would be natural. If you, as an individual, had a friend starting a new company who offered you an investment -- would you take it if you liked his product and plan, or would you insist that he make it publically available? Sorry to nitpick but there is nothing illegal in your example. the insider trading rules are for public co's. there is no regulation saying a company must offer shares publically. think of a family owned business that never offers stock to anyone outside of the family. its all legal. insider trading is when you use non public information to profit from a publically traded stock. an classic example is someone on the board tells a friend they are going to fire the co's president BEFORE its announced to the public. you trade on that, your violating the rules. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>To meet expectations of growth, more people are let go and the remainder are asked to do even more, manager gets bonus....demand drops. >To meet increased expectations of growth, the remainder are not given a pay increase, prices are held or increased, manager gets a bonus. that makes no sense to anyone who has every worked in banking. the world bank is not a for profit organization. you and your friend have no clue what you are talking about banking managers are paid based on the rev's on the group they manage. every manager in the history of banking tries to grow their group and thus revenues. the bigger group you manage the more important you are and the bigger your paycheck. no one gets bonus's for laying off. that is a complete fabrication of someones imagination. its quite simple. banks hire when they are profitable and lay off when they lose money. the firm tells groups to cut say, 10% of personnel. the managers make the decision and let people go. they dont get to keep anything. actually their bonus is less since usually less producing people mean less rev's. you cannot just make stuff up and assume no one posting here actual understands how the financial industry works. and for the record, the world bank is a bureaucracy similiar to the DMV. your local bank teller has more knowledge of the banking industry than those guys. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Thanks for the perspective. I've never lived anywhere close to NYC, and to be honest have no desire to do so, as I don't enjoy big cities. How can those sort of salaries be sustainable? Does NYC pay teachers six-figure salaries? How can the city government afford to attract and keep workers to provide necessary services? Public school teachers in my area make about 80k and in the nicer towns close to 100k after about 5 years. administrators make multiple six figures. We have some of the highest taxes in the country. so we can afford it but complain alot. to be fair, our public schools are also some of the best in the nation. in NYC teachers make about 70-80k, regular teacher not an admin person. not bad considering its not a full time job. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Here's a reality check for you. You bust your ass to get an education. Then you start at an entry level position and prove your worth. Maybe if you're really good eventually you'll be able to provide $75,000 worth of service to your employer, or to your company if you're the owner/CEO, by mid career at the earliest I'm not really sticking up for Shah but he lives in the NE and doesnt seem to be out of line with his salary expectations. I'm not sure if you have lived in the NYC area but 75k is not alot. to give you some perspective. In my town, metro NYC, the DPW pays 80k after 3 yrs. Police make 150k after 5yrs. Easily done by 28. Pharma sales, 75k by 28 is easily done. Same in advertising. Do you want to guess what a 28yr old VP at an Inv Bank makes? If he has made senior trader or PM, could range from multiple 6 figs to million. I dont think its odd to expect 75k with an MBA and some experience. Not in certain parts of the country. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I'm not saying that derivatives helped fuel the bust. everyone is saying that. i wish i could take credit for something so obvious. I'm saying you were wrong in your post. you are also wrong to imply Canada avoided the problem because of stricter regulations. They didnt invest in the same securities of their own free will. No regulations prevented it. Do you know anything about how lax the Canadian listing requirements are? they are far more lax than our NYSE and Nasdaq markets, for example. They have less regulation than us, not more. Effective regulation is needed for a fair and orderly market. no reasonably intellegent person would dissagree with that. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>2- no # of banking regulations will prevent a bubble from bursting. How well did the Enron era SOX regs protect us this time? Wrong and only your opinion. Regulations used to prevent the types of worthless securities that were being sold and repackaged, and a more powerful overseeing agency might have realized that and possibly whistle-blown that these things were worthless and that the banks were also buying the insurance for when they went bust. Example, Canada - no bust to speak of - heavy regulations. what regulations use to prevent these types of securities? when were these derivatives ever regulated? when were they deregulated? I'll give you a hint, the answers are none, never, never. derivatives are not regulated like other securities because they trade on contracts. in other words, each one is unique. there is no organization big enough to regulate all the contracts. they trade in an unregulated OTC market. by definition, they are unregulated. always have been and always will be. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

did you lose the part of your brain that makes you feel embarrassed? you cannot wrap your mind around a simple commodity transaction and your upset with me? you cant bring yourself to see that holding grain in escrow for two parties is not hoarding and you think i have the problem? you must hate your local pro shop. those bastards do the same thing with gear. they hoard stockpiles of rigs that two parties have asked them too. all for their mutual benefit. how much longer can these hoarders be allowed to exist!!!! I'm sorry to all the reasonable people forced to read this. please understand it was just to easy and fun. i feel bad and will not respond to him/her anymore. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

no im fond of reason. it is hilarious that you think because i understand a basic commodity futures contract, im defending anyone. you honestly have no idea what im talking about do you? to funny. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

is that a response to my post? it makes no sense. if one person is asked to hold something for another. oh lets say a bushel of grain, for example. then said person delivers the bushel at the agreed time to a third person who bought it. How is that theft or cheating? You have no idea what my example means, do you? dont answer. you will only embarrass yourself more. do yourself a favor. when i post, ignore it. ill do the same. i feel guilty actually responding to you. its like picking on a disabled person. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Goldman Sachs hoards rice, wheat, corn, sugar and livestock and jacks up commodity prices around the globe so that poor families can no longer afford basic staples and literally starve. the people at GSCO are pure evil. how can the world stand for this? could someone explain to me how they accomplish this feat? we should find those giant stores of grain and liberate them for the poor. I believe they are kept in Chicago at a place called the CME. this place must be destroyed. speculation on food is pure evil. few questions for the gentleman in the tin foil hat. How do you expect the farm industry to buy its supplies without the sale of futures? do you know what a future speculator is? do you know the difference between a clearing house and a stockpile? i dont want you to answer. just pointing something to the reasonable minded people reading. GSCO is one of the largest clearing houses in the world. this includes futures contracts. so at any given time they technically hold large stockpiles of commodities, including grains and such. of course, they hold it for someone else as part of a commodity market system. how hilarious is it that someone twist that into hoarding food to starve people. alot more people would starve for sure if the farmers didnt sell futures to buy actual seeds to plant. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

They would make profit on it *how*, if they were trading within company? the retail division sells a bunch of mortgages to retail customers. they then sell them to the IB division which creates a package and then sells them to an institutional client. its marked up at each transaction. Thats how it could be done. it wasnt what brought down LEHM, MLCO or BEST, since they didnt have retail mortgage divisions. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Agreed. And after the GLB act passed, they could make those trades within one company. Im not dissgreeing with your comment, however, that is not what brought down MLCO, LEHM and BEST. they did not have retail mortgage operations. they purchased their derivatives in the OTC market from other firms or created their own by purchasing individual packages. again from other firms. Also, what desk held the securities that brought down those firms? it wasnt the market making desk. it was PM's on an asset mgt or prop desk. i mention this because those desk no longer exist. they have been sold or closed. All that is left are people who are trying to manage the liquidations. Why mention this? because you can create all the regulations you want. it isnt going to prevent this again because the banks have moved on. politicians, in general, dont understand the financial markets and rarely pass relevent regulations. they are like generals fighting the last war. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Nope, incorrect. If the mortgage industry is properly regulated it automatically applies to borrowers too. Foreclosures have always been with us, but we didn't have a meltdown until AFTER the financial services industry was deregulated. Im curious because i dont honestly know. what about mortgage derivatives was deregulated? as far as i know, they were never regulated. Who regulated them and when were they deregulated? I have never heard of this till you mentioned it. I'm looking for an answer specific to mortgage derivatives. Its fine if you dont know, neither do I. i've mentioned this before. the big problem is that it is nearly impossible to regulate these securities because they trade between institiutions, no exchanges or (regulated)OTC markets, by contracts. No clearing houses. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Unethical is a matter of opinion. in the financial industry it is not a matter of opinion. You can have an ethical violation and lose your job and license. Finra is a private organization as is the CTFC and NYSE etc.. You must adhere to their standards or cannot work in the industry. That is why i mentioned it. im not trying to be pedantic or argumentative. I menioned ethics for a reason and want you to undertand my point. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

No confusion. If it were illegal there would be a lot of bankers in prison. Unethical is a matter of opinion. I'm inclined to agree with arch conservative Charles Krauthammer, who wrote: " I would be for an exemplary hanging or two. Have it in Times Square, invite Madame Defarge. You borrow a guillotine from the French and we could have a party." I don't know the context of this quote and don't care. I would agree that criminals should be prosecuted. all honest people do. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>The financial services industries CONTINUE to oppose regulations to stop them doing stupid things that are hazardous to the nation's economy. One of the disappointments of the Obama administration is that it continues to use the exact same people that brought us the mess as advisors and administrators. I'm going to make a rational statement knowing some will most likely just personally attack me. I'm doing so for the other rational people still visiting. The problem is that it is very difficult to regulate derivatives. The regulators know this and thats why they stick to major securities. Derivatives mostly trade on contracts, no exchanges or certifications of any kind. They are transacted by institutions who know the risk. There are not enough people in the world to read through each of these contracts to decide the validity of each transaction, so the responsibility is left to the institutions. This isnt new Other securities are easily regulated because they are simple. they are basic fungible equities, promises or debts. so the industry is against regulation because they fear the gov't, cannot regulate, so will end the practice all together. thats great if you dont understand they are used by almost every institution including municipal and state gov't's. No one wants to end them. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>FORCED big banks to bet against their own investors I'm singling that out to help you and others understand that shorting a security in a principal transaction is not illegal or unethical no matter the rating. This confuses alot of people who dont understand securities trading. No has been charged nor will ever be charged with a crime for this. There are multiple divisions in a bank. Research and Trading are seperate. If research believes a security is a Buy, they rate it and market it as so. Trading doesnt care about ratings. they provide liquitidy only. not advice. Customers want to buy something call the trading desk. Traders do not "market" the security. they "sell" it, in other words transact it. it can be as principle, their own position either long or short. Or they can act as an agent and just buy it somewhere else and mark it up. All day long all over the word this is occuring and will never stop occuring. the reason is the customer is asking for liquidity only. he has already decided to purchase the security. he does not care if the trader makes or loses money on the transaction. They do lose money, fyi. thats why they are paid based on their Profit and Loss. So no one, except for people who don't understand the financial markets care that GS shorted against a Buy rating. Its a normal business practice and how securities trade. Its happening right now in every security on every exchange and OTC market in the entire world. i could also explain the difference between the market making desk and the proprietary desk if i have not completely confused everyone and anyone cares. similiar rules but different jobs. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

about 15 yrs ago the NASD(market regulators) came down hard on OTC traders. they basically started enforcing an old rule about no profanity when on the phone executing a trade. I assumed they were trying to clean up our act to compete with NYSE. i spoke to a regulator who told me nothing of the sort. they didnt care if we were classy. it turned out that so many OTC traders were saying fuck so much that they felt we were using a code. it was around the time the justice department was accusing traders of collution. they wouldnt let us use certain terms and assumed everyone was using fuck as a super secret code to circumvent the new anti collution rules. it wasnt code, just how OTC guys talk. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I dont know Normiss but he sounds pretty "normal" Anyone who has one drink is a bore. variety is the spice of life. Unless you only drink at the same place with the same people i cannot imagine ordering the same thing repeatadly.I drink what im in the mood for or seems appropriate given the company. After a day at the DZ i like to have a lighter beer(not light) like a standard American pilsner ie PBR or Bud Meeting clients at a nice place, a Bombay and tonic before the meal. single malt after. Red wine with dinner unless customer prefers white. i dont care what im eating, i like red If im cooking a nice meal on the weekends then red wine. summer time party its white wine or a sweet red or a lighter beer. meeting buddies out for a drink then its a nice full bodied beer on tap. if i was forced to have "a drink" it would be hemlock. that aint living. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante