• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NPR: Bailout clash

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Seriously, the entire 700b package has become too politicized. Politicians are using it in their campaigns, pointing fingers at other parties, and bash the current, previous administration. It also become sort of class fighting, main street vs. Wall St., bailing out the rich and not doing enough for the middle class.

Depending on how the 700B is used, it can do many different things, even things those economist think the government should do. I don't really care if the package bail out the rich or help the poor, or which politician/party benefits, it will do what the market needed most right now, bring some confidence and stability back. Sometimes the market doesn't need specific help, it just need confidence and stability so it will go back to business as usual.

Seriously, if you throw away the political agenda and those main st. vs Wall St. bullshit all media is talking about, you will find the package easier to understand and accept. And if you just get some oversight and due process, and make sure the usage of the package is fair and smart, the 700B isn't a bailout, it is a fvcking investment.
 
Originally posted by: Thump553
As a former economics student, I'm well aware of the concept that you can find an economist to vehemently argue just about any feasible position. The only exception to this rule was McCain's foolish idea for a gas tax suspension earlier this year.

That said, I find the argument presented here about as persuasive as the following analogy: an airplane runs out of fuel at 45,000 feet. Five minutes later it has glided down to 15,000. The economist looks out the window, says we are still way up in the air, nothing bad has happened yet, everything must be fine.

Your analogy states as fact that the plane "ran out of fuel".

What if they're at 15,000 cuz they're coming in for a normal landing?

In other words it might just be a rather normal situation erroneously characterized as an inpending crash by a bunch of investment bankers who want $700 billion of crappy assets taken off their hands.

With an upcoming election, is there a better place to conveniently find a bunch of *chicken littles* with deep pockets (full of other peoples' money)?

Fern
 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. 200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

It's like trusting a blind person to tell you if they see a fire 10 miles away. They can't feel it, or smell it, and it *WILL* get close to them. However, by the time it does, it'll be too big to stop easily.
Your assumption that these 200 economists "have no real ties to capital markets" is preposterous, where does it say that in the article? Did you look up the background of each one of the 200? Also, do you have a master's or phD in economics? If not, your peon finance job and undergrad econ classes do not qualify your assessment to be > theirs.

MBA: Finance. CFA Charterholder. Soon to be Columbia MSF student. Work at a top 10 i-bank.
So Finance qualifies you as an economist? /golfclap. In any case, congrats on acceptance to Columbia and I wish you luck. Me? I'm in the middle of a career change (software engineer for gov), soon to be med school at GW. IAC, I never claimed that that my opinion was more qualified than 200 economists, that award belongs to you...

And what does an economist know of the capital markets? They aren't finance majors, nor do they work here.
Yes, wtf does Alan Greenspan (phD in econ know? Do you really want a list of people who have advanced econ degrees that you claim know nothing about capital markets? Your broad generalizations are your weakness, might want to work on that. 😉

You're completely missing my post. I guess economics and finance aren't the only thing that go right over your head.

Greenspan is a failure anyway. His Ayn Raynd skewed policies lead us into two of the largest asset bubbles in human history. What's even more humorous is that he was never that much of an academic, which most of your list is full of.

Your lack of knowledge is becoming more evident by the post.

 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes, wtf does Alan Greenspan (phD in econ) know? Do you really want a list of people who have advanced econ degrees that you claim know nothing about capital markets? Your broad generalizations are your weakness, might want to work on that. 😉

You're completely missing my post. I guess economics and finance aren't the only thing that go right over your head.
Your comment:
And what does an economist know of the capital markets? They aren't finance majors, nor do they work here.

My comment: Greenspan, an economist, knows more about capital markets and finance than you'll ever know.

Work on your debating skills, or don't make stupid fcking generalizations.
 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes, wtf does Alan Greenspan (phD in econ) know? Do you really want a list of people who have advanced econ degrees that you claim know nothing about capital markets? Your broad generalizations are your weakness, might want to work on that. 😉

You're completely missing my post. I guess economics and finance aren't the only thing that go right over your head.
Your comment:
And what does an economist know of the capital markets? They aren't finance majors, nor do they work here.

My comment: Greenspan, an economist, knows more about capital markets and finance than you'll ever know.

Work on your debating skills, or don't make stupid fcking generalizations.

Again, you're still not getting it. Perhaps I'll draw a stick figure in paint for you.

I was making the same stupid comment you were, except for taking the opposite side, to point out how stupid the comment was (finance people don't know economics).

Greenspan may know more, but he didn't apply it all that well. I knew he was a fucking idiot back in 2003 for encouraging this asset bubble, yet he kept encouraging it.

Work on your logic and debating skills, and actual subject material knowledge before debating with me.
 
I still can't understand how any economist can view the near-mortal situation of the credit markets and not really be the least bit concerned because we aren't in a depression at this very second. If the bailout fails to pass they will seize entirely.

The real consequences of this won't be immediately apparent until a few months to a year later.

Companies with existing untapped credit facilities are going to draw on them knowing that the probability of them securing new ones at affordable cost is almost nil. The same debate is going on inside our company right now.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
I still can't understand how any economist can view the near-mortal situation of the credit markets and not really be the least bit concerned because we aren't in a depression at this very second. If the bailout fails to pass they will seize entirely.

The real consequences of this won't be immediately apparent until a few months to a year later.

Companies with existing untapped credit facilities are going to draw on them knowing that the probability of them securing new ones at affordable cost is almost nil. The same debate is going on inside our company right now.

Which is one reason why I highly discount anything these economists say.

1. They aren't aware of what's going on in the debt markets, only the people who work in them, or ask about them are.

2. They seem to be concerned about a point-in-time definition of a "recession", which is supposedly well defined, but is actually arbitrary in the current situation.

3. They seem to be not forward-looking, incorporating the prior two points. They are waiting for it to hit before they do something about it. That was proven to be a shitty scenario in 1929 and following recessions.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes, wtf does Alan Greenspan (phD in econ) know? Do you really want a list of people who have advanced econ degrees that you claim know nothing about capital markets? Your broad generalizations are your weakness, might want to work on that. 😉

You're completely missing my post. I guess economics and finance aren't the only thing that go right over your head.
Your comment:
And what does an economist know of the capital markets? They aren't finance majors, nor do they work here.

My comment: Greenspan, an economist, knows more about capital markets and finance than you'll ever know.

Work on your debating skills, or don't make stupid fcking generalizations.

Again, you're still not getting it. Perhaps I'll draw a stick figure in paint for you.

I was making the same stupid comment you were, except for taking the opposite side, to point out how stupid the comment was (finance people don't know economics).

Greenspan may know more, but he didn't apply it all that well. I knew he was a fucking idiot back in 2003 for encouraging this asset bubble, yet he kept encouraging it.

Work on your logic and debating skills, and actual subject material knowledge before debating with me.
Nice recovery, especially when your now self admitted (lol) "stupid" comment was called out. FYI, nothing has changed: nobody is buying that your MBA degree makes you more qualified than 200 economists. Keep spinning your financial sector BS and maybe you'll get that raise in March. In the meantime, we'll take the advice of 200 economists, not someone afflicted with tunnel vision in conjunction with an extremely biased viewpoint.
 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes, wtf does Alan Greenspan (phD in econ) know? Do you really want a list of people who have advanced econ degrees that you claim know nothing about capital markets? Your broad generalizations are your weakness, might want to work on that. 😉

You're completely missing my post. I guess economics and finance aren't the only thing that go right over your head.
Your comment:
And what does an economist know of the capital markets? They aren't finance majors, nor do they work here.

My comment: Greenspan, an economist, knows more about capital markets and finance than you'll ever know.

Work on your debating skills, or don't make stupid fcking generalizations.

Again, you're still not getting it. Perhaps I'll draw a stick figure in paint for you.

I was making the same stupid comment you were, except for taking the opposite side, to point out how stupid the comment was (finance people don't know economics).

Greenspan may know more, but he didn't apply it all that well. I knew he was a fucking idiot back in 2003 for encouraging this asset bubble, yet he kept encouraging it.

Work on your logic and debating skills, and actual subject material knowledge before debating with me.
Nice recovery, especially when your now self admitted (lol) "stupid" comment was called out. FYI, nothing has changed: nobody is buying that your MBA degree makes you more qualified than 200 economists. Keep spinning your financial sector BS and maybe you'll get that raise in March. In the meantime, we'll take the advice of 200 economists, not someone afflicted with tunnel vision in conjunction with an extremely biased viewpoint.

I often take such an extreme point, the opposite of what a counter-poster makes, just to make a fool of them.

Your statement that finance people don't know economics is stupid, I made an equally as stupid opposite statement to highlight the fact that your point was stupid. I've taken many economics classes and I do a lot of economics modeling in my financial models.

Keep your layman bullshit out of my face, as you've got far less credibility than some idiot academic economist who doesn't even know how the debt markets do and do not work.

BTW, it was economists who pushed the government not to do anything in 1929. it was the economists who pushed deregulation in the last 10 years. It was the economists who pushed the "IT economy" in the late 90s. It was the economists who thought that this credit boom was great, and Greenspan was the one who led the charge.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. 200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

It's like trusting a blind person to tell you if they see a fire 10 miles away. They can't feel it, or smell it, and it *WILL* get close to them. However, by the time it does, it'll be too big to stop easily.
Your assumption that these 200 economists "have no real ties to capital markets" is preposterous, where does it say that in the article? Did you look up the background of each one of the 200? Also, do you have a master's or phD in economics? If not, your peon finance job and undergrad econ classes do not qualify your assessment to be > theirs.

MBA: Finance. CFA Charterholder. Soon to be Columbia MSF student. Work at a top 10 i-bank.
So Finance qualifies you as an economist? /golfclap. In any case, congrats on acceptance to Columbia and I wish you luck. Me? I'm in the middle of a career change (software engineer for gov), soon to be med school at GW. IAC, I never claimed that that my opinion was more qualified than 200 economists, that award belongs to you...

And what does an economist know of the capital markets? They aren't finance majors, nor do they work here.

not a whole lot compared to a finance guy, but generally enough to understand the basics and apply it to the whole, i would presume.
 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. 200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

It's like trusting a blind person to tell you if they see a fire 10 miles away. They can't feel it, or smell it, and it *WILL* get close to them. However, by the time it does, it'll be too big to stop easily.
Your assumption that these 200 economists "have no real ties to capital markets" is preposterous, where does it say that in the article? Did you look up the background of each one of the 200? Also, do you have a master's or phD in economics? If not, your peon finance job and undergrad econ classes do not qualify your assessment to be > theirs.

MBA: Finance. CFA Charterholder. Soon to be Columbia MSF student. Work at a top 10 i-bank.
So Finance qualifies you as an economist? /golfclap. In any case, congrats on acceptance to Columbia and I wish you luck. Me? I'm in the middle of a career change (software engineer for gov), soon to be med school at GW. IAC, I never claimed that that my opinion was more qualified than 200 economists, that award belongs to you...

And what does an economist know of the capital markets? They aren't finance majors, nor do they work here.

not a whole lot compared to a finance guy, but generally enough to understand the basics and apply it to the whole, i would presume.


Same thing with a finance guy wrt economics.

Both of the studies in the undergrad, grad, and phd, levels have a significant amount of overlap. I had to take 3 economics courses for my MBA and I took another 3 as electives. In my CFA curriculum a lot of the text is dedicated to understanding macro/micro economic effects on the capital markets.
 
Work at a top 10 i-bank

You mean the same guys that understood the market so well that they over levered and cratered the entire investment bank model?

I certainly think that you at least work in the industry so are more informed than most, but I think that your information stream is narrow and it is biasing your opinions too much.

There is too much extrapolation and slippery-slope and fear mongering going on.

The current bail-out proposal is flawed and what the Senate is proposing does not fix many of the basic flaws. The biggest flaw being that Paulson has too much power to decide what he'll buy at what prices. Aslo, there should be a much bigger cost to the firms using the pool. If they have to run to the government, then their shareholders should suffer dilution as they did not use their BoD to appropriately manage the business.

Michael


addition - I'm an accountant by training and I don't think much of economists in general
 
Originally posted by: Michael
Work at a top 10 i-bank

You mean the same guys that understood the market so well that they over levered and cratered the entire investment bank model?

I certainly think that you at least work in the industry so are more informed than most, but I think that your information stream is narrow and it is biasing your opinions too much.

There is too much extrapolation and slippery-slope and fear mongering going on.

The current bail-out proposal is flawed and what the Senate is proposing does not fix many of the basic flaws. The biggest flaw being that Paulson has too much power to decide what he'll buy at what prices. Aslo, there should be a much bigger cost to the firms using the pool. If they have to run to the government, then their shareholders should suffer dilution as they did not use their BoD to appropriately manage the business.

Michael


addition - I'm an accountant by training and I don't think much of economists in general

My bank is quite fine, thank you.

What exactly do you want to define? How about you call up your broker and tell him that in the next 10 years you want to buy AAPL for exactly 385.19. See how he'll take that.

LOL, yeah, punish the "shareholders". This is why accountants are as useless as academic economists.

Who the fuck do you think the "shareholders" are? Ever miss the point in your accounting classes that almost 70% of all floated stocks are owned by institutional investors, pension, mutual, index, and other funds?

Ohh damn, yeah, you forgot that one, didn't you.

Did you also miss the class about proxy voting, how most people who own those pieces of stocks in those funds never see a voting statement because the fund manager takes care of it?


Yeah, lets really fuck those teachers who did such nefarious things in their pension funds.


Christ, if you wonder why we got into such a financial clusterfuck it's because statements like above. You really know nothing about the stock market, yet blather on about "punishing stockholders" for not managing the BoD.

You don't even know how a BoD is elected, yet you think people who "elect" them (those nefarious teachers who actively manage their pension), should be punished.

JFC, this country is full of dumb people.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes, wtf does Alan Greenspan (phD in econ) know? Do you really want a list of people who have advanced econ degrees that you claim know nothing about capital markets? Your broad generalizations are your weakness, might want to work on that. 😉

You're completely missing my post. I guess economics and finance aren't the only thing that go right over your head.
Your comment:
And what does an economist know of the capital markets? They aren't finance majors, nor do they work here.

My comment: Greenspan, an economist, knows more about capital markets and finance than you'll ever know.

Work on your debating skills, or don't make stupid fcking generalizations.

Again, you're still not getting it. Perhaps I'll draw a stick figure in paint for you.

I was making the same stupid comment you were, except for taking the opposite side, to point out how stupid the comment was (finance people don't know economics).

Greenspan may know more, but he didn't apply it all that well. I knew he was a fucking idiot back in 2003 for encouraging this asset bubble, yet he kept encouraging it.

Work on your logic and debating skills, and actual subject material knowledge before debating with me.
Nice recovery, especially when your now self admitted (lol) "stupid" comment was called out. FYI, nothing has changed: nobody is buying that your MBA degree makes you more qualified than 200 economists. Keep spinning your financial sector BS and maybe you'll get that raise in March. In the meantime, we'll take the advice of 200 economists, not someone afflicted with tunnel vision in conjunction with an extremely biased viewpoint.

I often take such an extreme point, the opposite of what a counter-poster makes, just to make a fool of them.

Your statement that finance people don't know economics is stupid, I made an equally as stupid opposite statement to highlight the fact that your point was stupid. I've taken many economics classes and I do a lot of economics modeling in my financial models.

Keep your layman bullshit out of my face, as you've got far less credibility than some idiot academic economist who doesn't even know how the debt markets do and do not work.

BTW, it was economists who pushed the government not to do anything in 1929. it was the economists who pushed deregulation in the last 10 years. It was the economists who pushed the "IT economy" in the late 90s. It was the economists who thought that this credit boom was great, and Greenspan was the one who led the charge.
My statement: So Finance qualifies you as an economist? /golfclap.

You: Your statement is that Finance people don't know economics.

Who's the fool again? Are you illiterate? I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself any more than you have. To reiterate: assumptions and generalizations (due to lack of reading comprehension) are your weakness. I gave you a /golfclap because obviously there is some overlap, but that still doesn't qualify you as an economist or hold your opinion over 200 economists. In addition, I don't know if any different than the mid 90's, but the Finance major was for the people too stupid to do Accounting.
 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: 43st
After yesterdays bailout media blitzkrieg, it's nice to see the other side of the story. It seems like Wall street is a bit of a drug problem and needs hyper-lending and credit to maintain it's habit. Just like regular people, maybe it's okay to budget for a large expense, and not rely on credit all the time.

Link
Despite warnings of disastrous consequences, the House of Representatives failed to pass the $700 billion Wall Street bailout Monday. But on Tuesday, the sun came up; people still got up and went to work; they could still go to the ATM and get money. The economic world hasn't ended, at least not yet.

Congress is still considering some form of government intervention in the troubled financial system. Dissenting experts think the economy just might be OK without a bailout at all.

That's hardly the view on Capitol Hill. After the House voted down the bill, lawmakers emerged looking shell-shocked. Rep. Barney Frank stood before the cameras and tried to make sense of it all. Frank said he had been convinced by everyone he'd talked to, including the heads of the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that the nation faced a shutdown of its credit system.

"Maybe that's wrong," Frank told reporters. "Clearly a large number of members of the House don't believe that. Some said there was no great crisis. If in fact that turns out to be the case, I very cheerfully will admit error and take the rest of the year off."

Since the Bush administration proposed the bailout this month, more than 200 economists have signed a petition opposing it.

Narayana Kocherlakota, of the University of Minnesota, calls the White House's case an unconvincing one. "I think one of the reasons why so many people were signing that is the administration has not brought forward the information that would be compelling, that yes, we are facing economic Armageddon," Kocherlakota says.

The argument that economic Armageddon could happen goes like this: With billions of bad assets on Wall Street, so many banks could go under that lending actually stops. Meanwhile, solvent bankers could become so frightened that they either lend only a limited basis at steep rates ? or stop lending altogether.

John Cochrane, a University of Chicago professor who helped organize the petition drive, says it's true that credit is harder to get. If you want a loan, you'll face higher interest rates. Cochrane says the economy is sick, but the patient is up and walking around.

"We have an unprecedented seizing up for credit markets and, as yet, no depression," he argues. "No recession." Cochrane points to the relatively steady gross domestic product figures and astronomical rates of unemployment during the Great Depression. The United States is nowhere near having 1 in 4 adults out of work, he says. Instead, the gloom and doom he's hearing sound more like a typical recession.

Look at the failure last week of Washington Mutual, Cochrane says. That was the largest federal bank failure in history. JPMorgan Chase bought the bank, and business continued.

"I still don't see what is coming over the horizon that is so absolutely awful," he says. He acknowledges suffering among ordinary consumers and Wall Street financiers alike, but he says some of it is unavoidable.

Meanwhile, the credit market is growing even tighter. Ira Jersey, of Credit Suisse, studies interest rates all day. He cites the Caterpillar manufacturing company as one example. Until a few weeks ago, Caterpillar was able to borrow money through issuing bonds with an interest rate of about 5.5 percent. Last week, the company issued more bonds ? for a full point higher.

"I would argue that spigot is slowly being turned off," Jersey says, "and has been over the last year."

The question now may be how much the credit markets will dry up, and how long they'll stay that way.

The skeptics aren't advocating that Congress do nothing. Cochrane says the government should help, by taking steps like making it easier for banks to borrow money from the Federal Reserve. But he calls the bailout bill the "nuclear option."

It's like we have a boating outing," he says, "and some of the boats are sinking. So somebody says, 'I got an idea. Let's blow up the dam and drain the lake.' OK, that will keep all the boats from sinking ? not just the three that are in trouble." In other words, Cochrane says the bailout is a broad fix for a narrow problem.

The problem for ordinary Americans is that they have no way of knowing for sure who's right.
I would say the 200 economists, who don't have a bias like Paulson, are right in their assertion that the problem = more narrow and he is wrong for pushing for an overarching solution that grants extraordinary power to the Treasury. I would also say that 200 economists > than the financial sector fcktards that frequent this forum and are screaming doom and gloom. But what do economists know, they only have advanced degrees on the topic, right?

the entire economics faculty at my school support the bailout. Except the crazy brazilian.

Originally posted by: Thump553
As a former economics student, I'm well aware of the concept that you can find an economist to vehemently argue just about any feasible position. The only exception to this rule was McCain's foolish idea for a gas tax suspension earlier this year.

That said, I find the argument presented here about as persuasive as the following analogy: an airplane runs out of fuel at 45,000 feet. Five minutes later it has glided down to 15,000. The economist looks out the window, says we are still way up in the air, nothing bad has happened yet, everything must be fine.

nail/head. Thats exactly what our UofM professor with the crazy name in the OP just said.

Using employment and gdp figures to argue that economy is fine is pretty stupid, seeing as both are lagging indicators.
 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes, wtf does Alan Greenspan (phD in econ) know? Do you really want a list of people who have advanced econ degrees that you claim know nothing about capital markets? Your broad generalizations are your weakness, might want to work on that. 😉

You're completely missing my post. I guess economics and finance aren't the only thing that go right over your head.
Your comment:
And what does an economist know of the capital markets? They aren't finance majors, nor do they work here.

My comment: Greenspan, an economist, knows more about capital markets and finance than you'll ever know.

Work on your debating skills, or don't make stupid fcking generalizations.

Again, you're still not getting it. Perhaps I'll draw a stick figure in paint for you.

I was making the same stupid comment you were, except for taking the opposite side, to point out how stupid the comment was (finance people don't know economics).

Greenspan may know more, but he didn't apply it all that well. I knew he was a fucking idiot back in 2003 for encouraging this asset bubble, yet he kept encouraging it.

Work on your logic and debating skills, and actual subject material knowledge before debating with me.
Nice recovery, especially when your now self admitted (lol) "stupid" comment was called out. FYI, nothing has changed: nobody is buying that your MBA degree makes you more qualified than 200 economists. Keep spinning your financial sector BS and maybe you'll get that raise in March. In the meantime, we'll take the advice of 200 economists, not someone afflicted with tunnel vision in conjunction with an extremely biased viewpoint.

I often take such an extreme point, the opposite of what a counter-poster makes, just to make a fool of them.

Your statement that finance people don't know economics is stupid, I made an equally as stupid opposite statement to highlight the fact that your point was stupid. I've taken many economics classes and I do a lot of economics modeling in my financial models.

Keep your layman bullshit out of my face, as you've got far less credibility than some idiot academic economist who doesn't even know how the debt markets do and do not work.

BTW, it was economists who pushed the government not to do anything in 1929. it was the economists who pushed deregulation in the last 10 years. It was the economists who pushed the "IT economy" in the late 90s. It was the economists who thought that this credit boom was great, and Greenspan was the one who led the charge.
My statement: So Finance qualifies you as an economist? /golfclap.

You: Your statement is that Finance people don't know economics.

Who's the fool again? Are you illiterate? I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself any more than you have. To reiterate: assumptions and generalizations (due to lack of reading comprehension) are your weakness. I gave you a /golfclap because obviously there is some overlap, but that still doesn't qualify you as an economist or hold your opinion over 200 economists. In addition, I don't know if any different than the mid 90's, but the Finance major was for the people too stupid to do Accounting.

Ohhh gawd, I didn't know what you meant by "/golfclap". I suck at golf.

Premise still applies.

Actually, finance people are certainly the more intelligent ones. I read through a couple CPA books and found them braindead. The CPA is for people who can't do the CFA.

 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

MBA: Finance. CFA Charterholder. Soon to be Columbia MSF student.

Work at a top 10 i-bank.

Is it still a bank?

We were at our bank yesterday and they have stopped lending any loans.

I said that they are no longer a bank then.
 
legendkiller

You excel at putting words into peoples' mouths and then showing what you claimed they said is wrong.

1st - my background and education is accounting, but I have been a CFO for a while now, including a CFO of a public comany and I'm on the board of another public company (both decent sized 1B plus in revenue manufacturing companies). I have been accessing the public markets for years and have had inventment banks calling on me for a long time. Just so you know, i have consistently rejected the exotic instruments that they have presented to me, all my deals were as plain vanilla as they could be as I do understand what loading derivitives into a deal does. Some I have more than a layman's knowedge of how Wall Street works, but I certainly have not worked on a desk in my career.

2nd - What the fuck is the point you're trying to make about the way BoDs are supposed to do? So what if institutions control 70%+ of the stock? Of course I know that, that was the case for me as well. It actually is worse that professional money managers with analysts following the companies and with direct access to management still let this happen. And, yes, I know many of those institutions rely on a few consulting companies to tell them how to vote. Again, that is even worse. So what point are you trying to make there, oh great one?

Like I said, it is one thing when you try and throw your credentials and experience around against people that have zero or next to zero. However, you're not the only person that posts here with experience and you're is not any better than people whose experience you dismiss.

You are very narrow-minded in your arguements, use too much hyperbole, and are obviously (as anyone would) trying to protect your interests.

Michael
 
Originally posted by: Michael
legendkiller

You excel at putting words into peoples' mouths and then showing what you claimed they said is wrong.

Like I said, it is one thing when you try and throw your credentials and experience around against people that have zero or next to zero. However, you're not the only person that posts here with experience and you're is not any better than people whose experience you dismiss.

You are very narrow-minded in your arguements, use too much hyperbole, and are obviously (as anyone would) trying to protect your interests.

:shocked:

😀
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller


LOL, yeah, punish the "shareholders". This is why accountants are as useless as academic economists.

Who the fuck do you think the "shareholders" are? Ever miss the point in your accounting classes that almost 70% of all floated stocks are owned by institutional investors, pension, mutual, index, and other funds?

I have an aggressive "Exotic" Fund (in 401K format) that gained more than 100% per year for 03, 04, 05, 06 without any in-put.

I agree that I should not be punished, and that tax-payers should bail me out. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Michael
legendkiller

You excel at putting words into peoples' mouths and then showing what you claimed they said is wrong.

1st - my background and education is accounting, but I have been a CFO for a while now, including a CFO of a public comany and I'm on the board of another public company (both decent sized 1B plus in revenue manufacturing companies). I have been accessing the public markets for years and have had inventment banks calling on me for a long time. Just so you know, i have consistently rejected the exotic instruments that they have presented to me, all my deals were as plain vanilla as they could be as I do understand what loading derivitives into a deal does. Some I have more than a layman's knowedge of how Wall Street works, but I certainly have not worked on a desk in my career.

Even by your paragraph above I doubt you're a CFO. I'll leave it to you to guess why.

Ohh gawd, you've worked at a company with $1BN in annual revenues. That isn't even half of the largest securitization deal I have run. Your numbers matter little.

Great, you rejected the irrational size to WS, you're to be commended.
2nd - What the fuck is the point you're trying to make about the way BoDs are supposed to do? So what if institutions control 70%+ of the stock? Of course I know that, that was the case for me as well. It actually is worse that professional money managers with analysts following the companies and with direct access to management still let this happen. And, yes, I know many of those institutions rely on a few consulting companies to tell them how to vote. Again, that is even worse. So what point are you trying to make there, oh great one?

So, you're more than willing to punish "stockholders" who have no control over the investment, can't elect the BoD directly, and have no active control in the company at all? Brilliant!

Like I said, it is one thing when you try and throw your credentials and experience around against people that have zero or next to zero. However, you're not the only person that posts here with experience and you're is not any better than people whose experience you dismiss.

You are very narrow-minded in your arguements, use too much hyperbole, and are obviously (as anyone would) trying to protect your interests.

Michael


Your "experience" is questionable. Your conclusion (punish the stockholders!) is not only stupid, but ill-thought and marginally rationalized. I may use hyperbole, but I'd rather use that than utter stupidity.
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. 200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

It's like trusting a blind person to tell you if they see a fire 10 miles away. They can't feel it, or smell it, and it *WILL* get close to them. However, by the time it does, it'll be too big to stop easily.

So, you think 200 economists don't pay attention to the capital markets? What do you think economists in a capitalist society pay attention to? Porn? The latest motherboards?

Give me a break.

Stieglitz and Samuelson both oppose this. So do many other top notch economists.

Why don't you address the issues raised by the OP's post? What are the signs of impending doom that spell bailout? The American people haven't been told by Paulson or anyone else. Wall Street whines and the paid off politicians of both parties give them money. What is NOT new about this? We did the same thing with Chrysler, but Chrysler is now failing anyway. We should have let Chrysler die says George Will in a column today. Read it.

-Robert
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Michael
legendkiller

You excel at putting words into peoples' mouths and then showing what you claimed they said is wrong.

1st - my background and education is accounting, but I have been a CFO for a while now, including a CFO of a public comany and I'm on the board of another public company (both decent sized 1B plus in revenue manufacturing companies). I have been accessing the public markets for years and have had inventment banks calling on me for a long time. Just so you know, i have consistently rejected the exotic instruments that they have presented to me, all my deals were as plain vanilla as they could be as I do understand what loading derivitives into a deal does. Some I have more than a layman's knowedge of how Wall Street works, but I certainly have not worked on a desk in my career.

Even by your paragraph above I doubt you're a CFO. I'll leave it to you to guess why.

Ohh gawd, you've worked at a company with $1BN in annual revenues. That isn't even half of the largest securitization deal I have run. Your numbers matter little.

Great, you rejected the irrational size to WS, you're to be commended.
2nd - What the fuck is the point you're trying to make about the way BoDs are supposed to do? So what if institutions control 70%+ of the stock? Of course I know that, that was the case for me as well. It actually is worse that professional money managers with analysts following the companies and with direct access to management still let this happen. And, yes, I know many of those institutions rely on a few consulting companies to tell them how to vote. Again, that is even worse. So what point are you trying to make there, oh great one?

So, you're more than willing to punish "stockholders" who have no control over the investment, can't elect the BoD directly, and have no active control in the company at all? Brilliant!

Like I said, it is one thing when you try and throw your credentials and experience around against people that have zero or next to zero. However, you're not the only person that posts here with experience and you're is not any better than people whose experience you dismiss.

You are very narrow-minded in your arguements, use too much hyperbole, and are obviously (as anyone would) trying to protect your interests.

Michael


Your "experience" is questionable. Your conclusion (punish the stockholders!) is not only stupid, but ill-thought and marginally rationalized. I may use hyperbole, but I'd rather use that than utter stupidity.

You don't have an argument to make. You have a table to pound on. Let's see the facts. Quit pounding on the table and pushing your chest out like some pencil necked geek who thinks he has pecs.

-Robert
 
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
LOL. 200 academics who have no real ties to the capital markets and no insight, saying nothing is wrong.

It's like trusting a blind person to tell you if they see a fire 10 miles away. They can't feel it, or smell it, and it *WILL* get close to them. However, by the time it does, it'll be too big to stop easily.

If 200 economists oppose the plan, does that mean the rest of the economists of the world support it? There has to be at least tens of thousands.

I would like to see the portfolios of these economists. I wonder if they are all short the market.

My friend who's in structured finance was telling me last year his boss was shorting Countrywide while he was peddling toxic mortgage assets.
 
Back
Top