Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
davelj
Participant[quote=gandalf]Bankers somehow ‘not responsible’ for a banking meltdown?[/quote]
Did someone say that somehow bankers were not responsible for the banking meltdown? Where did you read that?
What I said – if you’re referring to my comments – was that it’s difficult to assign individual bankers with blame – outside of the obvious villians – due to the complicated nature of the task. That’s a world apart from suggesting that they’re “not responsible.” They’re responsible, alright. It’s just very difficult to pin that responsibility down at the individual level outside of fairly obvious cases, which are the exception rather than the rule.
[quote=gandalf]
More important question:Are owners, managers and employees of corporations so completely shielded from liability as to be ‘Not Responsible’ for the conduct of their firms?
[/quote]Technically, senior officers and directors of banks are “personally and severally liable” for losses to the FDIC if their bank fails. The problem, of course, is that the FDIC has to prove criminal negligence, which is a difficult standard to prove. Having said that, during the S&L/banking crisis of the late-80s-early-90s, the FDIC sued officers and directors of 26% of the banks that failed. I think we’re going to see a LOT of law suits this time around as well. (The FDIC is just getting geared up for these suits right now.) The problem is that most of these folks who aren’t working at the top-20 banks – who TPTB won’t allow to fail – don’t have nearly enough net worth to plug the holes they’ve created. Not even close. But as a director of two banks, I’m quite aware that my net worth is on the line if something goes wrong. D&O insurance helps out a bit in this regard, but if a bank fails, the losses tend to dwarf the D&O amount by many multiples.
Participant[quote=gandalf]Bankers somehow ‘not responsible’ for a banking meltdown?[/quote]
Did someone say that somehow bankers were not responsible for the banking meltdown? Where did you read that?
What I said – if you’re referring to my comments – was that it’s difficult to assign individual bankers with blame – outside of the obvious villians – due to the complicated nature of the task. That’s a world apart from suggesting that they’re “not responsible.” They’re responsible, alright. It’s just very difficult to pin that responsibility down at the individual level outside of fairly obvious cases, which are the exception rather than the rule.
[quote=gandalf]
More important question:Are owners, managers and employees of corporations so completely shielded from liability as to be ‘Not Responsible’ for the conduct of their firms?
[/quote]Technically, senior officers and directors of banks are “personally and severally liable” for losses to the FDIC if their bank fails. The problem, of course, is that the FDIC has to prove criminal negligence, which is a difficult standard to prove. Having said that, during the S&L/banking crisis of the late-80s-early-90s, the FDIC sued officers and directors of 26% of the banks that failed. I think we’re going to see a LOT of law suits this time around as well. (The FDIC is just getting geared up for these suits right now.) The problem is that most of these folks who aren’t working at the top-20 banks – who TPTB won’t allow to fail – don’t have nearly enough net worth to plug the holes they’ve created. Not even close. But as a director of two banks, I’m quite aware that my net worth is on the line if something goes wrong. D&O insurance helps out a bit in this regard, but if a bank fails, the losses tend to dwarf the D&O amount by many multiples.
Participant[quote=gandalf]Bankers somehow ‘not responsible’ for a banking meltdown?[/quote]
Did someone say that somehow bankers were not responsible for the banking meltdown? Where did you read that?
What I said – if you’re referring to my comments – was that it’s difficult to assign individual bankers with blame – outside of the obvious villians – due to the complicated nature of the task. That’s a world apart from suggesting that they’re “not responsible.” They’re responsible, alright. It’s just very difficult to pin that responsibility down at the individual level outside of fairly obvious cases, which are the exception rather than the rule.
[quote=gandalf]
More important question:Are owners, managers and employees of corporations so completely shielded from liability as to be ‘Not Responsible’ for the conduct of their firms?
[/quote]Technically, senior officers and directors of banks are “personally and severally liable” for losses to the FDIC if their bank fails. The problem, of course, is that the FDIC has to prove criminal negligence, which is a difficult standard to prove. Having said that, during the S&L/banking crisis of the late-80s-early-90s, the FDIC sued officers and directors of 26% of the banks that failed. I think we’re going to see a LOT of law suits this time around as well. (The FDIC is just getting geared up for these suits right now.) The problem is that most of these folks who aren’t working at the top-20 banks – who TPTB won’t allow to fail – don’t have nearly enough net worth to plug the holes they’ve created. Not even close. But as a director of two banks, I’m quite aware that my net worth is on the line if something goes wrong. D&O insurance helps out a bit in this regard, but if a bank fails, the losses tend to dwarf the D&O amount by many multiples.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, John Paulson entered late in the game, and was NOT the cause of any “crisis.” He saw that the crisis was coming, and looked for a way to make the most money from it. Not saying that what he did was ethical, just that the danger of things blowing up already existed before he entered his trades. I think he’s a scapegoat for those who won’t confess to the real problems…just like Lehman’s failure is being credited with “triggering the crisis.” Um, no. Lehman’s failure was a **RESULT** of the crisis. The crisis was happening between 2001-2007 (or thereabouts), when securities that were sure to blow up were being created and sold as “a way to spread risk around.” Yeah, it spread risk around alright…all around the globe, and it affected almost every single financial institution.[/quote]I agree with you re: Lehman. But I’ve not argued otherwise.
Regarding Paulson/Magnetar/Et al… I did not say they “caused” the crisis. I said they “helped” to manufacture the crisis. That is, they exacerbated the crisis through their actions. Without Paulson/Magnetar, many billions of mortgages would not have been underwritten toward the tail end of the bubble. They exploited a flaw in the analytics of the ratings agencies and cherry-picked the shittiest of loans for their long vehicle, where they were betting only 10 cents, so that they could short that very vehicle via CDSs and earn $1. They created a flawed, leveraged long investment destined to fail so that they could short it and earn back the loss 10x over. Now, should the other investors and ratings agencies caught on to this silliness? Of course. And on a small level one might view something like this as innocuous gamesmanship. But when many billions of mortgages are involved, it’s just plain wrong, in my view. Again, no one’s blaming Paulson/Magnetar/Et al alone for the crisis. But not to see that they played a significant role in exacerbating the bubble when it could very well have started winding down (with less damage) otherwise is to either not understand what they were doing or to be naive in the extreme.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, John Paulson entered late in the game, and was NOT the cause of any “crisis.” He saw that the crisis was coming, and looked for a way to make the most money from it. Not saying that what he did was ethical, just that the danger of things blowing up already existed before he entered his trades. I think he’s a scapegoat for those who won’t confess to the real problems…just like Lehman’s failure is being credited with “triggering the crisis.” Um, no. Lehman’s failure was a **RESULT** of the crisis. The crisis was happening between 2001-2007 (or thereabouts), when securities that were sure to blow up were being created and sold as “a way to spread risk around.” Yeah, it spread risk around alright…all around the globe, and it affected almost every single financial institution.[/quote]I agree with you re: Lehman. But I’ve not argued otherwise.
Regarding Paulson/Magnetar/Et al… I did not say they “caused” the crisis. I said they “helped” to manufacture the crisis. That is, they exacerbated the crisis through their actions. Without Paulson/Magnetar, many billions of mortgages would not have been underwritten toward the tail end of the bubble. They exploited a flaw in the analytics of the ratings agencies and cherry-picked the shittiest of loans for their long vehicle, where they were betting only 10 cents, so that they could short that very vehicle via CDSs and earn $1. They created a flawed, leveraged long investment destined to fail so that they could short it and earn back the loss 10x over. Now, should the other investors and ratings agencies caught on to this silliness? Of course. And on a small level one might view something like this as innocuous gamesmanship. But when many billions of mortgages are involved, it’s just plain wrong, in my view. Again, no one’s blaming Paulson/Magnetar/Et al alone for the crisis. But not to see that they played a significant role in exacerbating the bubble when it could very well have started winding down (with less damage) otherwise is to either not understand what they were doing or to be naive in the extreme.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, John Paulson entered late in the game, and was NOT the cause of any “crisis.” He saw that the crisis was coming, and looked for a way to make the most money from it. Not saying that what he did was ethical, just that the danger of things blowing up already existed before he entered his trades. I think he’s a scapegoat for those who won’t confess to the real problems…just like Lehman’s failure is being credited with “triggering the crisis.” Um, no. Lehman’s failure was a **RESULT** of the crisis. The crisis was happening between 2001-2007 (or thereabouts), when securities that were sure to blow up were being created and sold as “a way to spread risk around.” Yeah, it spread risk around alright…all around the globe, and it affected almost every single financial institution.[/quote]I agree with you re: Lehman. But I’ve not argued otherwise.
Regarding Paulson/Magnetar/Et al… I did not say they “caused” the crisis. I said they “helped” to manufacture the crisis. That is, they exacerbated the crisis through their actions. Without Paulson/Magnetar, many billions of mortgages would not have been underwritten toward the tail end of the bubble. They exploited a flaw in the analytics of the ratings agencies and cherry-picked the shittiest of loans for their long vehicle, where they were betting only 10 cents, so that they could short that very vehicle via CDSs and earn $1. They created a flawed, leveraged long investment destined to fail so that they could short it and earn back the loss 10x over. Now, should the other investors and ratings agencies caught on to this silliness? Of course. And on a small level one might view something like this as innocuous gamesmanship. But when many billions of mortgages are involved, it’s just plain wrong, in my view. Again, no one’s blaming Paulson/Magnetar/Et al alone for the crisis. But not to see that they played a significant role in exacerbating the bubble when it could very well have started winding down (with less damage) otherwise is to either not understand what they were doing or to be naive in the extreme.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, John Paulson entered late in the game, and was NOT the cause of any “crisis.” He saw that the crisis was coming, and looked for a way to make the most money from it. Not saying that what he did was ethical, just that the danger of things blowing up already existed before he entered his trades. I think he’s a scapegoat for those who won’t confess to the real problems…just like Lehman’s failure is being credited with “triggering the crisis.” Um, no. Lehman’s failure was a **RESULT** of the crisis. The crisis was happening between 2001-2007 (or thereabouts), when securities that were sure to blow up were being created and sold as “a way to spread risk around.” Yeah, it spread risk around alright…all around the globe, and it affected almost every single financial institution.[/quote]I agree with you re: Lehman. But I’ve not argued otherwise.
Regarding Paulson/Magnetar/Et al… I did not say they “caused” the crisis. I said they “helped” to manufacture the crisis. That is, they exacerbated the crisis through their actions. Without Paulson/Magnetar, many billions of mortgages would not have been underwritten toward the tail end of the bubble. They exploited a flaw in the analytics of the ratings agencies and cherry-picked the shittiest of loans for their long vehicle, where they were betting only 10 cents, so that they could short that very vehicle via CDSs and earn $1. They created a flawed, leveraged long investment destined to fail so that they could short it and earn back the loss 10x over. Now, should the other investors and ratings agencies caught on to this silliness? Of course. And on a small level one might view something like this as innocuous gamesmanship. But when many billions of mortgages are involved, it’s just plain wrong, in my view. Again, no one’s blaming Paulson/Magnetar/Et al alone for the crisis. But not to see that they played a significant role in exacerbating the bubble when it could very well have started winding down (with less damage) otherwise is to either not understand what they were doing or to be naive in the extreme.
Participant[quote=CA renter]
IMHO, John Paulson entered late in the game, and was NOT the cause of any “crisis.” He saw that the crisis was coming, and looked for a way to make the most money from it. Not saying that what he did was ethical, just that the danger of things blowing up already existed before he entered his trades. I think he’s a scapegoat for those who won’t confess to the real problems…just like Lehman’s failure is being credited with “triggering the crisis.” Um, no. Lehman’s failure was a **RESULT** of the crisis. The crisis was happening between 2001-2007 (or thereabouts), when securities that were sure to blow up were being created and sold as “a way to spread risk around.” Yeah, it spread risk around alright…all around the globe, and it affected almost every single financial institution.[/quote]I agree with you re: Lehman. But I’ve not argued otherwise.
Regarding Paulson/Magnetar/Et al… I did not say they “caused” the crisis. I said they “helped” to manufacture the crisis. That is, they exacerbated the crisis through their actions. Without Paulson/Magnetar, many billions of mortgages would not have been underwritten toward the tail end of the bubble. They exploited a flaw in the analytics of the ratings agencies and cherry-picked the shittiest of loans for their long vehicle, where they were betting only 10 cents, so that they could short that very vehicle via CDSs and earn $1. They created a flawed, leveraged long investment destined to fail so that they could short it and earn back the loss 10x over. Now, should the other investors and ratings agencies caught on to this silliness? Of course. And on a small level one might view something like this as innocuous gamesmanship. But when many billions of mortgages are involved, it’s just plain wrong, in my view. Again, no one’s blaming Paulson/Magnetar/Et al alone for the crisis. But not to see that they played a significant role in exacerbating the bubble when it could very well have started winding down (with less damage) otherwise is to either not understand what they were doing or to be naive in the extreme.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Just curious, how many of you would be willing to take a 20% cut in your pay? And how many of you risk your lives in your job?[/quote]
Personally, I’d take a 20% cut in pay if I had to. Thankfully I don’t have to. But if I had to, I’d take it. Pretty simple.
As to risking one’s life while working, let’s go to the tape… In the last decade, here are the stats: There are an average of about 750,000 police officers employed in the U.S. at any given time and an average of 160 police officers annually have died while on duty. That’s about 2 out of every 10,000 on an annualized basis.
There are almost 800,000 fire fighters in the U.S. Average annual fatalities in the line of duty have averaged about 115 over the last decade (albeit, excluding 9/11). That’s about 1.5 out of every 10,000 on an annualized basis. (Interestingly, 86% of the fire departments in the U.S. are either all or partially manned by volunteers. 70% are all-volunteer departments and 73% of all fire fighters are volunteers.)
Given that the average person driving the average amount has a 1 in 100 chance of dying in a car accident in their lifetimes, I would bet that traveling salespeople – who obviously travel a lot more than the average person – have a similar (or perhaps even higher) incidence of work-related fatality relative to firefighters and police officers.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Just curious, how many of you would be willing to take a 20% cut in your pay? And how many of you risk your lives in your job?[/quote]
Personally, I’d take a 20% cut in pay if I had to. Thankfully I don’t have to. But if I had to, I’d take it. Pretty simple.
As to risking one’s life while working, let’s go to the tape… In the last decade, here are the stats: There are an average of about 750,000 police officers employed in the U.S. at any given time and an average of 160 police officers annually have died while on duty. That’s about 2 out of every 10,000 on an annualized basis.
There are almost 800,000 fire fighters in the U.S. Average annual fatalities in the line of duty have averaged about 115 over the last decade (albeit, excluding 9/11). That’s about 1.5 out of every 10,000 on an annualized basis. (Interestingly, 86% of the fire departments in the U.S. are either all or partially manned by volunteers. 70% are all-volunteer departments and 73% of all fire fighters are volunteers.)
Given that the average person driving the average amount has a 1 in 100 chance of dying in a car accident in their lifetimes, I would bet that traveling salespeople – who obviously travel a lot more than the average person – have a similar (or perhaps even higher) incidence of work-related fatality relative to firefighters and police officers.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Just curious, how many of you would be willing to take a 20% cut in your pay? And how many of you risk your lives in your job?[/quote]
Personally, I’d take a 20% cut in pay if I had to. Thankfully I don’t have to. But if I had to, I’d take it. Pretty simple.
As to risking one’s life while working, let’s go to the tape… In the last decade, here are the stats: There are an average of about 750,000 police officers employed in the U.S. at any given time and an average of 160 police officers annually have died while on duty. That’s about 2 out of every 10,000 on an annualized basis.
There are almost 800,000 fire fighters in the U.S. Average annual fatalities in the line of duty have averaged about 115 over the last decade (albeit, excluding 9/11). That’s about 1.5 out of every 10,000 on an annualized basis. (Interestingly, 86% of the fire departments in the U.S. are either all or partially manned by volunteers. 70% are all-volunteer departments and 73% of all fire fighters are volunteers.)
Given that the average person driving the average amount has a 1 in 100 chance of dying in a car accident in their lifetimes, I would bet that traveling salespeople – who obviously travel a lot more than the average person – have a similar (or perhaps even higher) incidence of work-related fatality relative to firefighters and police officers.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Just curious, how many of you would be willing to take a 20% cut in your pay? And how many of you risk your lives in your job?[/quote]
Personally, I’d take a 20% cut in pay if I had to. Thankfully I don’t have to. But if I had to, I’d take it. Pretty simple.
As to risking one’s life while working, let’s go to the tape… In the last decade, here are the stats: There are an average of about 750,000 police officers employed in the U.S. at any given time and an average of 160 police officers annually have died while on duty. That’s about 2 out of every 10,000 on an annualized basis.
There are almost 800,000 fire fighters in the U.S. Average annual fatalities in the line of duty have averaged about 115 over the last decade (albeit, excluding 9/11). That’s about 1.5 out of every 10,000 on an annualized basis. (Interestingly, 86% of the fire departments in the U.S. are either all or partially manned by volunteers. 70% are all-volunteer departments and 73% of all fire fighters are volunteers.)
Given that the average person driving the average amount has a 1 in 100 chance of dying in a car accident in their lifetimes, I would bet that traveling salespeople – who obviously travel a lot more than the average person – have a similar (or perhaps even higher) incidence of work-related fatality relative to firefighters and police officers.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]Just curious, how many of you would be willing to take a 20% cut in your pay? And how many of you risk your lives in your job?[/quote]
Personally, I’d take a 20% cut in pay if I had to. Thankfully I don’t have to. But if I had to, I’d take it. Pretty simple.
As to risking one’s life while working, let’s go to the tape… In the last decade, here are the stats: There are an average of about 750,000 police officers employed in the U.S. at any given time and an average of 160 police officers annually have died while on duty. That’s about 2 out of every 10,000 on an annualized basis.
There are almost 800,000 fire fighters in the U.S. Average annual fatalities in the line of duty have averaged about 115 over the last decade (albeit, excluding 9/11). That’s about 1.5 out of every 10,000 on an annualized basis. (Interestingly, 86% of the fire departments in the U.S. are either all or partially manned by volunteers. 70% are all-volunteer departments and 73% of all fire fighters are volunteers.)
Given that the average person driving the average amount has a 1 in 100 chance of dying in a car accident in their lifetimes, I would bet that traveling salespeople – who obviously travel a lot more than the average person – have a similar (or perhaps even higher) incidence of work-related fatality relative to firefighters and police officers.
Participant[quote=mike92104]I voted yes on 19.[/quote]
I read somewhere recently that something like 60% of Californians under the age of 60 are in favor of Prop 19 and once you get over the age of 60 it flips the other way proportionally. Which is pretty predictable. But, what it suggests is that even if Prop 19 fails this time around, eventually legislation like this is going to pass in a whole bunch of states. As today’s geezers die off, the voting block in favor of measures like Prop 19 is going to grow in percentage terms. I bet within 25 years a large number of states will have legalized marijuana. The demographics are too powerful.
-
AuthorPosts
