Obama has officially lost it

[lazyj10]

Originally Posted by HOVKid

Originally Posted by cguy610

^ Might as well post random stuff in here. It's obvious the people who commented so far don't know the difference between banks, private equity funds, and hedge funds.

Bro, I am the General Counsel of a multi-billion dollar private equity fund. Don't talk to me about not knowing what this means.

YOU sir, have no idea what something like this could mean. Bsically, Obama decided that banks shouldn't invest in certain things because he deems them too risky. %$@ is the president of the US making determinations as to what is "too risky" for banks to invest in? The fund I work for has NEVER lost money for its investors, some of whom are the large banks noted in the article.

The way I read it is, they're not even entirely sure how this would affect the Private Equity funds Banks Operate unless they invest direct.Entities like Citi & Goldman have used this as a way to "advertise" to clients by showing their interests are alligned. Other Banks run PrivateEquity Funds (JP Morgan) without directly investing but still have a controlled interest. On the flip side these banks won't be able to "run andoperate Hedge Funds".

I think the turning point was when the last of the Investment Banks turned "Banks" and had access to direct Fed Funds and then started really hitting their own trading accounts.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by HOVKid

Originally Posted by cguy610

^ Might as well post random stuff in here. It's obvious the people who commented so far don't know the difference between banks, private equity funds, and hedge funds.

Bro, I am the General Counsel of a multi-billion dollar private equity fund. Don't talk to me about not knowing what this means.

YOU sir, have no idea what something like this could mean. Bsically, Obama decided that banks shouldn't invest in certain things because he deems them too risky. %$@ is the president of the US making determinations as to what is "too risky" for banks to invest in? The fund I work for has NEVER lost money for its investors, some of whom are the large banks noted in the article.

That's all and good and some places made great risks so it would seem unfair to punish them, but the deregulation, and exorbitant risk thatfailed is largely the reason everything fell.. Now you say let them fail then, that would make sense if it was Joe's Painting Business on Main St. butthese are financial banks that have a grip of the financial outlook for this country and many more. So the best way to do it is to regulate them, and at somepoint break them apart, so when these companies do collapse it won't destroy economies..

But what would you suggest we do? Nothing.. Because the financial banks were in good shape, and these types of practices are not what made them fall apart? Andgovernment deregulation didn't allow this to happen?

So your answer is to not regulate, not pay attention to them, and not go after them for the mess they made?

 

[finnns2003]

Originally Posted by LetItShine24

market dropped 200 points today, thanks mr obama, there goes my apple shares

Down 1.79% right now, calm down.

 

[nicedudewithnicedreams]

Obviously, if there is too little regulation, bad things can happen. But at the same time, if there is too much regulation, it prevents a lot of good things($$$) from happening too. Traditionally, our society has liked taking the risks and gaining the rewards. However, most people never think about the potentialtragedies until it happens. Can we find a middle ground and more importantly, is it right to to establish one in the first place?

 

[spsfinest212]

Originally Posted by finnns2003

Originally Posted by LetItShine24

market dropped 200 points today, thanks mr obama, there goes my apple shares

Down 1.79% right now, calm down.

And the over-sized iPhone is coming out in a a few days

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by nicedudewithnicedreams

Obviously, if there is too little regulation, bad things can happen. But at the same time, if there is too much regulation, it prevents a lot of good things ($$$) from happening too. Traditionally, our society has liked taking the risks and gaining the rewards. However, most people never think about the potential tragedies until it happens. Can we find a middle ground and more importantly, is it right to to establish one in the first place?

I'm not against risk.. I'm against dumb risks which is what banks did for the past decade at every turn.. I say we go back to what the regulation wasaround 1996-1997 and we will be fine.. Until some @*$%$@! who knows nothing, deregulates as much as possible because he has no concept of foresight.

 

[letitshine24]

Originally Posted by finnns2003

Originally Posted by LetItShine24

market dropped 200 points today, thanks mr obama, there goes my apple shares

Down 1.79% right now, calm down.

Yeah and it dropped another 200 points today. So whats there to calm down about

 

[nicedudewithnicedreams]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by nicedudewithnicedreams

Obviously, if there is too little regulation, bad things can happen. But at the same time, if there is too much regulation, it prevents a lot of good things ($$$) from happening too. Traditionally, our society has liked taking the risks and gaining the rewards. However, most people never think about the potential tragedies until it happens. Can we find a middle ground and more importantly, is it right to to establish one in the first place?

I'm not against risk.. I'm against dumb risks which is what banks did for the past decade at every turn.. I say we go back to what the regulation was around 1996-1997 and we will be fine.. Until some @*$%$@! who knows nothing, deregulates as much as possible because he has no concept of foresight.

^ Agreed.

At the same time I feel for HOVKid. His private equity firm will be affected negatively and assuming he is true that they have never lost money for theirinvestors, that isn't quite fair.

Sidebar for HOVKid, why the General Counsel at these firms gotta be so stressed and mean to us folks that are consulting your firm? Seriously, the GeneralCounsel at one San Francisco private equity firm was pissed that I requested information and letters about potential legal cases. Took her forever to respondtoo...Oh wells, more billing hours.

 

[j burner]

I've been saying for a year now that Obama doesn't have a damn clue, and I've gotten nothing but hate on NT for it. Seems the tables are turning,looks like people are finally waking the $*++ up. The man is a clown.

 

[lesfamilia]

Originally Posted by stateofsingularity

Originally Posted by NYVictory45

I don'thave a problem with it. I'll admit I don't know much about economics but it seems to me that as long as the government refuses to let these big companies fail and is using taxpayer dollars to save them, it might as well put some limitations on the amount of risk it can take. The government doesn't wanna have to bail them out every few years.

This is exactly what's wrong.

The Fedz should not be bailing out private businesses. Nor should they be restricting them.

I thought that was something we could all agree on. It doesn't take a genius to see that if our economy wasn't in its current state noneof these inane plans would get the green light.

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by HOVKid

Originally Posted by cguy610

^ Might as well post random stuff in here. It's obvious the people who commented so far don't know the difference between banks, private equity funds, and hedge funds.

Bro, I am the General Counsel of a multi-billion dollar private equity fund. Don't talk to me about not knowing what this means.

YOU sir, have no idea what something like this could mean. Bsically, Obama decided that banks shouldn't invest in certain things because he deems them too risky. %$@ is the president of the US making determinations as to what is "too risky" for banks to invest in? The fund I work for has NEVER lost money for its investors, some of whom are the large banks noted in the article.

My bad, I lumped you in with the rest of the Repubs that cry wolf at every chance they get. Articles and quotes don't even have to be real, and they startcrying like it's the end of the world.

I have a pretty good idea of what it would mean, it would mean going back to the way things were pre-2001(pre-Gramm Leach). Even then, I've heard that thenew regulation wouldn't be as strict as Glass Steagal.

I mean, the US still existed under Glass Steagal, right?

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by nicedudewithnicedreams

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by nicedudewithnicedreams

Obviously, if there is too little regulation, bad things can happen. But at the same time, if there is too much regulation, it prevents a lot of good things ($$$) from happening too. Traditionally, our society has liked taking the risks and gaining the rewards. However, most people never think about the potential tragedies until it happens. Can we find a middle ground and more importantly, is it right to to establish one in the first place?

I'm not against risk.. I'm against dumb risks which is what banks did for the past decade at every turn.. I say we go back to what the regulation was around 1996-1997 and we will be fine.. Until some @*$%$@! who knows nothing, deregulates as much as possible because he has no concept of foresight.

^ Agreed.

At the same time I feel for HOVKid. His private equity firm will be affected negatively and assuming he is true that they have never lost money for their investors, that isn't quite fair.

I said it in my post before.. Some people did make great risks and made money without messing up the economy.... But these same risks taken by thebanks killed the economy..

So if the people who did well end up being a little hindered by these new regulations, It sucks andfor once I do have some sympathy for HOVKid but So be it.. Don't blame Obama. Blame the banks... This is reactionary policy.

 

[nicedudewithnicedreams]

Originally Posted by J Burner

I've been saying for a year now that Obama doesn't have a damn clue, and I've gotten nothing but hate on NT for it. Seems the tables are turning, looks like people are finally waking the $*++ up. The man is a clown.

The irony...

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by nicedudewithnicedreams

Originally Posted by J Burner

I've been saying for a year now that Obama doesn't have a damn clue, and I've gotten nothing but hate on NT for it. Seems the tables are turning, looks like people are finally waking the $*++ up. The man is a clown.

The irony...

Don't worry about him, he doesn't realize that people especially on NT are turning on Obama because he is not "Changing" enough

 

[jinkazama]

I am struggling to see the downside of this...to those screaming "free market, the market will correct itself" no free market system is truly freethere are safeguards and regulations to prevent what's happening now. We let our free market system get too free and many of those safegaurds were removedand here we are.

About time Obama got tough with these clowns, he gave them EVERY chance to straighten up but they basically forced the prez's hand on this.

 

[brandon3000]

Originally Posted by poblack

Ok. And....

Wall street needs major reform.

 

[letsgetit22]

Originally Posted by LetItShine24

finnns2003 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by LetItShine24

market dropped 200 points today, thanks mr obama, there goes my apple shares

Down 1.79% right now, calm down.

Yeah and it dropped another 200 points today. So whats there to calm down about

where are the complaints on the days when the market goes up 200 points?

You have good days and bad days. Dudes be trying to find any and everything wrong when it comes to him.

 

[letitshine24]

^whats there to complain about? the market dropped almost 700 points since the start of the week. People are losing millions of dollars. Some people havecareers in the stock market. what about those people? and obama wants to put people back to work, and lower the cost of mortgages and all that bs. mr obamaneeds to step his game up, and im not just saying in the finance industry, thats just a small glitch which is not THAT important, but situation in Afghanistanwhich is worsening and putting america further in debt.

 

[layla]

Yeah, he inherited a lot of %*%%, more than he made.

 

[nycknicks105]

::sigh::

 

[dathbgboy]

Originally Posted by Layla

Yeah, he inherited a lot of %*%%, more than he made.

And instead of doin the +%+% he wants, he as to cater to cryin %*% GOP about policies so then it looks like he renigs

He need to start showin his spine and standin firm about +%+%.  I still wonder if McCain was doin all this would it be a problem

 

[dacityslanga]

So if McCain had done this would yall have something to say??

Politics are a double edge sword. You guys have to realize that its only been 12 months since the Obama Administration has moved in.

He is cleaning up 8 years of that dumbfounded confused and driven our nation into a while Bush Administration done.

Cut the man some slack.

 

[rexanglorum]

I just realized this, why not create, by either force or by incentives, competing major stock exchanges along with an FDIC style insurance for those who were victims of fraud.

Despite the best of intentions regulations tend to either be corrupted, or "captured" as Gary Becker would say (that is the regulators become controlled by the firms whom they were supposed to regulate), or they are always a step behind those whom they are supposed to regulate (someone in Washington getting paid 60k per year and works 9-5 is not very likely to work as many hours as the guys who in New York who can make 100 million by working 80 hours per week).

The best way to police financial markets is through robust competition, the owners of these various markets for stocks would have an incentive to impose and enforce much, much tougher regulations and force a much greater degree of transparency on those firms who shares are traded as well as from the large investors. If someone is defrauded in a given exchange, they would be refunded out of an FDIC style fund and that particular exchange'sreputation would suffer and would go out of business.

This would basically be "smart" financial market regulation and restructing as opposed to the dumb, ineffective and oft corrupted 1930's style regulations that either failed, were circumvented or that threw out the baby with the bath water. 

 

[nycknicks105]

::sigh::

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by Dathbgboy

Originally Posted by Layla

Yeah, he inherited a lot of %*%%, more than he made.

And instead of doin the +%+% he wants, he as to cater to cryin %*% GOP about policies so then it looks like he renigs

He need to start showin his spine and standin firm about +%+%.  I still wonder if McCain was doin all this would it be a problem

He is... The election of Brown was a blessing for dems and Obama so far... News reports are saying that Geithner and Sommers have lost almost all power in the Obama admin, and he is listening to smart people who know what they are talking about. Obama has picked up the tone and is talking with some fire. And telling people things are non-negotiable which Obama has never done before..

So far losing Ted Kennedy's seat has been nothing but great news...