Nothing prior to this taking place led me to believe good things were coming to wall st. Biden always seemed likely to follow in Obama’s footsteps of “you didn’t build that” anti-corporation and anti-economic growth policies.

As other posters point out: today perception is more relevant than ever and reality is less relevant than ever so this could give Biden an excuse to target wall st (as if he needed one). However, Obama already did this and that is why most financial services companies raised their investment minimums that cut the poor and a lot of the middle class out of their customer base.

Obama was anti corporation and Wall St?

let's see

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions


Obama legacy includes banker impunity


In reality, Obama and Biden don't have a problem or at least don't want to do anything about big finance. They are just not outright colluding like Trump and such.

If you want to make an argument feel free, but don’t just fire links at someone.

You can’t blame bankers for what the federal government caused. I think obama did a good job of protecting the federal government, bill clinton and a liberal policy designed to help minorities that ended up having massive negative unintended consequences. Obama was able to publicly blame banks for the whole thing and the media and most Americans agreed with him since the private sector’s PR team is nothing compared to the fed govts. However, even Obama knew that going after banks and bankers in court means judges and jury would actually research what happened and then not only would he lose those cases but he’d lose the public’s idea thy it was bankers whose idea it was to give a mortgage to anyone and not the fed govts.

If you are of the mind that banks and private financial institutions should be more to blame than the fed govt I encourage you to read more about what lead up to 2008. As a starting point take a look at the law passed under Clinton that twisted the arms of banks to give a mortgage to nearly anyone.

Argument was made and links serve as evidence, which is required.

I knew it was the minorities. Even when it was the bankers, I knew it was the minorities.

Did the federal government make them come up with derivatives too?

The entire system is broken because of the financialization of the economy. I am not putting blame on one cause only. You are and a rather stupid one.

This whole conversation started because you said this was a great event for Wall St. Nice to see you coming around on your point of view.


Yes, a poster told you perception was important here.

Derivs aren't why we had a massive credit failure in the US banking system in 2008.

It was a combination of the after-effects of the CRA passed under Clinton where he threatened to put bank CEOs in prison if they didn't make more loans/mtgs to low-income people regardless of their ability to repay;

people using their homes as ATMs and taking out the equity to spend on vacations to Hawai'i and 'upgrading' their home, i.e. levering up even more on RE. One study I read of CA borrowers who defaulted said that those who cash-out refi'd [i.e. everyone as rates fell] spent 70% of the proceeds on vacations and renovations;

and a massive change in borrower behavior - in every recession up to 2008, people repaid their debts in the following order, as you'd expect: House, Car, Credit cards. In the 2008 recession that completely reversed: credit cards first so you have access to money when you lost your job/lost hours, Car so you could get to you job/look for a new one, housing last as it was taking 1-2 years in many places to foreclose. This was a massive unexpected development;

borrowers switching to 5/1 ARMs and IO and Neg Am loans instead of 30y fixed, buying RE purely to speculate and lying about it being the primary residence;

And the banks were also to blame [some/most of them] for making too many loans with too easy terms, see the CRA above. But just because someone took a 5/1 arm over a 30yr fixed was no reason for banks to think they'd get repaid last in a homeowner's financial waterfall of payments in 2008.

Derivs/MBS are merely the re-arrangement of cash flows. I can take a pool of 100 mortgages from BBB-rated or subprime borrowers on 2p2 and make a AAA-tranche of everyone's first payment, or first 6 payments. It's not magic, it's just which cash flows get prioritized first. The 360th pmt is way riskier than the first 3 as is immediately obvious even to the most casual observer.

MBS went bad because *borrowers stopped paying the mortgage* not because of the existence of MBS which had been around for ~40 years by then.

Yeah, I never came close to blaming minorities for anything. It is sad that you read what I wrote and somehow gathered that I was blaming minorities. Not sure if this is a reading comprehension issue or you just like attempting to find racism where there isn’t any.

Nakdorf does a great job of shredding your argument/supporting my argument to the point where there is nothing else left for me to say.

Saying the system is broken is a cool buzz phrase, but the only problem with it is that it isn’t based in reality.

Yeah, I think there is a good chance this turns into a net positive for most people on Wall Street. Hedge funds getting crushed helps non hedge fund financial companies, but more importantly when individuals get crushed trying to trade something this volatile they are more likely to hire a pro which is good for wall st.

As with any other event an overreaction by government could swing it the other way and makes things worse for wall st.

Cheers.


I think the best thing about his writing - which contrasts with some of the more passionate views here in the last few posts - is that he doesn't ascribe more intention/morality/personification than needed.

When it comes to the current dramas, I feel a lot like I'm watching one of those David Attenborough animal documentaries, where one animal(s) is fighting and mauling another animal(s). I have some personal preferences for one animal over the other (some are cute! some are not!) but ultimately, this is just what happens in nature, where they are all eating each other - and I love the spectacle that it provides for watching!

is there anything fundamentally wrong with having the ability to loan one stock multiple times?

Looking for some advice on asset allocation in my 401k. Currently 35% vanguard large cap, 17% vanguard mid cap, 15% vanguard small cap, 33% oakmark international (OAKIX). I think I want to keep my US vs international exposure as is. I originally picked Oakmark 10 years ago because it was the lowest expense ratio of my international options (.98%). I was looking at the regional diversification and its almost 80% Euro/UK with very limited emerging market allocation. I was thinking of moving the 33% between the Oakmark and an emerging market fund. The only option I have is Invesco developing markets (ODVYX). Does splitting some of the Oakmark allocation to the Invesco make sense? How much?

Do you mean you loan it to me, I short, buyer Mickey loans it to Fred, he shorts, buyer noob loans to Adam Smith, he shorts....?

No. Totally standard. The longs don't care whom they buy from. It's good for market liquidity and price discovery.

If you're trying to ask can Morgan Stanley loan the same share out to multiple hedge funds, the answer is no. They have to deliver in 2 days.

Occasionally there are fails because people are human and screw up the process by mistake, but that has nothing to do with what's going on in GME.


I know you're not saying this, but a lot of the ignorant on here/wsb seem to be saying, when you break it down, that stocks should never be allowed to fall and if they do and they've lost money it's not their fault.

@najdor

thank you

I've heard some podcasts recently with people in the industry and they seem to have a problem with this

Their solution was to have stock id tracking or something like that in live to stop this

Was I mishearing them or are they confused?

things with stuff like this is that even the top dogs in the industry don't seem to know everything and it's leading to a lot of confusion imo

That one says it's a class Y fund. As long as it is not a load fund with some front end or back end sales charge it seems fine. Your allocation would be your preference.

When I formerly worked in online poker, there was a colleague who correctly recognised that when people said "This will be good for the game" they actually meant "This will be good for me".

There are many different people with many different views (indeed, some individuals have multiple views) on issues. There's unlikely to be an objectively right answer on such issues, and like almost every meaningful & intelligent policy debate, you've got to weigh up the comparative costs and benefits of such issues, and make your own value judgement about what is better.

Those that you think are top dogs in the industry may not be top dogs in the industry. Keep in mind anyone that is regularly on a tv show, radio show or podcast is not a top dog in the industry - this rule can be applied to nearly every industry in the world with very few exceptions.

I can name a lot of players, and I will include myself here, who when we say "good for the game" in poker we mean it.

Basic question. Will there be inflation due to covid? Why or why not?

I don't really understand this stuff, but I know there was no real inflation caused by the response to the GFC. What I don't know is why that is and how it's different/same this time around

Inflation on basic goods usually doesn't occur unless there is wage inflation.

There was (and is) inflation in securities and other rich people stuff.

The price of an Egg McMuffin just increased by 4%. It's $5.01 now.
Remember when you could get a full Big Mac Meal for $3.15? Brutal.

So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say.


McDoubles are still $1. As are McChicken's.

I guess the price of eggs have gone up, but saw dust has stayed the same.

I believe Brian would call a Big Mac meal “rich people stuff”.

Not quite.

But I wouldn't call a 4% price increase major inflation

It's now a thread so figured I'd post it here since I asked about it a few posts ago

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...021-a-1787620/