weekender

ok, more on topic. keep in mind that JPMC are being held accountable for the problems of Bear Stearns and Wash Mutual, which they purchased. they were the one major bank that was not in a need of a bailout. You want to call for the heads of people then go after Bear and Wash Mutual. they are the ones who caused their banks to fail. we should all be glad that JPMC was solvent and clean enough purchase them. otherwise their would be nobody around for the gov't to fine. Except that hard evidence (some obtained from whistleblowers) shows that Jpm's own internal due diligence did in fact reveal the defects in Bear and Wash's portfolios; so when Jpm bundled those legacy assets into (serrupticiously value-impaired) securities they (and their top and many middle execs) knew exactly what they were doing. Bank of America did the exact same thing when they bought out Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. So yes, JPM's top execs do indeed face potential personal criminal liability. i am not familiar with what you are describing. Your timeline is different than how i understand this to have happened. i admit, i am not a bank historian. Here is how i understand it. JP took over, at the gov't request, two failing banks. they assumed liability by doing so but expected to not be held accountable. they were wrong and now will have to pay for not doing their due diligence. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

ok, more on topic. keep in mind that JPMC are being held accountable for the problems of Bear Stearns and Wash Mutual, which they purchased. they were the one major bank that was not in a need of a bailout. You want to call for the heads of people then go after Bear and Wash Mutual. they are the ones who caused their banks to fail. we should all be glad that JPMC was solvent and clean enough purchase them. otherwise their would be nobody around for the gov't to fine. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

*** deleted my post because i mistakenly thought we were talking about the charge to earnings. i realize now your talking about the a future charge that has not been finalized and still in discussions. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the gov't is not like a person, more like a large corporation. they cannot operate without credit. do you think there is a vault at Ford with cash to pay employees? or their suppliers? there is not. they use a combination of short and long term fixed income(bonds and notes) instruments to function. so does the the US gov't. it is not realistic to believe you can run a company or a nation on cash. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

it is, but I never thought of him as anything other than what you said. no, the problem is that analysts have shown a pretty terrible track record for the past 15 years about seeing impending downturns for the companies they cover. By the time they finally get around to lowering their ratings, the stock has already tanked. Might have something to do with the inherent conflict of interest of supporting their big clients - these companies. buy sell and hold are mandated by finra to supposedly protect retail. banks, analyst and PM's dont pay much attention to them. they must publish within the guidelines of finra and the research over sight committee, which goes off regulators guidelines. so their rating is nothing more than a starting point to a conversation that usual goes like this, "i see you have a hold, what do you really think given my portfolios model?" analyst predictions are not weighted heavily on the institutional side. their job is to help the PM make decisions. tell him things he cannot find in the papers or during a tour of the facility. things that only a nerd who dedicates his life to a space would know. i am NOT implying the ratings are not honest. im just saying that being forced to make a 6 month or 12 month prediction is not something they actually prefer to do. or think they are very good at. its mandated by finra and the regulators. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Because it happened well before any official announcements. Hours and hours and hours before. People trade in front of news based on what they believe is going to come out. its very normal. i do it almost daily. as a reminder, i am an equity trader for an investment bank. you are talking about a giant index being moved by a leak. that does not seem realistic to me, based on my experience. I have seen, and it is well documented, that some individual names can move on leaks. during earnings season this can be quite evident. I would support your thesis on a given name but find it not realistic with such a broad index. i do support your belief that leaks can make select individuals money. and short term can move individual names. its usually peanuts compared to what can be made legally though. your going to have to trust me, i get offers all the time. i just ignore them, not worth a few thousand bucks. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Wanna see the thing that bugs me right now? Take a look at the last week of trading and pay particular attention to the VIX and how it opened this morning. There's more going on here than just the government shut down. Somebody on the Hill is leaking information to investors in order to make a boatload of money. The VIX gaped down and the S&P gaped up on news of a possible conclusion to the shut down. That seems quite normal to me. would you mind telling me why you feel its not? for the record, there is no doubt in my mind that information leaks out from Hill. as it always does. happens from private companies too. those leaks benefit a very few people who go to great lengths to hide the trades. are implying that the entire market is reacting to some leak? i do not agree, i think people are trying to trade the news. a very normal event. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

again, no. And forgive me for not treating a former Enron analyst as reliable on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/national/04energy.html?_r=0 Well that certainly seems to be contrary to what ive always believed. I spoke with him this morning and he has changed his tune a bit. he said it is certainly possible they shut down a plant but was not the core of what they were doing, as apposed to Duke. So i will admit for both of us that we were wrong. Not the first or last time im sure. for the record, he is not a former Enron analyst. he is an analyst who covered the company Enron formerly. Very different things. in his defense, i probably asked the question in a leading manner because i wanted to be right. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Ok, i get the point you are trying to make. Kelpdiver explained it. for some reason, and i accept it might be me, i tend to misunderstand your posts. i know this does not effect your thesis but for the record, Enron did NOT shut down plants. it was Duke energy who did it. I'm not sure if you read my previous post but i explain Enron's unethical trading. it was explained to me this morning by a former Enron analyst i called in Houston. it does not involve shutdowns. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

And again, no one was talking about what brought Enron down. The discussion was about how these regulated monopolies did not act in the public's interest, but instead pursued profits, like any other purely capitalistic company. Also pretty sure that Enron got caught playing the shutdown game. Again done in quasi legal, but highly unethical manners. But it really doesn't matter which of them it was for this discussion. I feel what you are saying makes perfectly good sense, however, that is not how i interpreted the other posters comments. i understand your point but am not fully convinced it was theirs. i suppose it doesnt matter how we got here, your point is valid and i dont think any reasonable person would disagree. If i misread, i apologize. Hopefully my comments were of some value in respect to Enron and some common misconceptions. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Weekender - you're talking about Enron's accounting fraud, but I believe he was speaking about the way they fucked with California, and yes, that did include turning off giant turbines to spike the pricing. They, among the other providers, played a lot of games in the name of actual profits, and showed that regulations were a bit inadequate for a basic need like power. i was not aware of Enron shutting down any power plants. I'm sorry, i believe you are confusing them with Duke, who did get caught with "power outages", which were fraudulent. Enron did not. i could be wrong but i consulted an energy analyst in Houston and he confirms my belief. What they did was called a "sling shot trade". It was technically legal but very unethical. Cali had price caps for local power but would pay up for import power. Enron traders would buy in Cali, sell to Nevada, then buy it back at a small mark up. they could then sell it back to Cali at a profit with no risk. an obvious gaming of Cali's price caps. the Cali Phd's setting rates and policy underestimated the traders ethics. This was not a crime though and no one was punished for it criminally. What brought Enron down was NOT energy trading BUT financial fraud. they reported profits they did not have. So energy regulation played no part in it. you could argue it was financial regulation that failed. I would have to agree but that was no ones argument. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I dont think you guys understand the energy markets. Enron committed fraud. they were an energy trading firm who booked fake profits from real time electric trading. it had nothing to do with a regulated or unregulated utilities. All electric providers, those in regulated and unregulated markets, trade real time electric. you cannot just turn on and off a giant turbine. electricity cannot be stored, at that level, so you sell off what you are not using. This is how the power grid works, before and after Enron. it has nothing to do with regulations. you both might have a point but your facts are off with Enron. It was not what they did that was a problem. it was that they did it in a fraudulent manner. without electric trading we would have brown outs. also, every market has as mix of regulated and unregulated providers. it works fine as long as you do not willfully commit fraud. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i dont understand why you keep repeating something that is so easily proven wrong. all the banks make public filings. all their debt is right there on the 10k's. anyone can see it, its not swept under the rug. its in plain sight. normally i would say you didnt know that because you dont understand finance. but ive repeatably shown you this. so its obvious you are just not all there. i am be playing chess with a pigeon. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i doubt that was his intent but she is tiny and his shove sent her flying. with that said, he is not someone who should be trusted to be handling people. he should lose his job. i do not care what his excuse is. the vast majority of LEO's are good people in my opinion. the problem, as i see it, is the unions do everything they can to protect the bad apples. if they stopped that, and more police where given the boot, we would not have these threads. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the written part of your post is about congress. the link is about odd lots. i addressed both separately. actually, by law our our reports are published free of charge for all to see. you didnt know that because you do not understand the financial markets. you pay for us to explain it to you. But they are all there, published and free. your odd lot comment makes no sense whatsoever. I trade odd lots all the time. everyone does. not every trade is exactly 100 shares. you didnt know that because you do not understand finance. no i do not take a peek. i do not write it, analyst do. i cannot see it till its published and accessible to the public. you didnt know that because you do not understand finance. i do not know what you do for a living but you should find another topic. one that you understand. or find another forum, one where no one else understands. you would sound less foolish. so to recap. everyone trades odd lots, they are reported to FINRA but not the tape. research is public and free for all to read. advice is not. an most importantly, you didnt know that because you do not understand finance. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the article is about odd lots and has nothing to do with congress. odd lots are not reported to the consolidated tape but are NOT anonymous. they are still reported to FINRA and fully regulated. the author and OP does not understand the financial markets. I have no idea if Congress is front running legislation and neither does the OP. I will chalk that entire part of his post to his opinion and ignore it. i suggest everyone else does. with that said, there are teams of analyst who measure legislative risk and make market calls on them. there are teams of equity traders who act quickly based on their interpretation of a Pol's words. This causes market fluctuations. nothing odd about that. no different that reacting to an earnings report. You are kidding, that you have no idea about Congress betting prior to decisions made. How much do you pay for the reports? How can you trust anyone who chooses not to capitalize "i" in the first word of a sentence. why would i be kidding? i have no more knowledge of congress being involved in illegal trade activity than you do. the only evidence you give is from your imagination. what do i pay? nothing. i work for a bank, we charge for them. you can buy them from me if you would like. i would expect about 250k USD's from you over the next 12 months for limited access. Also, you need at least a billion USD's under management or if you turn over your portfolio 200x a year a little less. Otherwise your not worth my time. a little help. the DOW is an index and NOT quoted in dollars. you probably didnt know that because you do not understand the financial markets. you got that for free because its friday. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the article is about odd lots and has nothing to do with congress. odd lots are not reported to the consolidated tape but are NOT anonymous. they are still reported to FINRA and fully regulated. the author and OP does not understand the financial markets. I have no idea if Congress is front running legislation and neither does the OP. I will chalk that entire part of his post to his opinion and ignore it. i suggest everyone else does. with that said, there are teams of analyst who measure legislative risk and make market calls on them. there are teams of equity traders who act quickly based on their interpretation of a Pol's words. This causes market fluctuations. nothing odd about that. no different that reacting to an earnings report. You are kidding, that you have no idea about Congress betting prior to decisions made. How much do you pay for the reports? How can you trust anyone who chooses not to capitalize "i" in the first word of a sentence. Ummm... *dresses in foil* It makes more sense now. So the congress knows they are working out a deal. They run out and buy up tons of stock low...but all in odd lots...which avoids nothing as far as actual tracking goes.... Then they release the information, sell the stocks when prices rise, and make out like bandits. Makes perfect sense to me. Crazy there aren't some sort of regulations, and checks/balances put in place for that kinda stuff. Yea, i was thinking the same thing. if only there were laws in place to prevent it. and gov't and private regulators to enforce the laws and rules. Also, it would help if every transaction was reported and archived for seven years. if trades could only be transacted by licensed, bonded and fingerprinted traders in a recognized and monitored exchange. if every trader had to give up the person the transaction was for and then have the trade cleared by a central independently monitored clearing house. We could only dream of such checks and balances i suppose. untill then we have to watch our congress members day trade the news getting rich why we suffer. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the article is about odd lots and has nothing to do with congress. odd lots are not reported to the consolidated tape but are NOT anonymous. they are still reported to FINRA and fully regulated. the author and OP does not understand the financial markets. I have no idea if Congress is front running legislation and neither does the OP. I will chalk that entire part of his post to his opinion and ignore it. i suggest everyone else does. with that said, there are teams of analyst who measure legislative risk and make market calls on them. there are teams of equity traders who act quickly based on their interpretation of a Pol's words. This causes market fluctuations. nothing odd about that. no different that reacting to an earnings report. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

yea, NYC is boring. No one ever visits here. nothing to do at all. its not a relevant place at all. if he coming from out of town and been to Boston numerous times, NYC would be a great trip. He can see pretty tree's where ever he is from. He can only see NYC by visiting NYC. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

NYC if it wasnt mentioned. Few hours on a train and you dont need to rent a car. I suggest you cancel the Boston part of your trip all together and have your daughter visit you in NYC. It is the only city that matters and an obvious must see. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Please explain, "only reason the U.S economy hasn't collapsed under Obama is because of the Dollars unique status as the "World Reserve Currency." I was not aware it was a certain fact that the US economy has not collapsed because of one reason solely. In my studies of finance and experience the world economy is far more complex. Please help me to understand how that is the sole reason we are not rioting in the streets. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I do not believe that nor implied it. there are trillions of transactions a day and with that volume it is not hard to find a few bad apples. Posting another unrelated link does nothing to disprove my comments that farmers set pricing based on market prices and not cost. Nor does it prove your comment that farm commodity prices are regularly manipulated. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Why don't you explain since you're close to the trade :) I just remembered some story about Goldman. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/07/24/how-goldman-sachs-and-wall-street-manipulate-alumnimum-and-other-commodities that is an opinion piece and points out no actual manipulation. it is common sense that stockpiling anything can lead to market disruptions. i agree with the author, regulators should be hyper vigilant in assuring ETF's do not create disruptions. he raises a valid concern but that is not manipulation. So you're claiming that the Hunts weren't manipulating the silver market? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Bunker_Hunt#Silver_manipulation In 1989 in a settlement with the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Nelson Bunker Hunt was fined US$10 million and banned from trading in the commodity markets as a result of civil charges of conspiring to manipulate the silver market You're claiming that Enron didn't manipulate energy markets? i'm claiming that it is a crime and you will be prosecuted for it. As you point out. The original poster and yourself are implying that farm commodity prices are manipulated regularly. I disagree and am asking you to explain to me how it is done. Pointing out real time electric and metals cases does not disprove my comments on farm commodity manipulation. You actual prove my point that it is a punishable crime. Given the general toothlessness of the regulators, I'd wager that the prosecuted cases are just the tip of the iceberg. i have no doubt that you assume the markets are manipulated. It is very common for lay people to feel so. The markets are complex and few schools even attempt to educate students on them. There are billions of transactions a day and some are bound to be fraudulent. They are still a very small exception. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Why don't you explain since you're close to the trade :) I just remembered some story about Goldman. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/07/24/how-goldman-sachs-and-wall-street-manipulate-alumnimum-and-other-commodities that is an opinion piece and points out no actual manipulation. it is common sense that stockpiling anything can lead to market disruptions. i agree with the author, regulators should be hyper vigilant in assuring ETF's do not create disruptions. he raises a valid concern but that is not manipulation. So you're claiming that the Hunts weren't manipulating the silver market? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Bunker_Hunt#Silver_manipulation In 1989 in a settlement with the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Nelson Bunker Hunt was fined US$10 million and banned from trading in the commodity markets as a result of civil charges of conspiring to manipulate the silver market You're claiming that Enron didn't manipulate energy markets? i'm claiming that it is a crime and you will be prosecuted for it. As you point out. The original poster and yourself are implying that farm commodity prices are manipulated regularly. I disagree and am asking you to explain to me how it is done. Pointing out real time electric and metals cases does not disprove my comments on farm commodity manipulation. You actual prove my point that it is a punishable crime. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Why don't you explain since you're close to the trade :) I just remembered some story about Goldman. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/07/24/how-goldman-sachs-and-wall-street-manipulate-alumnimum-and-other-commodities that is an opinion piece and points out no actual manipulation. it is common sense that stockpiling anything can lead to market disruptions. i agree with the author, regulators should be hyper vigilant in assuring ETF's do not create disruptions. he raises a valid concern but that is not manipulation. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante