While I applaud the headline, I fail to see how an otherwise intelligent man ignoring hype, paying attention to obvious warning signs and using the protections at his disposal makes him a career criminal, a robber, a gambler.

/although, if he hadn't gotten lucky with his timing, maybe they would be warranted

whistleridge: While I applaud the headline, I fail to see how an otherwise intelligent man ignoring hype, paying attention to obvious warning signs and using the protections at his disposal makes him a career criminal, a robber, a gambler.

/although, if he hadn't gotten lucky with his timing, maybe they would be warranted

People get jealous when someone else is more successful than they are.

subby appears more than a little butt-hurt at Paulson's success. What's the big deal? The guy bet on a trend he thought was coming, it could have gone the other way and washed him out. It didn't. He profited. More power to him.

Then in 2008, he shorted financial shares, or wagered that they would fall in price, profiting again when these companies collapsed.

You know what one of the causes of some major financial firm collapses was? Naked shorts. Look it up. No way in hell it should be legal and if this guy used it to get reap his profits, I respectfully invite him to go fark himself.

patrick767: You know what one of the causes of some major financial firm collapses was? Naked shorts.

You're right. It should be against the law for markets to go down.

I didn't know Subliminal Man was a Farker.

patrick767: Naked shorts. Look it up.

I would, but I'm at work, and quite frankly, the thought of what might come back from Google is terrifying.

patrick767: Naked shorts. Look it up.

FTA: "Then in 2008, he shorted financial shares, or wagered that they would fall in price, profiting again when these companies collapsed."

The article says he shorted, it doesn't specifically say he naked shorted at all. And it's been illegal for a few years now, before the collapse, although the practice still happens.

patrick767: You know what one of the causes of some major financial firm collapses was? Naked shorts.

No it wasn't.

patrick767: You know what one of the causes of some major financial firm collapses was? Naked shorts.

Are you talking about the mesh kind? The ones you can see through?

patrick767: Then in 2008, he shorted financial shares, or wagered that they would fall in price, profiting again when these companies collapsed.

You know what one of the causes of some major financial firm collapses was? Naked shorts. Look it up.

A financial firm should not be dependent on its own stock price to make up the majority of its assets. If they themselves sold short and lost money, that is simply their incompetence.

Don't like short-selling? Call your broker and tell him that your shares are not to be used for the purpose. Duh.

Mr. Paulson spent over $1 billion in 2006 to buy insurance on what he then saw as risky mortgage investments.

Was he one of the ones who bought insurance on investments he had no personal interest in?

patrick767: You know what one of the causes of some major financial firm collapses was? Naked shorts. Look it up. No way in hell it should be legal and if this guy used it to get reap his profits, I respectfully invite him to go fark himself.

No one said the shorts he was dealing with were naked. Oh, and if they were its irrelevant because his shorts actually paid off. Still, standard shorting is a fine thing and part of a healthy economy.

ZAZ: Was he one of the ones who bought insurance on investments he had no personal interest in?

He bought put options and shorted derivitives. That's what they mean by "insurance". Its not insurance like your house insurance, though I guess it acts the same way.

He merely profited on things losing value. Which is something anyone can do. (Though you should only do it if you're smart and have a lot of cash to back up the possibility of losing a lot).

His name is John Paulson.

jwa007: patrick767: You know what one of the causes of some major financial firm collapses was? Naked shorts.

Are you talking about the mesh kind? The ones you can see through?

no.
the beige colored dolphin kind.

downstairs: He bought put options and shorted derivitives. That's what they mean by "insurance". Its not insurance like your house insurance, though I guess it acts the same way.

He bought credit default swaps, which aren't puts, but rather an insurance product. I wonder his CDSs were from AIG, in which case his payoff probably came from taxpayers.

its sort of like throwing a baby into a cage full of lions. only an idiot would bet on the baby but we would hate anyone who bet on the lions because, being human, we can only root for the baby.
people who profited from the economic crisis have placed themselves outside of the human community. it is the mark of a true human that, at the very least, you walk away from the bet against the baby. A true hero would leap into the pen and rescue the baby.
I think the current level of hate is because very few heroes were present while the baby was mauled to death.
morality and ethics. google them.

Machiavellians...
look it up...

darkvstar: WHARRGARRBLL

Maybe someone should point out to you that the people who were profiteering from the crash were not the same ones who set up the situation to begin with.

What's worse, betting against a baby in a baby-vs-lion-fight or being the ones who allowed the fight to begin with?

It's called morality, ethics and not being a dumbass. Google them.

patrick767: Then in 2008, he shorted financial shares, or wagered that they would fall in price, profiting again when these companies collapsed.

You know what one of the causes of some major financial firm collapses was? Naked shorts. Look it up. No way in hell it should be legal and if this guy used it to get reap his profits, I respectfully invite him to go fark himself.

He didn't have naked shorts, he just shorted stocks. I think you oughta look it up, you don't seem to understand the difference.

Also, Naked Shorts were not a major contributor to the failure of any firm I've heared of. Do you have some evidence of this?

This guy reminds me of a very experienced Blackjack player who occasionally counts cards to improve his take. House didn't pick up on the count and he took cleaned house.

Bet he does well in Vegas.

There's a big difference between a banker making money on a bet, and a banker making money, as Tom Wolfe put it, by snagging crumbs off the cake when he passes it around. Not that Paulson doesn't do that, too. But it's hard to begrudge honest winnings, and the problem here isn't the winners. What pisses me off are the losers who, instead of paying what they could and jumping, came crying to me to bail them out and promptly went back to their old ways.
There was honor in the way the old gangsters ran Vegas. There is no honor on Wall Street.

patrick767: Then in 2008, he shorted financial shares, or wagered that they would fall in price, profiting again when these companies collapsed.

You know what one of the causes of some major financial firm collapses was? Naked shorts. Look it up. No way in hell it should be legal and if this guy used it to get reap his profits, I respectfully invite him to go fark himself.

Take a wild guess who the global King of Shorts is? The hero of the left, George Soros.

Fengen: Also, Naked Shorts were not a major contributor to the failure of any firm I've heared of. Do you have some evidence of this?

He has plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence...

Fengen: patrick767: Then in 2008, he shorted financial shares, or wagered that they would fall in price, profiting again when these companies collapsed.

You know what one of the causes of some major financial firm collapses was? Naked shorts. Look it up. No way in hell it should be legal and if this guy used it to get reap his profits, I respectfully invite him to go fark himself.

He didn't have naked shorts, he just shorted stocks. I think you oughta look it up, you don't seem to understand the difference.

Also, Naked Shorts were not a major contributor to the failure of any firm I've heared of. Do you have some evidence of this?

Well, the naked shorts are often blamed in the failure of scams pretending to be valid companies. That's enough proof for some people, the naked short crowd are much like the birthers and truthers.

Fengen: He didn't have naked shorts, he just shorted stocks. I think you oughta look it up, you don't seem to understand the difference.

Also, Naked Shorts were not a major contributor to the failure of any firm I've heared of. Do you have some evidence of this?

There's a strange variety of investor that hates shorts of any kind. Apparently we're only supposed to benefit from a market when it goes up.

Knara: There's a strange variety of investor that hates shorts of any kind. Apparently we're only supposed to benefit from a market when it goes up.

Well, there is something cheezy about gaming the dark side. As long as it's not excessive, it's part of the game.

GaryPDX: Well, there is something cheezy about gaming the dark side.

So like, when people SELL stocks because they think it won't go up that much more or at all, they are gaming the dark side? Markets are cyclical in nature, why is there ANYTHING wrong with using both to your advantage? Like, I dunno, starting a war and then claiming to have kept the peace?

jwa007: subby appears more than a little butt-hurt at Paulson's success. What's the big deal? The guy bet on a trend he thought was coming, it could have gone the other way and washed him out. It didn't. He profited. More power to him.

Some people believe that there's a difference between making money and earning it, and reserve respect for people who successfully do the latter.

Betting on other people's failures is not respectable work - it's not work at all - so people shouldn't get all weepy and whiny when people who do it don't get any respect for what they do.

/dnrtfa, so that might have had nothing to do with anything relevant

Knara: Fengen: He didn't have naked shorts, he just shorted stocks. I think you oughta look it up, you don't seem to understand the difference.

Also, Naked Shorts were not a major contributor to the failure of any firm I've heared of. Do you have some evidence of this?

There's a strange variety of investor that hates shorts of any kind. Apparently we're only supposed to benefit from a market when it goes up.

I guess so. It seems the only people I've ever seen use the phrase 'naked short' don't know what it means, and can't distinguish what separates it from a short that isn't naked. They just don't seem to know anything at all about investing.

The same people whine that investors are criminals if they are successful laugh at them when they take losses and throw out some straw man argument, as though investors don't understand the concept of risk. It's almost surreal.

GaryPDX: Knara: There's a strange variety of investor that hates shorts of any kind. Apparently we're only supposed to benefit from a market when it goes up.

Well, there is something cheezy about gaming the dark side. As long as it's not excessive, it's part of the game.

As long as options are traded on a stock, there is essentially an infinite supply of shares. And even when the options don't exist, all naked shorting does is make it look like they do.
The people who whine about naked shorting are just confused and unhappy because they bought a bag of dogshiat, and they have no idea why they're getting poorer instead of richer.

CodeCowboy: GaryPDX: Well, there is something cheezy about gaming the dark side.

So like, when people SELL stocks because they think it won't go up that much more or at all, they are gaming the dark side? Markets are cyclical in nature, why is there ANYTHING wrong with using both to your advantage? Like, I dunno, starting a war and then claiming to have kept the peace?

There's always the opposites. I don't have a problem with it. But when people profit to the degree of economic destruction, that's going a little bit too far, don't you think?

This guy was the speaker at my business school graduation (we had university-wide and school specific). Wasn't great, wasn't bad.

Cool-story-bro aside, he saw a trend and adjusted accordingly. While it sucks that he was right, I really don't see anything wrong with it.

Splinshints: jwa007: subby appears more than a little butt-hurt at Paulson's success. What's the big deal? The guy bet on a trend he thought was coming, it could have gone the other way and washed him out. It didn't. He profited. More power to him.

Some people believe that there's a difference between making money and earning it, and reserve respect for people who successfully do the latter.

Betting on other people's failures is not respectable work - it's not work at all - so people shouldn't get all weepy and whiny when people who do it don't get any respect for what they do.

/dnrtfa, so that might have had nothing to do with anything relevant

Do you think reasearching a company like Enron, discovering their accounting doesn't add up and betting against the stock is a bad thing? It takes balls and I respect the hell out of it. Of course Kenneth Lay blamed the collapse on those evil shorts.

GaryPDX: CodeCowboy: GaryPDX: Well, there is something cheezy about gaming the dark side.

So like, when people SELL stocks because they think it won't go up that much more or at all, they are gaming the dark side? Markets are cyclical in nature, why is there ANYTHING wrong with using both to your advantage? Like, I dunno, starting a war and then claiming to have kept the peace?

There's always the opposites. I don't have a problem with it. But when people profit to the degree of economic destruction, that's going a little bit too far, don't you think?

What about those who pumped it to absurd heights?

Splinshints: Betting on other people's failures is not respectable work - it's not work at all - so people shouldn't get all weepy and whiny when people who do it don't get any respect for what they do.

Thank you for the most naive comment of the day. People fail all the time. Part of my job to make sure there are controls and processes in place for when they do fail so we can catch it and correct it.

/betting that people will fail is always a sure bet
//and keeps me employed

LarryDan43: GaryPDX: CodeCowboy: GaryPDX: Well, there is something cheezy about gaming the dark side.

So like, when people SELL stocks because they think it won't go up that much more or at all, they are gaming the dark side? Markets are cyclical in nature, why is there ANYTHING wrong with using both to your advantage? Like, I dunno, starting a war and then claiming to have kept the peace?

There's always the opposites. I don't have a problem with it. But when people profit to the degree of economic destruction, that's going a little bit too far, don't you think?

What about those who pumped it to absurd heights?

lol..good point. I think, by and large, the crazy players just scare away the average people. That's not good. The market right now seems awfully inflated, largely fiction. The volumes aren't anywhere near what the once were.

whistleridge: While I applaud the headline, I fail to see how an otherwise intelligent man ignoring hype, paying attention to obvious warning signs and using the protections at his disposal makes him a career criminal, a robber, a gambler.

Don't forget the "misery of others" part. Which pretty much means all those funeral homes are a bunch of scumbags. And hospitals.. they profit off others misery. .. As well as bio/pharma companies. They rely on people being hurt and in misery to profit.. .. Actually they actively need the misery to succeed. ..

Hedge fund managers etc. passively profit off of misery when they see it coming, it's not a requirement.

/Subby sucks.

GaryPDX: But when people profit to the degree of economic destruction, that's going a little bit too far, don't you think?

Who did his profit economically destroy?

LarryDan43: Do you think reasearching a company like Enron, discovering their accounting doesn't add up and betting against the stock is a bad thing? It takes balls and I respect the hell out of it. Of course Kenneth Lay blamed the collapse on those evil shorts.

A "bad thing"?

In what sense? Legally? Ethically?

It doesn't matter if it's a "bad thing". It's not work, it's not respectable, and you won't garner respect for it. You aren't investing in anything, you aren't producing anything. As a result, you don't get any respect from people who do actually work for a living.

If you have no problem with that, fine. However, you don't get to choose that path then complain when people judge you for it.

bravian: Part of my job to make sure there are controls and processes in place for when they do fail so we can catch it and correct it.

And your job is?

Splinshints: LarryDan43: Do you think reasearching a company like Enron, discovering their accounting doesn't add up and betting against the stock is a bad thing? It takes balls and I respect the hell out of it. Of course Kenneth Lay blamed the collapse on those evil shorts.

A "bad thing"?

In what sense? Legally? Ethically?

It doesn't matter if it's a "bad thing". It's not work, it's not respectable, and you won't garner respect for it. You aren't investing in anything, you aren't producing anything. As a result, you don't get any respect from people who do actually work for a living.

If you have no problem with that, fine. However, you don't get to choose that path then complain when people judge you for it.



I'm curious, what do you produce?

Splinshints: As a result, you don't get any respect from people who do actually work for a living.

What's "real" work? Only what you define?

Splinshints: However, you don't get to choose that path then complain when people judge you for it.

You don't get to tell people what they do isn't real work when you have no idea what goes into it and then complain when you get called out for being a dumbass.

Splinshints: LarryDan43: Do you think reasearching a company like Enron, discovering their accounting doesn't add up and betting against the stock is a bad thing? It takes balls and I respect the hell out of it. Of course Kenneth Lay blamed the collapse on those evil shorts.

A "bad thing"?

In what sense? Legally? Ethically?

It doesn't matter if it's a "bad thing". It's not work, it's not respectable, and you won't garner respect for it. You aren't investing in anything, you aren't producing anything. As a result, you don't get any respect from people who do actually work for a living.

If you have no problem with that, fine. However, you don't get to choose that path then complain when people judge you for it.

bravian: Part of my job to make sure there are controls and processes in place for when they do fail so we can catch it and correct it.

And your job is?

You sound dumb.

/and fat

that money should be seized to pay for health care.

Splinshints: LarryDan43: Do you think reasearching a company like Enron, discovering their accounting doesn't add up and betting against the stock is a bad thing? It takes balls and I respect the hell out of it. Of course Kenneth Lay blamed the collapse on those evil shorts.

A "bad thing"?

In what sense? Legally? Ethically?

It doesn't matter if it's a "bad thing". It's not work, it's not respectable, and you won't garner respect for it. You aren't investing in anything, you aren't producing anything. As a result, you don't get any respect from people who do actually work for a living.

If you have no problem with that, fine. However, you don't get to choose that path then complain when people judge you for it.


Except if no-one does this, then you get the housing market bubble - things keep going up and up and up, because everyone wants them to and sticks their fingers in their ears going "la la la everything's perfect, housing prices will keep going up forever!", until it reaches a completely unsustainable point and rapidly collapses, taking the entire economy along with it

If you want to consider "investing in a company" to have value, I'll agree in a limited sense of long-term investors, but when you're really comparing this guy to all the other day-trade / hedge fund kind of instant-profit type of "investor" that we're really talking about here, there's nothing inherently worse about betting the market will go down than up - either way they're not investing in a company for the long haul, they're trying to make a quick buck betting the stock will go one way or the other

Splinshints: Some people believe that there's a difference between making money and earning it, and reserve respect for people who successfully do the latter.

Betting on other people's failures is not respectable work - it's not work at all - so people shouldn't get all weepy and whiny when people who do it don't get any respect for what they do.

/dnrtfa, so that might have had nothing to do with anything relevant

You're the sort of person that believes farmers are the recipients of most farm subsidies, aren't ya.

/also probably don't know the level of tech on "family farms" or even how the "family farm" makes money these days
//hooray for bizarre ideas of what is "real work"

CodeCowboy: Splinshints: As a result, you don't get any respect from people who do actually work for a living.

What's "real" work? Only what you define?

Splinshints: However, you don't get to choose that path then complain when people judge you for it.

You don't get to tell people what they do isn't real work when you have no idea what goes into it and then complain when you get called out for being a dumbass.

That's right, shoot the messenger.

Get as pissy as you want, people don't like hedge fund managers, corporate raiders, etc. even in good times. In times like this, people hate them. If you think calling me a dumbass is going to change that, more power to you. You're wrong, though.

Not that I'm surprised. People hate that there are consequences to their actions and decisions and they'll cling to any desperate measure to try and convince themselves they're not really what people think they are.

If you don't like the bad reputation that hedge fund managers and their ilk have, don't be one of them. If you don't have a problem with being perceived as a vacuous leech on society, though, well, that's your choice. But you don't get to complain about the image you take on as a result.

If that image isn't fair, well, I"m all ears. But, I notice nobody's actually tried to go down that road - providing evidence that the bad image is unfair. They just all jumped down my throat for pointing out that these people HAVE a bad image.

Sort of telling in a way.

Fengen: I'm curious, what do you produce?

In theory, I develop and administer an intranet portal for a local women's shelter. In practice, the portal requires minimal work and I spend most of my time supporting the shelter's network and desktops and doing occasional training.

If I had the money and the balls Paulson had, I'd be pretty rich too. I (sort of) worked in the mortgage industry while all this was going on, I saw how friggin ridiculous things were, I was positive there would be a big slide back in prices, but didn't know how bad it would be. I was just a paper-pusher but even outside of work it was obvious, people buying homes for ridiculous prices. You HAD to know it wasn't normal. If I had known how to short the housing market I would have. Paulson didn't do anything besides place a massive, ballsy, educated bet.
Hell I'm short the S&P right now, and losing money. If the market corrects and I make money, do I get admission to the evil profiteer club? Is there a t-shirt?

jwa007: subby appears more than a little butt-hurt at Paulson's success. What's the big deal? The guy bet on a trend he thought was coming, it could have gone the other way and washed him out. It didn't. He profited. More power to him.

Yeah stand up for this guy. The timing is way too convenient. He knew things that normal investors have no chance of learning. And you will just keep applauding him while him and his cohorts rob us and our children blind. Its just the market people say, anyone can do this you say, rubbish.

But will you come back to fark and apologize for how wrong you were when this guy shows up?



I doubt it.

/hot like Mia Sara's boobs in that movie
//god damn

When is Linux_Yes going to come in this thread and call everyone a crony capitalist and a republican? Cause that's when the fun starts