If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Show)   John Oliver, who is getting scarily good at this Daily Show hosting thing, destroys CNBC hosts on their facile dismissal of Sen. Franken's ratings agencies amendment   (thedailyshow.com) divider line 141
    More: Amusing, Al Franken, CNBC, amendments, reseller hosting, Maggie Gyllenhaal  
•       •       •

10431 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 25 Jun 2013 at 12:38 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



141 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 04:11:54 PM
He's good but he's either trying too hard to imitate Jon Stewart or the writing just makes it seem that way.
 
2013-06-25 04:12:34 PM
John Oliver knows, that the owl has the high ground.

/Obscure?
 
2013-06-25 04:24:26 PM
Why not give Oliver a friday night show?
 
2013-06-25 04:26:46 PM

jjorsett: Wow, he played a Fox News clip. I hope all of you, "SWEET JESUS, NOT FOX NEWS! RETCH! BLARGH! GET ME EYE- AND EAR-BLEACH" Farkers can recover from your post-traumatic stress disorder after having been exposed to that.


Why do you visit these threads if the other commenters irritate you?

Does belittling them give you a sense of power and respect you lack elsewhere in life?

It's not healthy.
 
2013-06-25 04:30:16 PM

evilmousse: Why do you visit these threads if the other commenters irritate you?


Because people keep responding to him for some reason.
 
2013-06-25 04:31:57 PM
Oliver, good writer, God awful host. When Stewart eventually leaves.....if they get Oliver to host, the show will be canceled within a year.
 
2013-06-25 04:35:40 PM
John Oliver is great. Another +1 for the Bugle, and if you get the chance to see him do standup, I highly  highlyrecommend it. I got to see him on his last tour and it's the first time I've laughed so hard that I had trouble breathing. It was fantastic.
 
2013-06-25 04:42:26 PM
He is getting better.  Although he doesn't know what to do with guests.  Can't seem to connect with the ones that aren't British.

To be fair in this case, Maggie Droopieface is a terrible guest.

"I prefer Obama to Romney!"  *Mugs for the camera*  "And I like puppies!"  *Mugs for the camera*
 
2013-06-25 04:43:52 PM

Arkanaut: Debeo Summa Credo: Arkanaut: Debeo Summa Credo: What's a better alternative? If the issuer pays, they inherently want a higher rating. If the investor pays, he wants a higher rating if he owns it and a lower rating if he wants to buy it. Still a conflict.

They could pay for it themselves and sell it to investors on an open market, instead of owing allegiance to any one investor.

Huh? Pay for it themselves? You mean the rating agencies?

How would that work? You mean they do it for free and then sell it individually to investors, but tell them not to tell any other investors who didn't pay for it? Not sure how you keep that secret considering the investors would likely want to disclose the rating if they want to sell the investment or buy the investment from others.

Even of that were workable and viable then what's to stop people from not paying attention to what te rating agencies say now? The public wouldn't get to see any ratings in your business model, and would have to pay to see ratings or make their own investment decisions, ignoring the rating agencies. The public (and govt and institutional investors and regulators) are free to ignore ratings today.

There's a few factors at play here --
1) Some of the instruments that the ratings agencies are being asked to rate are relatively illiquid or obscure, so if you're an investor trying to find out whether someone already has a copy of the rating you're looking for, you might not find it, and you're better off going straight to the source.



The belief is that public ratings are a "public good" and that having companies pay for their own rating permits ratings to be more available to the marketplace.  I understand your point of view, however I think selling ratings to individual investors on an ad-hoc basis wouldn't be a viable business model.  It'd be like a racetrack shill or one of the spam emails you get that pitch the 'next big breakout stock'.   The price that agencies would have to charge to make it worthwhile, while not pitching their research in spam emails, would be too high.

2) For the more liquid instruments, a lot of the trades will be carried out by trading algorithms, which often seek to make trade decisions in microseconds.  In this situation it would be far more advantageous to have a direct line to the source of the rating rather than wait for a free copy to make its way into the marketplace.

Algorithmic trading would have nothing to do with ratings but rather price fluctuation.  Rating changes are generally telegraphed by watches and other narrative information ahead of time.  Rating changes aren't a useful input in high speed trading, I'd think.


3) You were suggesting earlier that the investor might have an interest in artificially lowering the rating of certain instruments; while this may be true, a lot of big institutional investors (mutual funds, insurance companies and the like) are mandated by their charters to only invest in instruments rated above a certain level, and sometimes with mandates for specific allocations.  The preference tends to be for safer instruments.  If you're required to only buy AAA rated bonds (which is where most of the money is), there's no incentive to tinker with it.

Mutual funds and insurance companies' investment guidelines aren't etched in stone, neither are regulatory guidelines that require investments in certain asset classes.  If ratings determined under an issuer-pay framework aren't reliable or useful, then the charters and regulations will be/should be changed.  I work in the insurance industry and their regulators recently removed reference to rating agency ratings in some of their investment guidelines (however in doing so they outsourced the determination of capital charges to big investment houses like Pimco and Blackrock, so I don't know what conflicts have been avoided)

But the ratings remain a useful indicator apparently  (otherwise they'd beout of business) and therefore why is there a need to change the model?  Everyone knows the supposed conflicts.

4) From what I hear from my friends in finance and law, a lot of ethical standards are focused on protecting the interests of the investor, so by that standard having the credit ratings agency be on the side of the investor would be more ethical.

They provide an opinion that the investor can take or leave.  It certainly isn't any more ethical for an investor who wants a high rating for the bonds in his portfolio to pay for ratings.

5) Wouldn't it help to be a bit more risk-conscious, given the state of our economy?

And as for your argument to just ignore the credit ratings, I'd refer you to argument 3 -- for historical and legal reasons, we've been tied to the ratings by S&P, Moody's, and Fitch.  While it's probably a good suggestion -- a lot of big investment houses have their own "credit research" teams anyway -- there are funds that have people's money tied up for 30 years that can't just up and change everything they're doing without upsetting their investors.
 ...

 If those funds think the ratings provided are useful, they can use them.  If not, they can buy ratings from the investor-pay rating agencies or other research firms, or they can do the research in house.  I certainly wouldn't want to be invested in a fund whose manager thinks that the ratings are unreliable because of conflicts, but continues to use them because they can't handle the research in house.
 
2013-06-25 05:02:08 PM
"By the way, just incidentally, I'm guessing that's not the first time Shep Smith has had to say, 'This has to be the stupidest place I've ever worked at.'"

I larf'd.
 
2013-06-25 05:02:57 PM

eventhelosers: What's the difference between jam and jelly?


You can't jelly it down her throat?

/Right?
 
2013-06-25 05:04:56 PM

wildsnowllama: squidgod2000: Daily Show is 90% writers, 10% host. The usual host may be gone, but the writers are still the same (minus said host).

Pretty sure delivery of the comedy is more important than you think.


Indeed. You could give George Carlin's funniest material to Ryan Seacrest, and I'd doubt you'd ever laugh.
 
2013-06-25 05:25:49 PM

aintnuttintofarkwith: eventhelosers: What's the difference between jam and jelly?

You can't jelly it down her throat?

/Right?


The way I always heard it was: I don't jelly my dick into my girlfriend's asshole.
 
2013-06-25 05:28:55 PM
We should just take it for granted that the ratings agencies are parasitic snakeoil salesmen and bullshiat artists, who provide no real tangible benefit, good or service to humankind.    The entire industry is a sham.  A numbers gambit amounting to nothing more than a futile waste of man hours,  brian power, education and privilege that otherwise could have been used to benefit humanity (or at least provided a benign effect).   Rather, upon each of the participants death, the world will be a better place on the whole.

In other words, they're in the financial sector.
 
2013-06-25 05:31:22 PM

Bith Set Me Up: wildsnowllama: squidgod2000: Daily Show is 90% writers, 10% host. The usual host may be gone, but the writers are still the same (minus said host).

Pretty sure delivery of the comedy is more important than you think.

Indeed. You could give George Carlin's funniest material to Ryan Seacrest, and I'd doubt you'd ever laugh.


Give Seacrest the same drugs and alcohol Carlin used and he would do just fine with the material.
 
2013-06-25 05:39:24 PM

theurge14: the opposite of charity is justice: Where is our resident Apple fanboi going on and on about the iphone's battery life?  Just isn't an Apple thread without him.

Google Maps must have sent you to this thread.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-25 05:45:05 PM

Teaser: He's good but he's either trying too hard to imitate Jon Stewart or the writing just makes it seem that way.


OhioUGrad: Oliver, good writer, God awful host. When Stewart eventually leaves.....if they get Oliver to host, the show will be canceled within a year.


This is what I take away from it as well.  You can tell that it's obviously the same writers, but it's just not the same delivery of the lines.  Stewart's delivery makes TDS what it is.
 
2013-06-25 05:56:35 PM

Father_Jack: OtherLittleGuy: I must admit, against all better judgement, I like this Daily Show host.

What you did there. I see it. With my blue within blue eyes.

Bless the maker and his water. bless the coming and going of him. may his passage cleanse the world.


Posts like these are why I keep showing up here.

/I must not fear...
 
2013-06-25 07:14:26 PM
Jon Oliver may be a pretty great host, but Jason Jones really carries that show.
 
2013-06-25 07:55:11 PM

FriarReb98: Teaser: He's good but he's either trying too hard to imitate Jon Stewart or the writing just makes it seem that way.

OhioUGrad: Oliver, good writer, God awful host. When Stewart eventually leaves.....if they get Oliver to host, the show will be canceled within a year.

This is what I take away from it as well.  You can tell that it's obviously the same writers, but it's just not the same delivery of the lines.  Stewart's delivery makes TDS what it is.


----

That's what they said when Stewart took over. I think Oliver is actually doing a damn good job...
 
2013-06-25 08:47:30 PM

enry: propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.

Yeah.  He needs to do his own things though.  He's going a lot of Stewart's gags and he just doesn't pull them off quite well (BOOM!)


What gags? You mean explaining the joke and making a silly face?
 
2013-06-25 09:03:58 PM

machoprogrammer: enry: propasaurus: John Oliver reminds me of a young Eric Idle.

Yeah.  He needs to do his own things though.  He's going a lot of Stewart's gags and he just doesn't pull them off quite well (BOOM!)

What gags? You mean explaining the joke and making a silly face?


Jay Leno already has his own show.
 
2013-06-25 09:44:15 PM

wildsnowllama: squidgod2000: Daily Show is 90% writers, 10% host. The usual host may be gone, but the writers are still the same (minus said host).

Pretty sure delivery of the comedy is more important than you think.


yup, dane cook is the perfect example. whatever you may think of his jokes, the man can work a crowd.
 
2013-06-25 10:04:05 PM
Oliver has been the best thing about the show for some time now.  Stewart has grown quite stale and need to hang it up sooner than later.

This is the best DS clip in a long time...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-24-2013/get-us-to-the-gee k
 
2013-06-25 10:31:08 PM
Did that guy just call Joe Kernen a financial analyst??  Ha, joke's on you.  Kernen is a moronic douche who has not added anything of value to CNBC in years, if ever.  He was also a broker, not an analyst -- big difference.
 
2013-06-25 10:31:18 PM

tillerman35: Say what you want about Al Franken, but doggone it, people like him.


imageshack.us
 
2013-06-25 10:37:42 PM

freddie freeloader: Did that guy just call Joe Kernen a financial analyst??  Ha, joke's on you.  Kernen is a moronic douche who has not added anything of value to CNBC in years, if ever.  He was also a broker, not an analyst -- big difference.


Maybe the title wasn't precise but A) He's on the financial news channel and B) to talk about finance C) during a segment about financial legislation, so the presumption is that he's merely keeping a chair from floating away while a live camera is on him?

Analyst or no, he's in front of a live camera during that segment. It should be media career suicide to shrug and claim ignorance.

Who am I kidding, if it pleases their corporate master they'd drool on command
 
2013-06-25 11:13:02 PM

FlashHarry: the fact that these agencies are still paid by the companies they rate is an appalling conflict of interest.


With all due respect, couldn't the same thing be said about UL?
 
2013-06-25 11:49:23 PM

archie leach: Oliver has been the best thing about the show for some time now.  Stewart has grown quite stale and need to hang it up sooner than later.

This is the best DS clip in a long time...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-24-2013/get-us-to-the-gee k


I agree with this completely. Jon has been phoning it in for the last 6-8 months and really not clicking. I will say Colbert has been a non stop riot since the election last year started and he continues to pump out some hilarious stuff. I applaud Oliver for adding a new touch to TDS and I think he's done a great job.
 
2013-06-25 11:56:07 PM

mikemoto: FlashHarry: the fact that these agencies are still paid by the companies they rate is an appalling conflict of interest.

With all due respect, couldn't the same thing be said about UL?


UL was set up by insurance companies, the "underwriters."  In theory UL has to answer to them, even if the manufacturers pay for the tests.
 
2013-06-26 12:28:49 AM

Lost Thought 00: doczoidberg: John Oliver is awesome.

I love Stewart, but to be honest, hadn't been watching The Daily Show for several months by the time Oliver took over.

I'm almost kind of hoping Stewart won't really come back, and Oliver will remain the host.

Stewart will come back, but he plans to retire in the not too distant future (on the order of a few years). Expect more extended breaks like this which will serve as potential tryouts for new hosts. I would expect Oliver to get picked up with another show of some sort well before he'd get a chance to take over full-time


Doubt it. Oliver has been pretty adamant that the job he has is the one he wants. It's not that he couldn't get his own show, it's he would consider any job a step down from TDS.
 
2013-06-26 01:38:58 AM
I like the idea of John Oliver with his own show. Perhaps lampoon international news and use incredibly shallow, "style over substance" gimmicks and comic ineptitude a la CNN.
 
2013-06-26 02:56:36 AM

Thats_Not_My_Baby: aintnuttintofarkwith: eventhelosers: What's the difference between jam and jelly?

You can't jelly it down her throat?

/Right?

The way I always heard it was: I don't jelly my dick into my girlfriend's asshole.


That's not what she said.
 
2013-06-26 03:10:39 AM

the opposite of charity is justice: Where is our resident Apple fanboi going on and on about the iphone's battery life?  Just isn't an Apple thread without him.


i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-26 07:00:52 AM

freddie freeloader: Kernen is a moronic douche who has not added anything of value to CNBC in years, if ever. He was also a broker, not an analyst -- big difference.


I somehow doubt CNBC is paying Kernen's salary to manage securities transactions.
 
2013-06-26 08:42:25 AM
Wasn't this story further down yesterday? Did the Daily Show pay to have it bumped up or something?
 
2013-06-26 09:11:43 AM
Why is this in the business tab?
 
2013-06-26 09:34:01 AM

Lord Binky: I like the idea of John Oliver with his own show.


I was really hoping they'd play off the "international news" angle: bright, over-saturated set design with fluorescent colors, that weird PAL artifacting international video gets when we play it on our American TVs, confusing international sports coverage, chav alerts, etc.
 
2013-06-26 10:03:07 AM

mccallcl: Lord Binky: I like the idea of John Oliver with his own show.

I was really hoping they'd play off the "international news" angle: bright, over-saturated set design with fluorescent colors, that weird PAL artifacting international video gets when we play it on our American TVs, confusing international sports coverage, chav alerts, etc.


Oliver already has a podcast called the Bugle.

FYI: He already did have a stand up show he hosted.
www.lanesavage.com
 
2013-06-26 10:10:33 AM

NostroZ: Oliver already has a podcast called the Bugle.


Yes, but does it look like this?:

i1.cdnds.net
 
2013-06-26 07:41:37 PM

Ivo Shandor: It crashed so hard that you would have been better off spending your money on beer and returning the empties.


Thats my mutual fund right there.
 
Displayed 41 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report