[quote=Primo]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!  Someone help me out, am I not clear or is he dense?

[/quote]   After the initial bets thus far, odds makers have Primo heavily favored at 2 to 1 and BullBroker as the longshot at 15 to 1.

[quote=snaggletooth][quote=Primo]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!  Someone help me out, am I not clear or is he dense?

[/quote]   After the initial bets thus far, odds makers have Primo heavily favored at 2 to 1 and BullBroker as the longshot at 15 to 1.[/quote]   Put me down for a dime on myself.

[quote=iceco1d]

  Wait...seriously though; what are we betting on? [/quote]   It really doesn't matter so long as you put your money in my PayPal account.

[quote=iceco1d]I’m not going to place a bet since I TKO’d you pretty good in the Portfolio Management thread.  OK OK, I’m just joking around.  I’ll take $10 on each…according to Snags, the worst I can do is break even!  

  Wait...seriously though; what are we betting on?  If it's that Primo does, or does not, know about ARS, then I bet he DOES, and I wager my entier net worth.  Primo, if you let me down, then I hate  you.  But I know you won't.    If it's about something else...well then I'm too drunk to place a bet right now.  [/quote]   That is the primary difference between you and BB, we may still disagree, but at least you can carry a conversation.

[quote=Primo][quote=BullBroker]

Good Lord, I was ready to let this go but I have to correct you a little.     [quote=Primo]I agree this has spun out of control.  You missed my original point.  You made a blanket statement, I refuted it.  The comments (pathetic specifically) in my first post were directed at the broker in my office.  Read the post again.   What spun this thread so far off track was all the comments after that.  I realize Bull that you are a trainee and this isn't really a fair fight. Your problem is that you assume too much.  You make assumptions about brokers across the country when you know very little about their individual situation.  You also assume that since I am a trainee that this isn't a fair fight.  Some advice, quit making generic assumptions about people you know nothing about.  Let me point out a few mistakes.   You said I didn't understand the ARS market, while I clearly do.  Your under the impression that rates and yields are the main reason why ARS failed.  While it is a small part it's missing the big picture about what truly happened and that's why I said I don't think you fully understand ARS.  That is not what I said at all.  Elevated rates indicate a risk, unable to determine the risk on my own or find someone who could give me a plausible explanation, I avoided ARS.  Your reading comprehension is poor.   Original Statement that started it all "I told him that the rates seemed quite high (4.75%, 7 day, AAA) for such a "safe" investment and that something (did not know what) was going on. "   Looks like a bunch of backtracking to me.  You stated that you thought the rates were "quite high" and something was going on.  We ALL KNOW BY NOW that is not why the ARS failed.    Left Hook BullBroker   You said if I didn't short the market I should shut up, which you (unless you working at the institutional trading desk) nor I can do. Let me correct you, I never once said you could or should short ARS. I said Goldman was on the other side of the trade meaning they were making a market in the ARS and making profit on the spread.  If you need me to explain how market makers make money on the spread I will.  You said if I didn't short the market I should quit thumping my chest.  It is right there in black and white.  This implies that I somehow had the ability to, otherwise why would you have said it?   Went back and read every post I never once said anyone had to short the market I said Goldman was on the other side making a market, and making a spread/profit off of it.  Never said anything about shorting anything, it's not in black and white because it was never said.    Right Jab BullBroker   You said no one is losing money.  To this point you are correct, although Jefferson County AL is very close to default and others will follow.  More on this later.  This is not a secret, in fact if you are following the ARS market, this is quite prominent news.  Why no comment?   Dodge punch and back peddle Primo   You said no one had lost a dime of interest.  Thousands of holders of students loan ARS are getting 0%.  Back to losing money.  Stop thinking like an investor and start thinking like and investment professional.  0% interest on illiquid money is losing purchasing power.  This is what an investment professional is concerned about, not volatility.  I didn't realize the student loan ARS's stopped paying interest.  We didn't have the ability to ticket the student loan backed ARS's in our system.  So if this is true I was wrong, and should have done my research before stating otherwise.  There are many facts about this issue that you do not realize, it is plastered over each of your posts, yet you continue to plow ahead.   Right Hook Primo   ARS=car.  ARPS=Chevy.  MARPS= Ford.  You keep talking about a Ford and calling it a Chevy.  At the very least refer to it as a car.  Again no comment?     Nothing to really comment about you are just stating what is obvious to everyone.   Back peddle Primo   You refuse to acknowledge that rates on fixed income are a measure of risk, perceived or real.  This is not based on historical data, this is fixed income 101, very basic stuff. Never once stated that rate, was not a measure of risk.  I just stated that the rate was not the reason why the ARS failed, which you are barking like it's the only reason and that is just plain wrong.  In your world if ARS had a lower yield (less risky) this would have never happened, and that would be wrong.  Why you claim to understand the ARS market but can't grasp this point is beyond me.  There you go making connections that do not exist.  I did not nor do I now feel the ARS market failed because of rates, I stated that elevated rates denote risk, and that I avoided the market for this reason.   Primo running for the ropes turns argument completely around, now states that he does not feel ARS failed because of rates, but still stands at the position that he avoided them because of rates.  Compeletely contridicting his entire argument about how rates somehow was the cause of the ARS collapse.       You state that the defaulted rates are higher.  Another blanket statement.  Many funds have max rates based on a benchmark, the S&P/Kenny AA for example.  Many (not all) ARS are back to paying market rates.  Not such a good deal for an illiquid investment. There are many if not more that are paying failed rates, I read the prospectus for the one I held, they don't have a choice they must pay the failed rate.  Thanks for restating my post.  Point was, you said everyone was clipping higher rates, and there are thousands that are not.   I never said everyone was clipping higher rates, I stated that when the ARS failed people were getting higher rates.  I didn't say everyone, and it's obvious to anyone involved that there are people getting higher rates because of the failure.    You said that what was going on with ARS had nothing to do with rates.  Thats like saying your cough has nothing to do with your lung cancer because you have a cold.   I stated that it had very little to do with rates, and you can't bring proof that it was based on rates because that is just wrong. Again, rates did not cause the failure of the market, they just predicted a risk in an efficient market.  If ARS were paying the historical 50 bps over the market when it failed you would be right.  However they were paying 200 bps over the market at the time of failure.  Why?  Could it be an efficient market pricing risk correctly?  Funny thing is, you will never know if a market if pricing any instrument correctly until some point in the future.  If you took the information you had at the time and participated or chose to not participate and your decision turns out to be correct, is that not a good  thing?   Primo backs away from his original statement that he saw high rates and avoided them.  Running for the ropes waiting for the bell to save him.     It all started when a market maker decided not to make a market in the other side of the trade hence a ripple effect through the entire market.  The market maker didn't come and say "ya know these rates are just too high I don't think I want to participate today".  At least I can admit when I was wrong about the student loans not paying interest rates.   BullBroker takes a jab to the jaw admits he was wrong and is a better man for it.    Prato, you get my point.  I don't have a problem with anyone who did their due diligence and bought an investment that turned sour.  My issue is those who buy an investment based on Mr. Producer is doing it so should I, then crying afterwards.  Again I was referring specifically to the broker in my own office, although I am sure he is not the only one. No reply?  It's funny that you only reply to half my posts.   Primo spends the first 12 rounds arguing about how he saw the high rates and that is why he avoided the ARS.  Comes in the 13 round and claims that he never said it and aknowledged what BullBroker has been saying all along, high rates didn't cause failure in ARS.    Refs decision...................................clear win for the challenger BB, hope you all placed your paypal bets for the underdog/trainee, snaggle will deposit your winnings within 24hours.     [/quote] [/quote] [/quote]

[quote=BullBroker][quote=Primo][quote=BullBroker]

Good Lord, I was ready to let this go but I have to correct you a little.     [quote=Primo]I agree this has spun out of control.  You missed my original point.  You made a blanket statement, I refuted it.  The comments (pathetic specifically) in my first post were directed at the broker in my office.  Read the post again.   What spun this thread so far off track was all the comments after that.  I realize Bull that you are a trainee and this isn't really a fair fight. Your problem is that you assume too much.  You make assumptions about brokers across the country when you know very little about their individual situation.  You also assume that since I am a trainee that this isn't a fair fight.  Some advice, quit making generic assumptions about people you know nothing about.  Let me point out a few mistakes.   You said I didn't understand the ARS market, while I clearly do.  Your under the impression that rates and yields are the main reason why ARS failed.  While it is a small part it's missing the big picture about what truly happened and that's why I said I don't think you fully understand ARS.  That is not what I said at all.  Elevated rates indicate a risk, unable to determine the risk on my own or find someone who could give me a plausible explanation, I avoided ARS.  Your reading comprehension is poor.   Original Statement that started it all "I told him that the rates seemed quite high (4.75%, 7 day, AAA) for such a "safe" investment and that something (did not know what) was going on. "   Looks like a bunch of backtracking to me.  You stated that you thought the rates were "quite high" and something was going on.  We ALL KNOW BY NOW that is not why the ARS failed.   All Primo said was that he avoided the ARPs market.  You're blowing the rest out of proportion.   Snaggletooth   it didnt take a genius to figure out that there was something wrong with ARS when they were yielding 4.5% plus for 7 day maturities when T bills were yielding 1%.  Pratoman Left Hook BullBroker   Illegal blow!!!, ref deducts one point from BB!!!   You said if I didn't short the market I should shut up, which you (unless you working at the institutional trading desk) nor I can do. Let me correct you, I never once said you could or should short ARS. I said Goldman was on the other side of the trade meaning they were making a market in the ARS and making profit on the spread.  If you need me to explain how market makers make money on the spread I will.  You said if I didn't short the market I should quit thumping my chest.  It is right there in black and white.  This implies that I somehow had the ability to, otherwise why would you have said it?   Went back and read every post I never once said anyone had to short the market I said Goldman was on the other side making a market, and making a spread/profit off of it.  Never said anything about shorting anything, it's not in black and white because it was never said.   Inless he put money on the opposite side of the trade don't come on here and thump your chest against the guys who lost money. Right Jab BullBroker    Phantom punch, BB cannot sustain any type of attack!!  Round 2 to Primo   You said no one is losing money.  To this point you are correct, although Jefferson County AL is very close to default and others will follow.  More on this later.  This is not a secret, in fact if you are following the ARS market, this is quite prominent news.  Why no comment?   Dodge punch and back peddle Primo  BB refuses to engage!!!  Merrill Lynch was the underwriter and was recently fired by Jefferson County.  Massive swelling under BB's right ego.  Round 3 to Primo.   You said no one had lost a dime of interest.  Thousands of holders of students loan ARS are getting 0%.  Back to losing money.  Stop thinking like an investor and start thinking like and investment professional.  0% interest on illiquid money is losing purchasing power.  This is what an investment professional is concerned about, not volatility.  I didn't realize the student loan ARS's stopped paying interest.  We didn't have the ability to ticket the student loan backed ARS's in our system.  So if this is true I was wrong, and should have done my research before stating otherwise.  There are many facts about this issue that you do not realize, it is plastered over each of your posts, yet you continue to plow ahead.   Right Hook Primo and BB goes down!!! Up again at the count of 8, he is taking a tremendous beating.  Not sure if it is heart or stupidity, but he keeps coming forward against the more skilled opponent.  Round 4 to Primo.   ARS=car.  ARPS=Chevy.  MARPS= Ford.  You keep talking about a Ford and calling it a Chevy.  At the very least refer to it as a car.  Again no comment?     Nothing to really comment about you are just stating what is obvious to everyone.   Back peddle Primo   It appears BB has forgotten defense!!!  He is just ignoring the furious lightening quick jabs from Primo.  Unfortunately, ignoring the beating will not make it go away.  Round 5 to Primo.   You refuse to acknowledge that rates on fixed income are a measure of risk, perceived or real.  This is not based on historical data, this is fixed income 101, very basic stuff. Never once stated that rate, was not a measure of risk.  I just stated that the rate was not the reason why the ARS failed, which you are barking like it's the only reason and that is just plain wrong.  In your world if ARS had a lower yield (less risky) this would have never happened, and that would be wrong.  Why you claim to understand the ARS market but can't grasp this point is beyond me.  There you go making connections that do not exist.  I did not nor do I now feel the ARS market failed because of rates, I stated that elevated rates denote risk, and that I avoided the market for this reason.   Primo running for the ropes turns argument completely around, now states that he does not feel ARS failed because of rates, but still stands at the position that he avoided them because of rates.  Compeletely contridicting his entire argument about how rates somehow was the cause of the ARS collapse.   For the first time in boxing history, the fight has been stopped for an instant replay.  BB claims a foul.  We will go to the replay.  No foul occured.  In a strange turn, BB is asked to view the replay himself and point out the foul!!!!  Round 6 to Primo.  Seems the break just gave the more skilled combatant a chance to rest.    I never said higher auction rates CAUSED the freeze up.  But if you insist, cut and paste it.   You state that the defaulted rates are higher.  Another blanket statement.  Many funds have max rates based on a benchmark, the S&P/Kenny AA for example.  Many (not all) ARS are back to paying market rates.  Not such a good deal for an illiquid investment. There are many if not more that are paying failed rates, I read the prospectus for the one I held, they don't have a choice they must pay the failed rate.  Thanks for restating my post.  Point was, you said everyone was clipping higher rates, and there are thousands that are not.   I never said everyone They are actually having to pay an even higher failed rate now than they were before.  was clipping higher rates, I stated that when the ARS failed people were getting higher rates.  I didn't say everyone, and it's obvious to anyone involved that there are people getting higher rates because of the failure.  OK, I added everyone.  Round 7 too close to call.  Based on some ARS going to 0% Round 7 goes to Primo.   You said that what was going on with ARS had nothing to do with rates.  Thats like saying your cough has nothing to do with your lung cancer because you have a cold.   I stated that it had very little to do with rates, and you can't bring proof that it was based on rates because that is just wrong. Again, rates did not cause the failure of the market, they just predicted a risk in an efficient market.  If ARS were paying the historical 50 bps over the market when it failed you would be right.  However they were paying 200 bps over the market at the time of failure.  Why?  Could it be an efficient market pricing risk correctly?  Funny thing is, you will never know if a market if pricing any instrument correctly until some point in the future.  If you took the information you had at the time and participated or chose to not participate and your decision turns out to be correct, is that not a good  thing?   Primo backs away from  repeats his original statement that he saw high rates and avoided them.  It appears BB is Running for the ropes waiting for the bell to save him. Round 8 to Primo.  Wow is this brutal.     It all started when a market maker decided not to make a market in the other side of the trade hence a ripple effect through the entire market.  The market maker didn't come and say "ya know these rates are just too high I don't think I want to participate today".  At least I can admit when I was wrong about the student loans not paying interest rates.   BullBroker takes a jab to the jaw admits he was wrong and is a better man for it.  Primo has just set the record for most punches landed in one fight according to compubox!!!  Round 9 to Primo   Prato, you get my point.  I don't have a problem with anyone who did their due diligence and bought an investment that turned sour.  My issue is those who buy an investment based on Mr. Producer is doing it so should I, then crying afterwards.  Again I was referring specifically to the broker in my own office, although I am sure he is not the only one. No reply?  It's funny that you only reply to half my posts.   Primo spends the first 12 rounds arguing about how he saw the high rates and that is why he avoided the ARS.  Comes in the 13 round and claims that he never said it and aknowledged what BullBroker has been saying all along, high rates didn't cause failure in ARS.    Refs decision...................................clear win for the challenger BB, hope you all placed your paypal bets for the underdog/trainee, snaggle will deposit your winnings within 24hours.  And 10 seconds into the 10th round BB goes down for good.  In the post fight interview Primo reveals that carried the fight from about 15 seconds into the first round.  Right before the fight, he was told that BB was an amatuer with a losing record and he waited until to 10th to knock him out, mainly out of self amusement.  In a shocking revelation, Primo also offered to reimburse those who bet on BB.  So Mrs. BB and John Thain just need to contact Primo's manager and he will send them their 2$ back.     [/quote] [/quote] [/quote] [/quote]

[quote=Primo][quote=BullBroker][quote=Primo][quote=BullBroker]

Good Lord, I was ready to let this go but I have to correct you a little.     [quote=Primo]I agree this has spun out of control.  You missed my original point.  You made a blanket statement, I refuted it.  The comments (pathetic specifically) in my first post were directed at the broker in my office.  Read the post again.   What spun this thread so far off track was all the comments after that.  I realize Bull that you are a trainee and this isn't really a fair fight. Your problem is that you assume too much.  You make assumptions about brokers across the country when you know very little about their individual situation.  You also assume that since I am a trainee that this isn't a fair fight.  Some advice, quit making generic assumptions about people you know nothing about.  Let me point out a few mistakes.   You said I didn't understand the ARS market, while I clearly do.  Your under the impression that rates and yields are the main reason why ARS failed.  While it is a small part it's missing the big picture about what truly happened and that's why I said I don't think you fully understand ARS.  That is not what I said at all.  Elevated rates indicate a risk, unable to determine the risk on my own or find someone who could give me a plausible explanation, I avoided ARS.  Your reading comprehension is poor.   Original Statement that started it all "I told him that the rates seemed quite high (4.75%, 7 day, AAA) for such a "safe" investment and that something (did not know what) was going on. "   Looks like a bunch of backtracking to me.  You stated that you thought the rates were "quite high" and something was going on.  We ALL KNOW BY NOW that is not why the ARS failed.   All Primo said was that he avoided the ARPs market.  You're blowing the rest out of proportion.   Snaggletooth   it didnt take a genius to figure out that there was something wrong with ARS when they were yielding 4.5% plus for 7 day maturities when T bills were yielding 1%.  Pratoman Left Hook BullBroker   Illegal blow!!!, ref deducts one point from BB!!!   You said if I didn't short the market I should shut up, which you (unless you working at the institutional trading desk) nor I can do. Let me correct you, I never once said you could or should short ARS. I said Goldman was on the other side of the trade meaning they were making a market in the ARS and making profit on the spread.  If you need me to explain how market makers make money on the spread I will.  You said if I didn't short the market I should quit thumping my chest.  It is right there in black and white.  This implies that I somehow had the ability to, otherwise why would you have said it?   Went back and read every post I never once said anyone had to short the market I said Goldman was on the other side making a market, and making a spread/profit off of it.  Never said anything about shorting anything, it's not in black and white because it was never said.   Inless he put money on the opposite side of the trade don't come on here and thump your chest against the guys who lost money. Right Jab BullBroker    Phantom punch, BB cannot sustain any type of attack!!  Round 2 to Primo   You said no one is losing money.  To this point you are correct, although Jefferson County AL is very close to default and others will follow.  More on this later.  This is not a secret, in fact if you are following the ARS market, this is quite prominent news.  Why no comment?   Dodge punch and back peddle Primo  BB refuses to engage!!!  Merrill Lynch was the underwriter and was recently fired by Jefferson County.  Massive swelling under BB's right ego.  Round 3 to Primo.   You said no one had lost a dime of interest.  Thousands of holders of students loan ARS are getting 0%.  Back to losing money.  Stop thinking like an investor and start thinking like and investment professional.  0% interest on illiquid money is losing purchasing power.  This is what an investment professional is concerned about, not volatility.  I didn't realize the student loan ARS's stopped paying interest.  We didn't have the ability to ticket the student loan backed ARS's in our system.  So if this is true I was wrong, and should have done my research before stating otherwise.  There are many facts about this issue that you do not realize, it is plastered over each of your posts, yet you continue to plow ahead.   Right Hook Primo and BB goes down!!! Up again at the count of 8, he is taking a tremendous beating.  Not sure if it is heart or stupidity, but he keeps coming forward against the more skilled opponent.  Round 4 to Primo.   ARS=car.  ARPS=Chevy.  MARPS= Ford.  You keep talking about a Ford and calling it a Chevy.  At the very least refer to it as a car.  Again no comment?     Nothing to really comment about you are just stating what is obvious to everyone.   Back peddle Primo   It appears BB has forgotten defense!!!  He is just ignoring the furious lightening quick jabs from Primo.  Unfortunately, ignoring the beating will not make it go away.  Round 5 to Primo.   You refuse to acknowledge that rates on fixed income are a measure of risk, perceived or real.  This is not based on historical data, this is fixed income 101, very basic stuff. Never once stated that rate, was not a measure of risk.  I just stated that the rate was not the reason why the ARS failed, which you are barking like it's the only reason and that is just plain wrong.  In your world if ARS had a lower yield (less risky) this would have never happened, and that would be wrong.  Why you claim to understand the ARS market but can't grasp this point is beyond me.  There you go making connections that do not exist.  I did not nor do I now feel the ARS market failed because of rates, I stated that elevated rates denote risk, and that I avoided the market for this reason.   Primo running for the ropes turns argument completely around, now states that he does not feel ARS failed because of rates, but still stands at the position that he avoided them because of rates.  Compeletely contridicting his entire argument about how rates somehow was the cause of the ARS collapse.   For the first time in boxing history, the fight has been stopped for an instant replay.  BB claims a foul.  We will go to the replay.  No foul occured.  In a strange turn, BB is asked to view the replay himself and point out the foul!!!!  Round 6 to Primo.  Seems the break just gave the more skilled combatant a chance to rest.    I never said higher auction rates CAUSED the freeze up.  But if you insist, cut and paste it.   You state that the defaulted rates are higher.  Another blanket statement.  Many funds have max rates based on a benchmark, the S&P/Kenny AA for example.  Many (not all) ARS are back to paying market rates.  Not such a good deal for an illiquid investment. There are many if not more that are paying failed rates, I read the prospectus for the one I held, they don't have a choice they must pay the failed rate.  Thanks for restating my post.  Point was, you said everyone was clipping higher rates, and there are thousands that are not.   I never said everyone They are actually having to pay an even higher failed rate now than they were before.  was clipping higher rates, I stated that when the ARS failed people were getting higher rates.  I didn't say everyone, and it's obvious to anyone involved that there are people getting higher rates because of the failure.  OK, I added everyone.  Round 7 too close to call.  Based on some ARS going to 0% Round 7 goes to Primo.   You said that what was going on with ARS had nothing to do with rates.  Thats like saying your cough has nothing to do with your lung cancer because you have a cold.   I stated that it had very little to do with rates, and you can't bring proof that it was based on rates because that is just wrong. Again, rates did not cause the failure of the market, they just predicted a risk in an efficient market.  If ARS were paying the historical 50 bps over the market when it failed you would be right.  However they were paying 200 bps over the market at the time of failure.  Why?  Could it be an efficient market pricing risk correctly?  Funny thing is, you will never know if a market if pricing any instrument correctly until some point in the future.  If you took the information you had at the time and participated or chose to not participate and your decision turns out to be correct, is that not a good  thing?   Primo backs away from  repeats his original statement that he saw high rates and avoided them.  It appears BB is Running for the ropes waiting for the bell to save him. Round 8 to Primo.  Wow is this brutal.     It all started when a market maker decided not to make a market in the other side of the trade hence a ripple effect through the entire market.  The market maker didn't come and say "ya know these rates are just too high I don't think I want to participate today".  At least I can admit when I was wrong about the student loans not paying interest rates.   BullBroker takes a jab to the jaw admits he was wrong and is a better man for it.  Primo has just set the record for most punches landed in one fight according to compubox!!!  Round 9 to Primo   Prato, you get my point.  I don't have a problem with anyone who did their due diligence and bought an investment that turned sour.  My issue is those who buy an investment based on Mr. Producer is doing it so should I, then crying afterwards.  Again I was referring specifically to the broker in my own office, although I am sure he is not the only one. No reply?  It's funny that you only reply to half my posts.   Primo spends the first 12 rounds arguing about how he saw the high rates and that is why he avoided the ARS.  Comes in the 13 round and claims that he never said it and aknowledged what BullBroker has been saying all along, high rates didn't cause failure in ARS.    Refs decision...................................clear win for the challenger BB, hope you all placed your paypal bets for the underdog/trainee, snaggle will deposit your winnings within 24hours.  And 10 seconds into the 10th round BB goes down for good.  In the post fight interview Primo reveals that carried the fight from about 15 seconds into the first round.  Right before the fight, he was told that BB was an amatuer with a losing record and he waited until to 10th to knock him out, mainly out of self amusement.  In a shocking revelation, Primo also offered to reimburse those who bet on BB.  So Mrs. BB and John Thain just need to contact Primo's manager and he will send them their 2$ back.     [/quote] [/quote] [/quote] [/quote] [/quote]   Extremely lame attempt at trying to follow up my boxing rhetoric.  The entire time I was reading Primo's comeback all I could picture was a guy who looks like Don King back peddling around the ring.  Whining in a Mike Tyson like voice "don't hit me", "don't hit me"..  

Primo:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  I agree...let's put this one to bed before we get an ******* involved again.

Awesome!

There isnt too much that can crack me up at 6 am! Indy's right . Better take the fight to PM's, before one of the trolls show up

I wonder if Bull figured out all the financials went up because of short covering, might have something to do with that pesky SEC killing short selling of financials.

joedabrkr:

[quote=BullBroker][quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BullBroker]And what is it that you would sell all the people in line at IndyMac Bank?[/quote]

MER is cheap…and probably getting cheaper…

  Up another 11% again today, I hope you are not in the business of investing other peoples money.  [/quote]

Ahhhh yes...and now we're heading back for fresh lows today...only a few days later.  NOW who looks a little silly? How's yer 401k looking there Bull?  I hope you were diversified!

From the Associated Press for your reading pleasure:

[/quote]   You know the best part about this is?  Of course you don't because you are too dense to look past the headlines.  The best part is that Merrill is not only selling these securities, it's also doing the lending for up to 75% of the assets to the buyer.  Merrill did the same thing with Bloomberg, Merrill approached Bloomberg to sell back their shares to them and lent them the money to buy their shares back.  Not only is Merrill getting these toxic assets off their book, gaining liquiditiy, they are also making money by being the lender in the whole deal.    So go ahead and poke fun at the giant gorilla in the room while you can. 

BullBroker:

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BullBroker][quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BullBroker]And what is it that you would sell all the people in line at IndyMac Bank?[/quote]

MER is cheap…and probably getting cheaper…

  Up another 11% again today, I hope you are not in the business of investing other peoples money.  [/quote]

Ahhhh yes...and now we're heading back for fresh lows today...only a few days later.  NOW who looks a little silly? How's yer 401k looking there Bull?  I hope you were diversified!

From the Associated Press for your reading pleasure:

[/quote]   You know the best part about this is?  Of course you don't because you are too dense to look past the headlines.  The best part is that Merrill is not only selling these securities, it's also doing the lending for up to 75% of the assets to the buyer.  Merrill did the same thing with Bloomberg, Merrill approached Bloomberg to sell back their shares to them and lent them the money to buy their shares back.  Not only is Merrill getting these toxic assets off their book, gaining liquiditiy, they are also making money by being the lender in the whole deal.    So go ahead and poke fun at the giant gorilla in the room while you can.  [/quote]   FYI, even Mother Merrill is not immune to the possibility of consolidation in this business.  No firm is.  The only constant in this industry is change.

snaggletooth:

[quote=BullBroker][quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BullBroker][quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BullBroker]And what is it that you would sell all the people in line at IndyMac Bank?[/quote]

MER is cheap…and probably getting cheaper…

  Up another 11% again today, I hope you are not in the business of investing other peoples money.  [/quote]

Ahhhh yes...and now we're heading back for fresh lows today...only a few days later.  NOW who looks a little silly? How's yer 401k looking there Bull?  I hope you were diversified!

From the Associated Press for your reading pleasure:

[/quote]   You know the best part about this is?  Of course you don't because you are too dense to look past the headlines.  The best part is that Merrill is not only selling these securities, it's also doing the lending for up to 75% of the assets to the buyer.  Merrill did the same thing with Bloomberg, Merrill approached Bloomberg to sell back their shares to them and lent them the money to buy their shares back.  Not only is Merrill getting these toxic assets off their book, gaining liquiditiy, they are also making money by being the lender in the whole deal.    So go ahead and poke fun at the giant gorilla in the room while you can.  [/quote]   FYI, even Mother Merrill is not immune to the possibility of consolidation in this business.  No firm is.  The only constant in this industry is change.

[/quote]

 

I'm not naive enough to think it won't ever happen, but for the last 93 years Merrill Lynch has only been one firm.  Correct me if I'm wrong(which I know you guys will) but Merrill Lynch is the only Major Investment firm that has never been bought or sold. 

There is a reason Mother Merrill is scrambling and scraping for cash, there is a big consolidation coming in the financial industry.  Merrill is just insuring that they have enough cash on the books that no one has enough money to come in and buy them.  In my opinion there isn't a company in the U.S. strong enough to buy Merrill Lynch, (maybe GE but they won't, they too are scrambling for cash), I am most worried about a Saudi company stepping up and buying a major firm in the U.S. 

BullBroker:

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BullBroker][quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BullBroker]And what is it that you would sell all the people in line at IndyMac Bank?[/quote]

MER is cheap…and probably getting cheaper…

  Up another 11% again today, I hope you are not in the business of investing other peoples money.  [/quote]

Ahhhh yes...and now we're heading back for fresh lows today...only a few days later.  NOW who looks a little silly? How's yer 401k looking there Bull?  I hope you were diversified!

From the Associated Press for your reading pleasure:

[/quote]   You know the best part about this is?  Of course you don't because you are too dense to look past the headlines.  The best part is that Merrill is not only selling these securities, it's also doing the lending for up to 75% of the assets to the buyer.  Merrill did the same thing with Bloomberg, Merrill approached Bloomberg to sell back their shares to them and lent them the money to buy their shares back.  Not only is Merrill getting these toxic assets off their book, gaining liquiditiy, they are also making money by being the lender in the whole deal.    So go ahead and poke fun at the giant gorilla in the room while you can.  [/quote]   So let me see if I am understanding this.  Mer is diluting shareholders interest, selling CDOs at a 78% discount to face value, and paying $2.5billion to Temasek to cover losses in the last stock sale and this is a good thing????  What color is the kool-aid at your firm?  On a side note, please reread your posts before you put them on the board.  You said Mer is lending the money to buy its own assets.  Sending money out to be paid back that same money and collecting an underwriting fee is not how you shore up your balance sheet. 

Primo:

[quote=BullBroker][quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BullBroker][quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BullBroker]And what is it that you would sell all the people in line at IndyMac Bank?[/quote]

MER is cheap…and probably getting cheaper…

  Up another 11% again today, I hope you are not in the business of investing other peoples money.  [/quote]

Ahhhh yes...and now we're heading back for fresh lows today...only a few days later.  NOW who looks a little silly? How's yer 401k looking there Bull?  I hope you were diversified!

From the Associated Press for your reading pleasure:

[/quote]   You know the best part about this is?  Of course you don't because you are too dense to look past the headlines.  The best part is that Merrill is not only selling these securities, it's also doing the lending for up to 75% of the assets to the buyer.  Merrill did the same thing with Bloomberg, Merrill approached Bloomberg to sell back their shares to them and lent them the money to buy their shares back.  Not only is Merrill getting these toxic assets off their book, gaining liquiditiy, they are also making money by being the lender in the whole deal.    So go ahead and poke fun at the giant gorilla in the room while you can.  [/quote]   So let me see if I am understanding this.  Mer is diluting shareholders interest, selling CDOs at a 78% discount to face value, and paying $2.5billion to Temasek to cover losses in the last stock sale and this is a good thing????  What color is the kool-aid at your firm?  On a side note, please reread your posts before you put them on the board.  You said Mer is lending the money to buy its own assets.  Sending money out to be paid back that same money and collecting an underwriting fee is not how you shore up your balance sheet.  [/quote]   Just like my uneducated clients you are looking at the headlines, and allowing yourself to be irrational.  What you fail to realize is that Merrill did a non-recourse loan for 75% of the CDO's.  Meaning that while the collateral remains on the assets side of the balance sheet, the actual debt is carried as a liability.    I think the market is obviously smarter than the people on this board, just take a look at financials today.  Merrill made a mistake by taking on such a large portion of CDO's, but are the leaders in the industry by stepping up and taking ownership of the mistake, getting toxic waste off it's balance sheet and gaining liquidity.    I think the market and the industry will take Merrill's lead and follow on this.  Did Merrill lose a lot of money?  Yes.  Is Merrill setting industry standards and cleaning up this mess?  Yes.  Are there a lot of uneducated people out there who will see this as anything other than a significant reduction in problematic exposure?  Absolutely.  Will Primo and Joedafaker come on here touting their obvious pessimistic doom-and-gloom for Merrill?  I would put money on it.