[y66]

If Bill Clinton played bridge, maybe that whole Monica thing would have blown over. Then he, Rubin and Greenspan might have had a chance to seriously discuss proposals for regulating derivatives.

Edit: When is Chuck Norris going to weigh in on this mess?

[BillHiggin]

y66, on Mar 20 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

If Bill Clinton played bridge, maybe that whole Monica thing would have blown over. Then he, Rubin and Greenspan might have had a chance to seriously discuss proposals for regulating derivatives.

Edit: When is Chuck Norris going to weigh in on this mess?

We do not use "blown" in a sentance containing those two names

[Winstonm]

Quote

atlantajon Posted: Mar 19 2009, 12:09 AM 

Well....this one I have to go against the field. I do not believe that discussing a fellow player can come to ANY good, regardless of the situation. The concept of "ZERO Tolerance" should extend beyond the limits of the table. Would you consider acting like a fool in the lobby of an event? I think not....therefore the same should happen here in our forum.

I'll have to check with NewSpeak and the Ministry of Truth before I respond.

[y66]

Sorry Bill. Forgot to consult the water cooler style guide. If he were a BBO member I would, of course, retract that.

[Rain]

If we keep the discussion civil and non-sarcastic, I find it acceptable to discuss Cayne and Madoff's role in their respective financial crisis, as the opening post seemed to intend. Please stop straying from topic.

They are both public figures helming companies that control a lot of money. But they're hardly alike. Cayne built Bears up, and was really just doing what almost everyone else was doing, by most accounts. Madoff knew his company was a pyramid scheme, and tried to milked it even more at the end when he knowingly tried to give out bonuses early and transfer assets to his wife.

I think I read somewhere that Cayne tried his best to pay as much debt as he could towards the end, and he went down with the ship instead of focusing on negotiating wonderful bonuses to be paid out somehow. That's old school. I find it rather admirable.

[matmat]

Winstonm, on Mar 20 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

Quote

atlantajon Posted: Mar 19 2009, 12:09 AM  

Well....this one I have to go against the field. I do not believe that discussing a fellow player can come to ANY good, regardless of the situation. The concept of "ZERO Tolerance" should extend beyond the limits of the table. Would you consider acting like a fool in the lobby of an event? I think not....therefore the same should happen here in our forum.

I'll have to check with NewSpeak and the Ministry of Truth before I respond.

My contact at the ministry of silly walks said jon was wrong.

[Rain]

Please stop discussing whether it's right or wrong to discuss cayne vs madoff in this context, even when quoting august personals like the people from the ministry of funny walks. : )

[H_KARLUK]

Wall Street vs. Main Street.

"Corporate America". Yup, cool informal phrase. I am told less cut throat there. Hmm, really sorry but I dont think there's a room for amateurs in the history of finance world anywhere in this planet.

ps. I will visit NY. Have a Turkish younghood friend, very good educated in US. Later on married with an American Lady. I wonder Manhattan Island where they live.

[Winstonm]

It appears that Madoff has taken the course on "How not to be seen".

[H_KARLUK]

matmat, on Mar 21 2009, 06:44 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 20 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

Quote

atlantajon Posted: Mar 19 2009, 12:09 AM  

Well....this one I have to go against the field. I do not believe that discussing a fellow player can come to ANY good, regardless of the situation. The concept of "ZERO Tolerance" should extend beyond the limits of the table. Would you consider acting like a fool in the lobby of an event? I think not....therefore the same should happen here in our forum.

I'll have to check with NewSpeak and the Ministry of Truth before I respond.

My contact at the ministry of silly walks said jon was wrong.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/370230/monty...of_silly_walks/
You scored another absurd thread "tamtam".

[kenberg]

Rain, on Mar 20 2009, 10:53 PM, said:

If we keep the discussion civil and non-sarcastic, I find it acceptable to discuss Cayne and Madoff's role in their respective financial crisis, as the opening post seemed to intend. Please stop straying from topic.

They are both public figures helming companies that control a lot of money. But they're hardly alike. Cayne built Bears up, and was really just doing what almost everyone else was doing, by most accounts. Madoff knew his company was a pyramid scheme, and tried to milked it even more at the end when he knowingly tried to give out bonuses early and transfer assets to his wife.

I think I read somewhere that Cayne tried his best to pay as much debt as he could towards the end, and he went down with the ship instead of focusing on negotiating wonderful bonuses to be paid out somehow. That's old school. I find it rather admirable.

Let me take a shot at non-sarcasm here. I have not read House of Cards but there is a review in today's Post. Here is an item from the review:

Apparently when LTCM was crashing in 1998 Cayne kept Bear out of a broad Wall Street effort to stave off disaster and bragged about his wisdom. When Bear was in trouble, Wall Street leaders remembered this. For this and other reasons, people were not trying very hard to think of ways to help the man out of a jam.

Madoff's actions were illegal, Cayne's were not. A very big difference. If Cayne ran a string of local auto supply stores his aggressive adherence to watching out for himself first, foremost, and exclusively need not concern us. Since he ran a company that was "too big to fail" then it is our business as well. Life would be simpler if no company was too big to fail but alas, we are told that this is not the way things are. We now see ourselves struggling with what to do about a flock of companies that somehow cannot be left to sink into deserved oblivion. Often this appears to require giving massive financial support while tightly holding our noses. Not a happy time.

Anyway, I don't really consider Madoff interesting. He ripped of some suckers who apparently were serenely uninterested in questions about how he could create large returns, he got caught, whatever happens next will happen. Nor do I consider the specific persona of Cayne all that interesting. I doubt that his approach was unique. The issue we must concern ourselves with is how to handle the "too big to fail" escape clause that many corporations now invoke. Personally, I am coming around to saying screw it, let's let them go under and see what happens, which I guess was Cayne's approach with LTCM. Probably it's best that I am not making binding decisions on these matters.

[pigpenz]

I guess one of the ways that they are the same is the people trusted them to make correct deciscions. One for a unreal profit the other for a no lose business.

[kenberg]

All this attention to the financial world brings to mind a story. I had finished my Ph.D., taken a faculty job, and my father came out for a visit. My father came to this country when he was ten, he finished eighth grade here, and then went to work. He always had trouble understanding why a normal child would want to follow the career path that I had chosen. I took him around and introduced him, and a secretary inquired: "Mr. Berg, were you in academic life also?". "No, I had to work for a living!".

That's largely my view of all these guys: Might do them some good to try working for a living. A Cultural Revolution right here in the USA.