Chase Bank and at risk accounts.

Ah yes, why would I expect the supposed literature major to comprehend the very difficult concept of a collective noun? I should have realized that isn't covered until 5th grade or so, therefore someone who dropped out around 2nd grade would not have been exposed to such complex thoughts.

How often does on refer to Sodom without Gomorrah, or Gomorrah without Sodom? The next thing you know Ol' IB will say "AT&T are...." vice "AT&T is...." Poor Ol' IB, can't even carry the day in what is supposedly his forte. And I even tried to help him out by writing it as "The 1"Good Ol' Boy" South, the 2Dark Ages, THERE'S NO CONJUNCTION HERE TO JOIN YOUR SO CALLED *COLLECTIVE NOUN* TO THE REST OF THE SENTENCE, OLD-TWERP! 3(Sodom & Gomorrah)" instead of "The "Good Ol' Boy" South, the Dark Ages, Sodom, and Gomorrah". But such subtleties were always lost on IBIlliterate (not that this one was very subtle).

Or maybe I am missing the obvious--maybe counting single digit numbers is IB's fundamental problem. Either way, don't panic: I am sure there is an Adult Literacy program mommy can sign you up for. Even she can tell that you need it. Originally Posted by Old-T

You've posted nothing but ignorant deflection, Old-Twerp, in an ignorant attempt to cover your gross stupidity. "Sodom and Gomorrah" is not a *collective noun*, Old-Twerp. Further, Old-Twerp, you only employed one conjunction. To be grammatically correct, as your ignorant ass asserts you are, you are required to have used two conjunctions, Old-Twerp. So, Old-Twerp, why hasn't your mommy enrolled you in that Adult Literacy course?

Poor, pitiful IB. Can't handle the substance so he attacks the petty things--and even gets them wrong.

My original post was a sentence fragment, not a sentence. A very simple three item list, and since it was so simple and obvious a second conjunction was not needed for clarity. And yes, contrary to your stupid back peddling drivel S&G is a collective noun--but there I go again, not accounting for the parts of my audience (obviously starting with you) that read and comprehends at the second grade level. I'll try to keep it Dick and Jane simple for you in the future.

I also noticed that one again you can't even come up with an original insult, can you? No, it is more of the IBPlagerizer at work. How sad you are.

The banks created systemic risk and hid behind a so-called third party AAA rating when they knew the securities were not stable... Originally Posted by Karl Hungus

Sorry Karl - this one sentence captures how wrong and ignorant your entire narrative is. Why would the banks deliberately set out to create “systemic risk”? That doesn't pass the common-sense test. If you lived in a nice mansion, would you be trying to burn it down? One-third of all Lehman Brothers stock was owned by its own employees, who were big losers when the bank collapsed. Do you think they knowingly and actively worked to bring about their own demise? Common sense says no.

The same banks that issue AAA securities also underwrite junk bonds. Do you accuse the banks of “hiding” behind the rating agencies when they sell BB+ or other junk-rated securities? It's up to the investor to evaluate the quality of each investment and decide if the return is commensurate with the risk, taking into account ALL information and not just relying on a Moody's or S&P rating without reading the analysis behind it. If you don't understand something, then don't buy it. That's common sense.

Do you only invest in securities that are guaranteed to remain “stable” in value? If so, I guess you must keep all your money in cash or FDIC-insured deposits. Stocks and bonds trade up and down in value every day. Every bozo knows that. If you buy GM stock or bonds, do you expect it to remain “stable” as long as you own it? GM's sales go up and down, its earnings go up and down, its credit ratings go up and down... so common sense tells us the prices of its stocks and bonds will go up and down too. Since housing prices and loan default rates can go up and down, the same holds true for MBS.

You seem more intelligent than many posters here, but your comprehension of banking and finance is deeply flawed. I suspect you may know better, but you keep pushing a false and misleading narrative because it serves the interests of greedy tort lawyers eager to sue whoever has the deepest pockets. Heck, you may even be one of them.

.

Double Post

It's up to the investor to evaluate the quality of each investment and decide if the return is commensurate with the risk, taking into account ALL information and not just relying on a Moody's or S&P rating without reading the analysis behind it. If you don't understand something, then don't buy it. That's common sense.

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're not suggesting, are you, that all persons with accounts based on markets and trading are "monitoring" the buys and sells and submitting orders to their fund "management" based on their own research?

You're not suggesting, are you, that all persons with accounts based on markets and trading are "monitoring" the buys and sells and submitting orders to their fund "management" based on their own research? Originally Posted by LexusLover

If you care about your money, then you need to KNOW WHAT YOU OWN. If it's a mutual fund, you don't monitor every nickel and dime change in the fund's portfolio, but you DO need to monitor the daily NAV (net asset value), track the fund's performance versus other comparable funds, and stay alert to changes in its management and/or investment strategy. That's your research. It should inform your decisions to buy, sell or hold the fund.

There is a difference between retail and institutional investors. You and I are retail. Mutual fund managers are institutional.

Banks set out to create profit, but failed to take adequate safeguards. What ensued was a total meltdown. The folks who created the meltdown should be called to account. "Oops, sorry I broke the financial system" is not good enough. The banks should never have been incentivized to destabilize their own balance sheets (and the financial system as a whole) by overly-securitizing risky assets. You can blame Congress or Fannie/Freddie, but the bottom line is that the banks made risky gambles and lost.

Call it greedy tort lawyers if you will, but "too big to fail" became "too big to prosecute," and the DOJ completely failed to do its duty. Heads should have rolled, and class action lawyers are the only folks who stepped up to the plate to bring the wrongdoers to account. I generally favor reining in BS lawsuits, but these banks are getting what they deserve on this one.

Poor, pitiful IB. Can't handle the substance so he attacks the petty things--and even gets them wrong.

My original post was a sentence fragment, not a sentence. A very simple three item list, and since it was so simple and obvious a second conjunction was not needed for clarity. And yes, contrary to your stupid back peddling drivel S&G is a collective noun--but there I go again, not accounting for the parts of my audience (obviously starting with you) that read and comprehends at the second grade level. I'll try to keep it Dick and Jane simple for you in the future.

I also noticed that one again you can't even come up with an original insult, can you? No, it is more of the IBPlagerizer at work. How sad you are. Originally Posted by Old-T

Yeah, Old-Twerp, your intellect is non-substantive and petty, and it is your non-substantive and petty intellect that is being attacked. Furthermore, you ignorant SOB, Sodom and Gomorrah WERE Biblical cities that WERE destroyed, jackass! Your fucked-up and ignorant opinion that "Sodom and Gomorrah WAS Biblical cities that WAS destroyed" is as grammatically incorrect as you are stupid, Old-Twerp! You better have your mommy enroll you in that Adult Literacy course tomorrow morning, Old-Twerp.

Temper, temper little boy! Don't raise your voice like that to your betters.

It is a hard concept, I know, but try.
"The flock of birds WAS headed east".
"The flock of birds WERE scattering randomly."

It's all about content and meaning.

Wrong again.

(And you are still plagiarizing insults instead of thinking up your own. I know, original thought is not your strength, is it.)

Temper, temper little boy! Don't raise your voice like that to your betters.

It is a hard concept, I know, but try.
"The flock of birds WAS headed east".
"The flock of birds WERE scattering randomly." IGNORANTLY WRONG ONCE AGAIN, OLD-TWERP!

It's all about content and meaning.

Wrong again.

(And you are still plagiarizing insults instead of thinking up your own. I know, original thought is not your strength, is it.) Originally Posted by Old-T

"Flock" is the noun in both sentences, Old-Twerp, and it's singular in both sentences. It remains, your *flocked*-up and ignorant opinion that "Sodom and Gomorrah WAS Biblical cities that WAS destroyed" is still as grammatically incorrect as you are stupid, Old-Twerp! Maybe you should wake your mommy up and enroll yourself in that Adult Literacy course tonight, Old-Twerp.

Banks set out to create profit, but failed to take adequate safeguards. What ensued was a total meltdown. The folks who created the meltdown should be called to account. "Oops, sorry I broke the financial system" is not good enough. The banks should never have been incentivized to destabilize their own balance sheets (and the financial system as a whole) by overly-securitizing risky assets. You can blame Congress or Fannie/Freddie, but the bottom line is that the banks made risky gambles and lost.

Call it greedy tort lawyers if you will, but "too big to fail" became "too big to prosecute," and the DOJ completely failed to do its duty. Heads should have rolled, and class action lawyers are the only folks who stepped up to the plate to bring the wrongdoers to account. I generally favor reining in BS lawsuits, but these banks are getting what they deserve on this one. Originally Posted by Karl Hungus

the banks took the loans because AIG was about to go bankrupt after Lehman failed ... AIG insured every big bank in the world against other banks failing and they didn't have enough $$$ to cover their debts ... that in a nutshell would have been the nail in the coffin of an already crippled economy and an almost certain econmoic depression

Sorry Karl - this one sentence captures how wrong and ignorant your entire narrative is. Why would the banks deliberately set out to create “systemic risk”? That doesn't pass the common-sense test. If you lived in a nice mansion, would you be trying to burn it down? One-third of all Lehman Brothers stock was owned by its own employees, who were big losers when the bank collapsed. Do you think they knowingly and actively worked to bring about their own demise? Common sense says no.

The same banks that issue AAA securities also underwrite junk bonds. Do you accuse the banks of “hiding” behind the rating agencies when they sell BB+ or other junk-rated securities? It's up to the investor to evaluate the quality of each investment and decide if the return is commensurate with the risk, taking into account ALL information and not just relying on a Moody's or S&P rating without reading the analysis behind it. If you don't understand something, then don't buy it. That's common sense.

Do you only invest in securities that are guaranteed to remain “stable” in value? If so, I guess you must keep all your money in cash or FDIC-insured deposits. Stocks and bonds trade up and down in value every day. Every bozo knows that. If you buy GM stock or bonds, do you expect it to remain “stable” as long as you own it? GM's sales go up and down, its earnings go up and down, its credit ratings go up and down... so common sense tells us the prices of its stocks and bonds will go up and down too. Since housing prices and loan default rates can go up and down, the same holds true for MBS.

You seem more intelligent than many posters here, but your comprehension of banking and finance is deeply flawed. I suspect you may know better, but you keep pushing a false and misleading narrative because it serves the interests of greedy tort lawyers eager to sue whoever has the deepest pockets. Heck, you may even be one of them.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Common sense would dictate one doesn't drink and drive, have bbfs with a provider, spend more than one makes, pollute, engage in PT activities, or kick a puppy, amongst other things. Common sense is not a valid argument.

If you care about your money, then you need to KNOW WHAT YOU OWN. Originally Posted by lustylad

Knowing what I "own" is one thing; actively trading is yet another.

Don't "fade" or "skirt" the issue you created.

Martha Stewart was an active investor, and sought "inside" information.

The ills faced by Chase today have to do with passive investors who relied upon the Chase investment advice to maintain their position until disaster struck. If these passive investors didn't get a wakeup call from Enron, then all the "advice" in the world would not have made any difference .. they blindly listened to the 3-piece suit behind the desk at Chase ... if they ever even got inside the lobby.

Earlier I said: Banks such stick with banking and brokerage companies stick with trading on the markets. Both cater to corporate investors for the big bucks, and often "acquire" failing financial entities in a paper effort to augment their "appearance" of a substantial asset base. So goes the "public" announcements of the balance sheets for all the world to see.

The devil is in the details. And 99% of the "investors" (active or passive) do not have access to the actual strength of those "acquisitions" and "holdings." So they can't possibly make an "informed" decision on trades.

They can only play the trends during the day and churn their accounts.

Says the cretinous Yankee exile that is lost and wandering in despair in the South. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Says the semen drooling Confederate tranny fuckee.

To be grammatically correct Originally Posted by I B Hankering

WERE WERE WAS WAS is as grammatically incorrect Originally Posted by I B Hankering

is the noun in both sentences, and it's singular in both sentences. WAS WAS is still as grammatically incorrect Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Checking grammar and punctuation of posts ...again?

Really?

IB, are you that fucked up as an individual?

I suppose you are.