The Front Office

[who pays]

As Gordon Gekko once said: "The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much."

Agree or not, sure sounds cool.

Sure beats whining losers who facilitate stuff complaining online while lining their own pockets.  Oops, forgot, cretin is in a control department not a facilitation one.  Pity he isn't according to every other person in the industry.

[Vulcanl]

"...Whose revenue pays your salary these days vulcan or is operations now a profit centre..."

"...Sure beats whining losers who facilitate stuff complaining online while lining their own pocket..."

See replies #215 & #243 of this thread.  I will not repeat myself.  Stick to the topic.

"...Agree or not, sure sounds cool..."

Yes, it does sound cool.  That movie is what made me (and so many other young men of my generation) get into this industry.  But like so many other cool words we hear in the movies, they do not honestly reflect the real World.  We are beings of reason, and our actions should not be guided by negative instincts like greed.

[hilarious]

You repeat the same dross ad nauseum. The only time you don't is when someone quizzes you when you claim some random pasted garbage has addressed everything already.

End of the day you are a delusional hypocrite.

[Vulcanl]

hilarious,

All I want is a damn apology from one of these f***ers. 

I'll even take one from you - and that will be the end of this thread.

Game?

[why]

It seems a bit nonsensical for me to apologise to you for the fact that you are an idiot. If however you promises never to post on this board again I would do it regardless of how ridiculous it may seem

[Vulcanl]

You don't sound very contrite or sincere.  Just like the Front Office.  The arrogance is stunning.

[why too]

I would agree that you all of people, are qualified to talk about arrogance. you don't seem to have much expertise in economics but you have certainly got the arrogance market covered.

[Vulcanl]

More useless empty rhethoric.  The FO specializes in talking loud and saying nothing.  This is apparently all that they are good at.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are looking at the mother of all moral hazard situations at the moment.  As of this writing it does not appear that significant changes will be made to the current system. 

The FO will continue to buy Western Governments, 'innovate,' and proceed to find ever more creative ways to pocket obscene amounts of money for providing services that do little good to mankind overall.

Am I arrogant, an idiot, a donkey, otherwise an amateur?

I will say guilty as charged on all counts - but I do know how to read, and my eyes and ears work just fine. 

You can only ignore the obvious for so long.

[Vulcanl]

Well well..speaking of apologies

The New York Times
April 11, 2010
EDITORIAL
Who’s Not Sorry Now?

“I’m sorry that the financial crisis has had such a devastating impact on our country. I’m sorry for the millions of people, average Americans, who have lost their homes. And I’m sorry that our management team, starting with me, like so many others, could not see the unprecedented market collapse that lay before us.”

— Charles O. Prince III, former chairman and chief executive officer, Citigroup, April 8, 2010

“We all bear responsibility for not recognizing this, and I deeply regret that.”

— Robert E. Rubin, former Treasury secretary and former director, Citigroup, April 8, 2010

•

The latest public hearings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, held last week, made headlines for eliciting more apologies from financiers who presided over the market collapse.

You may recall a similar flurry last year, when Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman and chief executive of Goldman Sachs, was widely credited for having apologized for his firm’s role in the financial crisis.

We did not buy it then; Mr. Blankfein never said what he was sorry for or to whom he was apologizing. And we are not buying it now.

Mr. Prince says he “could not” foresee the impending collapse, when he could have and should have seen it coming. Certainly, others did. Mr. Rubin has said that under his employment agreement, he was not responsible for the bank’s operations. But he was a towering figure at Citi, a source of its credibility and prestige. That implies responsibility, no matter what his contract said. Add all that to the “I wasn’t the only one” context of both men’s comments, and their regret translates as, “We feel bad about an accident we were powerless to prevent.”

Except that the financial crisis was not an accident and they were not powerless. The crisis was the result of irresponsibility and misjudgments by many people, including Mr. Prince and Mr. Rubin. Citi, under their leadership, epitomized the financial recklessness that ruined the economy.

More important, the “apologies” are distractions. The purpose of the inquiry is not catharsis. It is to determine the causes of the crisis and present the truth. A successful inquiry would compel the government to take appropriate corrective action.

The commission has managed to unearth some compelling testimony. (Last week’s hearings produced detailed evidence of how the mortgage-investment pipeline came to be stuffed with toxic loans.) But the inquiry can strangely lack vigor. It has not issued any subpoenas for documents — satisfied so far with voluntary submissions — and does not administer oaths to witnesses it interviews in private. Lying to a federal investigator is illegal under oath or not, but experience shows that taking an oath is a powerful incentive to tell the whole truth.

The commission is supposed to finish its work by Dec. 15. In the meantime, Congress’s efforts at financial reform appear to be weakened daily by politicians who are more concerned with campaign donations than regulating the financial system. This week, for instance, a Senate committee is expected to propose new regulations for derivatives that are more loophole than rule.

Sorry, indeed.