NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 03:32 PM) she's going to get pummeled for that quote that "nobody got rich on their own" Yeah, I get her point, but that was a poor choice of words. Probably should have said "no one got rich without some help along the way", or something along those lines.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 03:19 PM) Senate panel votes to strip all funding for high speed rail out of the U.S. federal budget, citing the need to reduce spending. I'm mildly pissed if that goes away. But I will be a lot more than mildly pissed if the same people who vote down money for programs like this, continue to support unneeded corporate welfare for oil and gas.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 11:57 AM) If this phenom Logan Morrison is rumored to be the Sox target in exchange for talking to Ozzie - he seems to have struggled the last couple years. Was he hurt this year? He didn't have much in the way of stats Anything the Sox get in return for Ozzie is a bonus, even if it doesn't pan out.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 10:52 AM) Email going around today... LOL, no way I'd click that link. And since when is NYPD a financial institution?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 08:05 AM) So very clear hiring practice and Chinese Wall issues at UBS. http://www.securitiestechnologymonitor.com...lyClose__091911 Well, that was precisely one of the two scenarios I mentioned as possible. A lot of firms, including one I used to work for, specifically forbid moving from any sort of back office tech, compliance or ops position, into a position involving trading, or vice versa... for exactly this reason. And those who don't forbid it, rule number one is, if someone moves from one area to another, you have to TURN OFF THEIR OLD ACCESS. There aren't enough DUH's in the world for this. It may even rate an 80's style DUH HICKEY!!! Also, even if this is all true, there is still a significant chance that someone else knew about it. Furthermore, even if all that and more is true, UBS also must have some compliance and audit issues in addition to a Chinese Wall problem, in order for this to occur in this way. UBS really, really f***ed up here.

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 06:57 AM) Has Paulie ever had a bad word to say about anyone? He and Big Frank had some arguments at times, and I'm pretty sure I remember Paulie sort of hinting at him not being his favorite guy. But hinting is as far as it went I think.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 21, 2011 -> 12:35 AM) Does anybody have links for more info on the Boise State scandal? Quite frankly, I really don't like their program AT ALL, but haven't been able to find things like 75 guys involved in pay for play out there anywhere. I would love to have such links, though. I know some Boise fans, and I'd love to show such information in their faces. ESPN had two articles on their front page about it, a few days back. I'm sure if you searched their site you'd find them.

Latest rumors now are that the Big 12 and Big East - the conferences themselves, not the individual teams - are in some sort of negotiations, possibly for a merger of the remaining pieces from each conference.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 20, 2011 -> 03:01 PM) Half of that list is awful. Fregosi? Fisk, lol. Baylor? Yeah, he isn't coming back to Chicago again. I don't think Fregosi is the craziest idea ever, though it isn't the most likely scenario.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 20, 2011 -> 01:53 PM) I don't get what you are trying -- and failing -- to convey here. Are you saying that banning guns in the US wouldn't create a new black market but are too afraid to say the words? Because if so...wow are you dumb. Let's not head down that road again, kthxbye

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2011 -> 01:54 PM) Yeah, overregulation isn't really the main problem for most industries. For some it is, and for others it is the regulatory uncertainty, but mostly the fear of supposed overregulation is overblown by Republicans for political reasons. And um... why does Competition from Big Corporations get two mentions?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2011 -> 01:34 PM) Perhaps "innocent" is the wrong way to frame it: not proven to be guilty would be more accurate. He may have committed this crime, but the case against him was weak 20 years ago and non-existent today without the witness testimony. Yet we're still going to execute him. Again, exaggerating to make your point. It is not non-existent, and there is still witness testimony. I disagree with him being executed as well, based on what I have read. I think there are most certainly some reasonable doubts.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2011 -> 01:27 PM) As I understand it, the evidence is pretty much entirely witness testimony, which has been almost completely recanted with accusations of police coercion. There's zero physical evidence linking him to the crime. There actually was physical evidence, but it was thrown out at trial due to bad police procedure related to the search of a home. And there are multiple witnesses who still insist he was the gunman. If you want to say, there are reasons for doubt... clearly they are. And if I was on the clemency board, based on what I have seen, I would elect to revert to life in prison, based on those doubts (but then, my personal opinion is that death penalties should be reserved for, at most, cases where they are truly air tight). What I take issue with is your blanket and absurd statement that the man is "apparently innocent". I see nothing apparent about that, though I do see significant doubt.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2011 -> 01:10 PM) It also touches on the decision today to deny Troy Davis any further legal action, meaning that Georgia is going to go ahead with executing an apparently innocent man.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/t...s_n_963366.html Oh come on now. I've been reading on this one, and there is still a lot of evidence on the guy. To say "apparently innocent" is a gigantic stretch. There are doubts, and witness recantations, to be sure. I personally think he should commuted to a life sentence as a result. So don't think I'm being sadistic here. But your characterization is ridiculous.

My assumption is that I get each in their peak season with the Sox... CF Lance Johnson RF Magglio Ordonez DH Frank Thomas LF Albert Belle 1B Paul Konerko 3B Robin Ventura C Carlton Fisk 2B Ray Durham SS Alexei Ramirez Bench C: AJ Pierzynski Bench IF: Juan Uribe Bench DH/PH: Jim Thome Bench OF: Harold Baines Bench OF: Jermaine Dye SP Lamar Hoyt SP Jack McDowell SP Rich Dotson SP Alex Fernandez SP Mark Buehrle RP Roberto Hernandez RP Matt Thornton RP Bobby Thigpen RP Scott Radinsky RP Bobby Jenks RP Goose Gossage Toughest guys to reject: Rudy Law, Greg Luzinski, Jose Contreras, Keith Foulke

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 20, 2011 -> 09:28 AM) Its not surprising they've become friends over the years, but Paulie knows more about hitting than Walker ever did. I see this as a stand up guy standing up for someone he likes. And really, by all accounts Walker is a stand up guy too, and works his butt off. So I can see why people would stand up for him. But the results say, despite his efforts, Walker does not appear to be good at being a hitting coach.

Konerko is one hitter. And, he's the one hitter who in 2011 hit comparably to his norms/expectations (average-wise he was actually higher, though power-wise he was down a bit). This is both an indictment of Walker, and something to give hope for 2012 with a different hitting coach, but think about this for a second... of the Sox starting lineup hitters on Opening Day: Pierre, Rios, Quentin, Morel*, Ramirez, Beckham, Konerko, AJP, Dunn... which of them actually performed at the level of their career norms or base expectations at a minimum? Konerko, maybe Quentin. Six bombed out, and not just a little below averages in most cases, but a lot worse. Morel we can leave out of the discussion - a rookie who took 5 months to develop, but then did, as per his usual pattern. When your offense underperforms that badly (and most of them did in 2010 too, BTW) for that long, it is time to make a change. One hitter cannot be used to sacrifice 8 others.

kyle, did you intend to post a response there? Looks like you just re-posted my post.

New AP and Coach's polls out. In both, Iowa State is fifth in the "others" list, making them effectively ranked 30th in the country. It has been since at least 2005 that I can remember ISU getting that much attention in the polls.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:13 AM) I just watched Frontline's The Card Game episode this morning so I'm extra at banks today To be clear here, I am not defending UBS here. Clearly, even if the trader was very crafty, UBS has major internal problems, and they are now paying the steep price for it. Just saying that you have entirely the wrong motivation here for them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:06 AM) And as long as that pays off eventually for enough traders, what incentive does UBS have to actually stopping this practice? If it goes to s***, they'll just throw the trader under the bus. This is assuming that this sort of gambling pays off more often than not, which may not be the case. Lets say this guy had accumulated $2B in losses but hit it big in his next trade, resulting in a net gain for the bank. Where's the downside for UBS? You can't be serious with this. Again, paranoia not connected to reality. UBS already makes money, and takes risks. If they wanted a trader to take a $2B risk, then they would have DONE THAT. No need for the illegal covers, just make the bet - if they actually thought the way you think they do (which they don't, but I am playing along). And we are seeing the downside for UBS. How can you say there is no downside? They just lost $2B, in addition to who knows what sort of fines, levies, job losses, reputation, etc.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:03 AM) Partially. The problem is that when their first bet doesn't pay off, they make a second larger bet, that covers the first one. Then when the second one doesn't pay off, they make a third larger one. In these cases, he was showing that his losses from the first bets didn't exist, because he had already sold and "covered" those losses. Because he didn't have any negatives, he was allowed to keep going. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:03 AM) don't you "hedge your bets" at the time you make your bet? SS2K5 is talking one possible scenario - that the trader went in naked (which is not illegal, but may be against internal rules, hard to say), started seeing losses, and scrambled to either make covering trades or make up hedging trades to obscure. That is possible. But as StrangeSox says, typically yes, you engage your full strategy up front, not as a reaction - though it depends. And that is another possiblity here - that he elected up front to make up a hedge side, to try to get more return.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 09:57 AM) I have no doubt he had help. If he didn't, he had access to an incredible amount of different sectors of the company, which i can't see being true. Well, keep in mind that in the SocGen case, Kerviel did indeed have access and skills to directly manipulate the back and middle office databases, because he had started in that area and SocGen failed to turn off his access, as well as failed to have audit checks in place for data manipulation. This is why firms nowadays pretty much never allow people to move between trading and operations/development/clearing. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 09:58 AM) I can give 2 motivations that strike me as plausible. If they think they're going to win the trades, then the margins are much higher if they don't hedge against the losses...this is how the financial industry in Europe got leveraged 40-1 in the first place. And second...if they think they're going to just get bailed out if they take huge losses. On the first, I think you misunderstand the concept of margins - if he is out there naked, his capital requirements are actually much more intensive. And I have no idea what you mean about Europe and 40-1. Second, you are talking about UBS' prop business shooting the moon - and UBS' prop business is not going to get bailed out. They know that. Any step-in would be to help the other side of those trades, not UBS itself, and the people at UBS involved all lose their jobs. This theory here makes no sense.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 09:55 AM) But 2k5 just said "if he is making money, no illegal covers ever take place." Can the 2 of you square these statements? I disagree with that particular statement he made. But what I think he may have been trying to say is, if they guy stretched naked and started making money, he probably wouldn't have even tried to book the false trades anyway - just took the money and ran. Think of it as an O'Hare option without the trip on the Blue Line. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 09:56 AM) ...so wouldn't UBS be incentivized to turn a blind eye to this type of behavior, as long as enough "unauthorized" trades wind up on the plus side? There is only that motivation if the people who are reviewing these things - operations, compliance, management - all decided together that the risk level was low enough to be worth it. So unless this guy lost $2B on an investment in the catholicism of the pope, I see zero chance of that being the case, because all those others would lose their jobs over it if it went bad. So no, not really.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 09:54 AM) I know you guys don't buy a lot of my opinions on the financial industry, but can you see how I'd be incredibly, extremely skeptical of your dismissal in this case? No I can't, because your paranoia defies logic in this case. Why on earth with UBS, at an institutional level, want to do something that stupid? Yes they take risks in their prop trading business, of course they do... calculated ones. But on what planet would it make sense for UBS to tell a trading desk, hey, go out and put yourself naked for potential losses in the billions, don't hedge or anything, just roll the dice. Seriously, there is no logic in that - and no motivation. UBS does not want to do that.