NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 09:52 AM) So...if the guy makes highly risky trades, logs somewhere in the system that he's hedged against possible losses from those trades, doesn't actually hedge against those losses, but then reaps big wins on the highly risky trades, it's no problem? The bolded would be per se against UBS rules, guaranteed... and if the supposed hedge was reporting of transactions that did not actually occur, it is also per se illegal, whether in the UK, Switzerland or the US.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 09:46 AM) I'm trying to figure it out myself. I am guessing that these were UBS to UBS, who clears their own trades. So there isn't any outside trades missing. The only thing I can guess is that the guy was making up these products at the underwriting level, because ETF's aren't a "real" security. Especially if he found stuff that UBS That was underwriting themselves, that way if they are showing them as being there, they don't know any different? I don't know. I am still trying to wrap my head around it. The one thing I am sure of is that he couldn't have done this alone. If he could, that means he had access to WAY too many different departments, which defeats every single control mechanism there is. Chinese Wall stuff alone should tell you that no person should have access to that many levels at that stage of management. If they were UBS to UBS, as a self-clearing entity, I don't think that exactly works either. If they are exchange-traded, then either the trades have to hit the tape (so there is still clearing data), or it is a bulk transfer (in which case it isn't a trade at all, and someone who is supposed to actually hold the security would have to notice). If it is OTC internal, then again, it isn't possible for UBS to take a realized $2B loss on it anyway, as it is just an internal transfer of already-held assets. And an ETF is still real in the sense that a trade on said exchange still hits the tape. Dark or grey pools are broker-checked for clearing purposes, and I suspect that may be the culprit here - if he had help on the other/broker side. If he didn't, then someone had to be either actively ignoring or intentionally manipulating data to make the process appear whole for these fake trades. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 09:47 AM) So the 2 possibilities here are that one of the world's biggest banks is "Institutionally stupid"/"Severely lacking", or sadistic/gambling addicted in a way that you find hard to believe. The latter is just not the case. Has to be some version of one of the former, combined probably with intentional manipulation of some kind.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 09:40 AM) Anyone want to step up to the plate and tell me why this isn't deliberate? Because it would be institutionally stupid. Deliberate by the trader, and possibly some cohorts, sure - like a gambling addict. Deliberate by UBS at an institutional level? That makes zero sense. Nowadays, the last thing IB's want to do is multi-billion dollar, naked directional bets and hope it works. The risk is too high, and they know there is a high risk it either falls apart and/or they get caught.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 07:57 AM) Apparently the UBS guy was making up his own trades. I'm not sure how he managed to do this for 3 years, because at some point either securities aren't getting delivered, or losses are being taken by someone who isn't taking them. I really can't wait to find out exactly how this was done. I am also 100% sure that their internal controls were complete garbage. There is no reason why this shouldn't have been caught in days tops, not years. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/se...rges?intcmp=239 I agree. And this doesn't appear to be similar to SocGen either, in that it does not have a very important "feature" of SocGen... specifically, that trader had worked in the back office before, and was able to access and manipulate the BO data directly (or through cohorts), distoring how the trades and positions appeared. No mention of that in the UBS case, and without that, it is really hard to imagine how it was done. I mean, if the trades were fictitious, why was there no clearing side reconciled? If they were exchange-traded instruments, the data from the clearing house(s) would have shown breaks, which would have been immediately obvious. If they are OTC, then the broker data should have shown the trades, or again, shown breaks. The only way to make these look like real trades when they weren't, is either he had help (on the broker, clearing house or back office operations sides), or he manipulated data that he should never have had direct access to. Either way, the internal checks and balances at UBS must have been severely lacking for this to occur.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Sep 16, 2011 -> 06:03 PM) Great, let's vote in the party that largely has created this economic mess...their help the rich get richer and screw the working class policies is what got us in this f***ed up situation to begin with.f*** Reagan and his legacy... I hate the GOP. Tell us how you really feel.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 08:01 AM) Not at all. There are a ton of Catholics in that part of the country, especially back in the day. There were huge numbers of European, especially Eastern, people coming to the US and settling within a hundred miles of ND. Heck I believe Chicago was the biggest single Polish population in the world outside of Warsaw. It is the same thing with the Irish and Germans too, plus a lot of other very Catholic nationalities, such as Italians. Pretty sure he was joking.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 16, 2011 -> 02:59 PM) Yeah...because if they put forwards these rules, the GOP's reaction will be to stop complaining about regulatory uncertainty. Never said they'd stop... just saying at least Obama would have some kind of counter to that argument.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 16, 2011 -> 02:20 PM) more regulatory uncertainty from obama Driving me insane. GOP people are saying businesses are waiting because of uncertainty... Obama is, you know, the CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THESE AGENCIES, that are supposed to be solidifying rules. This is fully in his court, financial, EPA, all of it and he has a golden opportunity to publically and internally make solidifying this stuff a priority. Not only will that help the economy grow again sooner, it gives him a big chip at the table to play back at the opposing party. Why do they not see this?

Well I'm honored, Sqwert. Now, how long until lostfan and I get into a fistfight? lf, do you have any sons I need to worry about? If I had to make mine... GM: Kalapse Manager: lostfan Bench Coach: southsideirish71 Pitching coach: RockRaines Hitting coach: Kyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyle23 Trainer: duh (ptatc) Scout team: chw42, CerbahoWG, Balta1701, danman31 Beat Writer: GregHibbard Southpaw: elrockinMT Beer Vendors: Heads22, J4L PR/Marketing: Steve9837465923847659238756234978 and BigSqwert Team President: Me of course Accountant and Business Officer: Chisoxfn Announcers: SS2K5 and fathom (he he) Bat Boy: greg775

After doing better in relief, Shirek was moved back to the rotation again, which is a bit of a puzzler given the factors I mentioned above. Instead of showing his full season stats at B-Ham, here are his stats split as reliever, and starter... RELIEVER: 35.0 IP, 29 H, 12 ER, 0 HR, 13 BB, 29 K... 3.09 ERA, 1.20 WHIP, .223 AvgA, 1.67 GO/AO, 7.5 K/9, 3.3 BB/9 STARTER: 53.1 IP, 65 H, 26 ER, 6 HR, 15 BB, 28 K... 4.39 ERA, 1.31 WHIP, .302 AvgA, 1.31 GO/AO, 4.7 K/9, 2.5 BB/9 Pretty much across the board, he was a substantially better reliever than starter. I am pretty sure you will see Charlie in the Charlotte bullpen in 2012, for his age 26 season. He also has 5 years in the minors, so after 2012, I am pretty sure he is a minor league FA. He's behind a bunch of other RH relievers at this point (I'd say Reed, Jones, Infante and Remenowsky definitely, and possibly Kloess and Cofield), though a couple of those might make the big club and clear a path. He's got a tough road ahead of him right now, but he still has a shot. He needs to put numbers up in AAA similar to, or better than, his numbers as a reliever in B-Ham.

Linza arrived in Bristol guns-a-blazing, putting up some surprising results for a 38th round pick. He did tail off a bit near the end of his season in Rookie ball, but his play got enough attention that he was given a late season reward promotion to Charlotte (where he got rocked in one outing). His core results were OK, nothing great, but his walk and strikeout numbers were solid. He was used primarly as a setup man. Final numbers in Bristol: 23 G, 22.2 IP, 25 H, 9 ER, 5 BB, 22 K 3.57 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, .278 AvgA, 0.87 GO/AO, 8.7 K/9, 1.9 BB/9 The control is quite good, and he is striking out close to a man an inning. But he was a 22 year old 38th round pick playing in Rookie ball. Given the quick assignment to Charlotte, that is usually an indicator they see something in him. I'd guess he's in Kanny next year, at age 23, and will still have a lot to prove.

EOY update... Quite a year from Dan. After his injury in 2010, there were doubts about him doing what he needed to do in 2011 to stay on the radar. But he arrived in B-Ham and yet again put up numbers pretty much typical for him: 26 G, 38.2 IP, 25 H, 12 ER, 10 BB, 53 K 2.79 ERA, 0.91 WHIP, .182 AvgA, 1.18 GO/AO, 12.3 K/9, 2.3 BB/9 Then he was promoted to Charlotte mid-season, signalling that the Sox felt he may be close to "ready". But there, he struggled a bit. He started well in July, but then had a bad few outings in early August where his peripherals were well off. He then seemed to groove in a but for a while, finally getting his K and BB numbers back to normal. But then he got hit around again near the end of the season. Final stats in AAA: 18 G, 28.2 IP, 28 H, 14 ER, 12 BB, 25 K 4.40 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, .252 AvgA, 0.74 GO/AO, 7.9 K/9, 3.8 BB/9 Definitely not his best stint, but also not catastrophic. He's had a history where, upon hitting a new level, after a fwe outings he usually goes on a bad run... then recovers. If this was indeed just an adjustment for him - to league, or to some coaching he received - then look for him to open up 2012 at Charlotte and do well. A strong season in AAA in 2012 puts him on the short list for the big club, who always end up calling up a few minor league relievers at some point. He was not added to the AFL, but if any of the other guys drop out, I wouldn't be surprised to see Dan end up out there.

EOY update... Garrett missed a substantial part of the year to injury. He rehabbed at Bristol with a couple appearances, and one game at Kanny, before landing at A+ W-S. His final stats there in only 6 games: 8.1 IP, 7 H, 4 ER, 6 BB, 5 K... 4.32 ERA, 1.56 WHIP, .226 AvgA, 3.75 GO/AO Having just turned 24 and only pitching a few innings in High A, the chances of Garrett ever becoming a serious prospect as slim. Given his lefthandedness, 6'10" frame and ability to induce ground balls, it is possible if he looks good in AA in 2012 he may still have a shot, but it is a long shot at best. He hasn't been able to add the velocity the team thought he would. Having put in 5 years in the minors, 2012 will be his final year of protection without the 40 man, and he would become a minor league FA after that.

Johnson will be pitching in the instructional league this fall.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 07:25 PM) My prediction GOP 312 - Obama 226 Which candidate for the GOP in that scenario? Or do you think it will be the same for either?

Just for fun, I did two maps of my current predictions on this site. My assumptions are... the economy is slightly better (say, high 8's to around 9 UE common as an analog), but still not gaining much steam. On that... Obama 273, Romney 265 Obama 317, Perry 221 If the economy gets markedly worse, then Romney can beat Obama. Perry still probably can't. If the economy actually surprises high during 2012, and shows substantial growth, then neither have a chance.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 05:18 PM) shut up LOL Seriously, were you aware that is all anyone can see there, is an ad for emotty cons?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) I found it interesting that he has access to a ton of money from his personal wealth but he hasn't cut back on charitable giving to support his campaign instead. I know we're all jaded about politicians, mostly with good reason, but they aren't all the utter scumbags we sometimes assume. Maybe he's got some principles.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 03:20 PM) They won't fire him they will trade him to Florida and you can not trade players until after the World Series. If they fire him and Florida hires him I believe the Sox do not owe him anything. Is that right? So if he gets hired as a coach or manager elsewhere, the Sox don't have to pay him?

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 02:59 PM) Cool unis, but the logo on the helmet is not too original. It looks like Illinois'. I was disappointed when they debuted that new logo. I much preferred the bird in a blender.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 03:11 PM) You can't possibly think he was serious? QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 03:12 PM) He must not know that I want to go back and rename my son Stanton (I knew I shouldn't have let my wife name him Timo) Heh. Sorry, reflexive - some people... actually a lot of people... think that way. I guess I wasn't paying attention who I was responding to.

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 02:10 PM) I don't think it's a good deal for the Sox. Who would leadoff if you play Stanton in RF and Viciedo in LF? I hate, hate, hate this argument. Who bats in what spot in the order should not be a consideration when building a roster. You build the best roster you can first, then you make the best lineup from that roster. If you do it backwards, you artificially limit your talent pool and end up with Juan Pierre.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 12:34 PM) If Daryl Boston's catch was in NY it would start every high-lite show ever. I remember watching Daryl Boston certainly, but I don't recall any specific ridiculous catch. Details?

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 12:05 PM) Haven't followed the farm system long enough to have a lot, but there are 3. Poreda (was sad to see him go for Peavy) Gordon (I almost bought a Beckham Knights road jersey they sold at the Cell a week before his call up) Viciedo (bought his shirt in 1 AB last year) Viciedo certainly hasn't flopped. And I think the jury is still out on Beckham, though if his 2012 looks like his 2011, it might be time to call it.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Sep 15, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) I think the second 250 was supposed to be 200. All of Dunn's ABs, bunch of Beckham, Morel, and Rios. That makes more sense.