StrangeSox

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 12:59 PM) So he played roughly 16 games... OOOO NOOO out of 28 games... That's 16 games too many.

Social Network was a good movie with a really cheesy ending.

I know #firstworldproblems is a tag used to make light of the difficulty of some of the problems Americans face compared to third world problems eg chronic starvation problems, this tag is a good one for Fleming's statement: #plutocratproblems

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 11:57 AM) espnchijon jon greenberg Things you find out watching NFL.com rewind, Bears burned second timeout (in second seriess) because Chris Williams' shoe was untied. they mentioned that during the broadcast.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 11:46 AM) well obviously kw is going to say that. what do u want him to say. no ozzie must play all these high priced players? its just funny how everyone acts like they know exactly whats going on. u dont know whats going on behind the scenes. Why would Kenny say one thing to the media and then force Ozzie to play these players? Why wouldn't Ozzie or his goon son say something to the media, since they haven't had a problem speaking up in the past?

I'd say that can't be serious, but I've seen similar things before. "Well after I pay my two $800/month luxury car payments, the mortgage on my $1m home, save for our $10k luxury vacation, I only have $2-3k (around what the average person brings home total) left over each month in discretionary income!"

The problem was that Martz was leaving 6 or 7 people in to block, but they just kept blowing their assignments or getting beat off the snap.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 11:11 AM) im sure management was making him play dunn. they know hes done so why not just release him? because the money. not becuase ozzie Management publically stated that he should play the best players regardless of contract. There's also no reason to believe management forced Ozzie to PH Dunn in critical situations or to keep batting Rios 4th.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:11 AM) NPR is streaming Wilco' new album today at 11 am central: http://www.npr.org/2011/09/13/140429798/mo...arty-with-wilco bumping for anyone who might be interested, just started. not bad overall, definitely better than the previous two albums and some songs that are already standing out to me.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:48 AM) You do realize, I have been here for 2 weeks, and lingered around maybe 2 weeks prior to joining? I didn't go, research every thread/post when stated that comment. Yet you felt justified in saying no one ever blames KW for anything...

Hey jenks, I know you've pushed for student loan forgiveness in here before. Now you have an ally in MoveOn!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:30 AM) Talking to my boss who has been doing this for 25 years, never. ..so if they never face problems if they turn a blind eye to these trades that eventually wind up positive after enough bets, how do you get to this: QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:16 AM) Because from a regulatory standpoint, they would have been just as in trouble as if they lost billions. It still would have been front page news, and it would have created more rules because of it. Or are you saying that what this guy did never ends up profitable?

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:25 AM) And in the "I hate Ozzie" camp, nothing is Kenny's fault.. All the bad roster moves is somehow Kenny's. That's pretty dumb since a majority of the people here would be happy if both were gone.

Nothing can ever be Ozzie's fault, the only fair way to judge him is to give him the Yankee's roster.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:16 AM) Because from a regulatory standpoint, they would have been just as in trouble as if they lost billions. It still would have been front page news, and it would have created more rules because of it. This was "discovered" because the trader came forward. How many times have banks faced problems from similar actions that eventually wound up profitable?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:14 AM) 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. Possibly, I'm asking questions to test the validity of the "let it happen" theory that gets tossed around whenever a story like this happens. I appreciate the both of you explaining the various ways it doesn't add up to you.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:12 AM) 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). I'm phrasing these all as questions because I simply do not know how this functions and you guys do. But how do we know that "rogue" traders haven't made similar moves and netted billions in profits in the past?

I just watched Frontline's The Card Game episode this morning so I'm extra at banks today

NPR is streaming Wilco' new album today at 11 am central: http://www.npr.org/2011/09/13/140429798/mo...arty-with-wilco

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:04 AM) Very simply, you don't have to "hide" a profit. Why would you? You hide the losses long enough until you turn that profit.

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. 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?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:00 AM) The hedges came after the losses. Otherwise there was no point to making the trades. don't you "hedge your bets" at the time you make your bet?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 09:59 AM) I don't think you understand the terminology here. There is no sale of securities needed if they are up a sizable amount. They don't have the need to make up illegal trades to "hedge" something that is a massive winner. That's doesn't really make sense. There are limits on how much you can leverage yourself, no? Isn't the issue that these "rogue" traders leveraged themselves too much and their bet at the casino didn't pay off?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 09:54 AM) Like I said earlier, if he is making money, no illegal covers ever take place. ...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?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 09:50 AM) Your assumption is wrong. If they are winning trades, they don't need to make up stuff to cover them, and an illegal act is never committed. maybe "outside the bounds of institutional controls" would be better. If this guy made $2B making unauthorized trades, would we ever hear about it?