doomedout

You were right 90% of the time; not worth arguing here, people won't or can't understand.

His analysis and argument is purely from an investment management perspective. That hardly even addresses the point I was making earlier. Perhaps you can elaborate as to the relevance of the article? Too big, unfortunately, is real given the size of the banks and the systemic risk they pose (think Bear Stearns & Lehman Brothers and the effect their failure/bankruptcy had on the capital markets - specifically the commercial paper, money market and debt markets) Can you quantify reputational risk? Does it even matter? Do you honestly think that banks or other financial intermediaries can get away with being unethical for a long period of time, especially given the current climate? From the viewpoint of a shareholder, a director, or a senior manager - prudence would dictate making large investments into risk mitigation (that includes deploying assets towards high credit avenues) and a move towards a more holistic and organic risk architecture simply because the cost of not doing so is far too great. Think of it this way: in an environment of historic low interest rates and the fact that FI's liabilities are far more liquid and by extension have considerable lower duration than their assets; do you think they can afford to continue to commit capital to high risk ventures? In that respect, they price risk in the market - at least in the long term - and that is both essential and necessary for market participants.

A well run and successful financial intermediary manages their risk well; which includes credit and market risk. If there is anything to learn from the past 5 years, it is the importance of asset location, effective risk taking and management, and immunizing their balance sheet against a further deterioration in their credit, interest and market cycle. Financial intermediaries exist because they add value - by linking a market of borrowers and savers-thereby reducing the cost of information, trading and credit. Since credit is the blood of an economy and banks are the primary source of credit, invariably the decisions they make have a profound and lasting effect in shaping global economies. I think the banks that will survive this testing time will be the ones that continue to manage their risk well - which now includes reputational risk given the populist and often emotional nature of the general public.

?

Good intentions, but he's all over the place.

There are studies out there that definitively characterize and explain why periods of high economic growth do not translate to wage parity, at least in the short term. A lot of the phenomenon can be best explained by the time lag between bursts of innovation as a byproduct of economic growth (and by growth I mean real GDP), and the overall structural framework and nimbleness of the general labor workforce to respond to these periods. In a perfect world, the skills of an individual worker would rise proportionately and seamlessly with economic productivity; but the reality is that with economic cycles becoming increasingly more volatile and sporadic; the labor force is not as adaptive to these changes. The disparity becomes even more pronounced during periods of recession. The wealthy are not incentivized to hoard money because it is taxed to their estate. They actually lower their tax bill by donating their wealth, particular through charitable channels. It is no surprise that the rich in the United States are by far and away the most charitable in the world, not because they are necessarily the most giving, but because the current tax code encourages philanthropic behavior in order to avoid large estate taxes.

Sorry to disappoint the prevailing opinion on this topic, but its hard to support a movement when the participants don't know what the cause of their problems really are. I don't believe there is a single person involved in this movement that can articulate exactly what the focus of the movement is, if any. Railing against corporations or the financial sector is a poor place to start given its the few bastions of comparative advantage the United States still enjoys.

Sort of - I'm in the finance field and CFA is strongly valued.

These days, grades are not the only important criteria that potential employers look for; experience, leadership skills and field certifications are also strongly considered.

9/10 for me. There are moments in the game which are epic, especially the train sequence and the massive cave puzzles. I preferred God of War III to be honest, though I have no idea why.

Lord Flathead, Gatewatcher, Zaldron and Lut.

No, I phrased that poorly; that is not what I meant at all. You're right, they are a few of them that are overly zealous, and unfortunately people attribute the entire belief and value system to those select few. I make it a point not to conform to this type of bias.

I hope you do understand why we do this (Kaabah). And no, its not a ritualistic phenomenon that you are quick to define it as. I don't agree with atheists, but I respect their perspective. Frankly, this tolerance is not reciprocated to me. All that I am told is that I believe in something entirely illogical and a complete falsehood - sometimes I've heard insults about my intelligence. That is, until they figure out where I work and how much I earn. Like I said earlier, each side has their own annoying and smug followers.

2 conditions must be met before same-sex marriage deemed "kosher". There must be sufficient evidence, and I suspect there is ample data to support this, that same sex couples can raise children in an environment that is conducive to normal development - particularly social and family constructs as they pertain to norms and gender roles. Moreover, the Government must re-evaluate how they administer taxes on same-sex marriages. Usually marriages are given tax breaks because they potentially produce a future work force. In this context, it is in the immediate interest of the Government to advocate marriages that rear children in the form of tax subsidies and awards. Since same sex marriages cannot conceive, adoption rates should be comparable - by some measure - to normal birth rate statistics of heterosexual couples. Of course they must also meet the first requirement as well. The problem with both measures is that inherently the first is controversial, the second hard to measure, administer, enforce and institutionalize. Either way, we must redefine what marriage is as an institution, seeing how religion is inexorably intertwined with marriage.

You've clearly missed my point altogether. I've sat with both parties, and you'll be surprised how similar their zealous endeavors are in convincing a party to their point of view; no matter how obnoxious and crude they may become in the process.