Jauronimo

If they aren't its because theres different levels of service and subscription or they're ordering custom reports from third parties like FactSet. Analyst reports are not altered based on the purchaser. You are wildly off base here again. The proprietary algorithms you're referencing have nothing to do with the research operation. The SEC doesn't govern or enforce anti trust laws. Anti trust inquiries are not government manipulation of capital markets. Your trepidation about playing Sirius XM merger arbitrage is again, wildly off base.

And I'm telling you that you don't know what information you're talking about. You keep referencing either material, non-public information (i.e., insider info) which is illegal to trade on or you're talking about analyst reports, which are written using information which is available to you. Trading floors are not a trove of inside information. That **** is kept secret if someone has it and certainly isn't published and disseminated. People who have no idea how investment decisions are made have tunnel vision on the speed of quotes as if thats driving what is being bought and sold when in actual practice, weeks of modeling, research and scrutiny using information which is largely available to you, is whats driving these decisions. Afterward its a matter of filling orders. You have access to SEC filings for free, at the same time as everyone else. Bloomberg, CapitalIQ and the fancy toys that the pros get to play with for a hefty per user fee, simply interface with these SEC filings. You can buy analyst reports, which again are written based on information available to the public, just as easily as any corporate client. You can have custom research performed by FactSet if you'd like. Please tell me some more about how its going down on the Street, though. It amuses me.

I'm going to ignore the fact that this post is entirely off topic and just let you know that you can access all public filings for free and take in earnings calls just like the big boys from your very own home. Firms cannot pay the SEC for insider information. The SEC is not a research firm.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTc--4jz0GQ

What do Asians eat?

Please elaborate.

Bailout is just more fun to say than forced liquidity measures. The Treasury and investors who bought 8 year warrants (LEAPs) associated with TARP have made a nice little return on this "bailout". My BAC class As tripled up until late last week and this week kicked my portfolio in the balls repeatedly. http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

"They made it so confusing on purpose so that they could get away with murder!"

And Bruss who hired Wally who hired Merrone who was purchased by Pags, or El Paguela, as hes known in some circles, after the passing Rafff.

I already explained which types of derivatives I don't think banks should have access to with FDIC protection so your question has already been addressed. Despite your persistence, derivatives are a useful tool in limiting risk (i.e., protecting consumer and bank interests). If you think a vanilla interest rate swap is a "bet" and don't care to read what I've linked or written, then by all means stick with "Wall Street BAD!" but don't pretend that you're actually interested in discussing the topic of your own thread. Remind me which banks were at risk of failing, which were bailed out, and how they were bailed out? i'd love to see how you arrived at such an opinion.

In other words you don't care about the regulation beyond the fact that financial institutes hate it, you don't have any interest in what it does and what it doesn't do, you aren't concerned as to what financial products are covered and which aren't even if these instruments may be used to limit the risk of assets insured by the FDIC, you have no interest in the design or efficacy of the original bill, you're just anti-finance and banking. You're outraged but you have no idea whether its justified and you do not care to find the truth. I see I'm catching more flies with honey.

Can't small and large banks oppose this legislation for reasons I've already provided? First line of the WSJ article lays it all out. Big banks always hated Volcker. What about it? Whats the context of that comment? What about everything I just discussed? Like specifics. I'm really not interested in limiting this discussion solely to an appeal to authority based on who's for it and who's against it.

Wrong. One side from someone who works in finance and thought the NPR article was a total puff piece and one side from birdog who doesn't hold my industry in such high regard. Not an opinion. Got one thing right. More cop outs. Not an opinion.

I've yet to read anything which even begins to adequately outline the potential risks posed by this legislation. Not all swaps are credit default swaps. In fact, very few swaps are credit default swaps which are popularly attributed to the "bail outs" or forced liquidity measures. Further, derivatives are not inherently risky. Derivatives were created to mitigate or "hedge" risk. The NPR article read to me like the equivalent of "derivatives bad" and based on what I've linked below, failed to actually explain which parties want the regulation on swaps lifted. http://www.wsj.com/a...rule-1414677032 Looks more to me like a response to heavy handed and poorly defined legislation than a move to make bigger, riskier bets. Its easy to say that this gives big banks a license to gamble with Uncle Sam's backing, but anyone with some financial background immediately asks "which derivatives are we talking about?". Saying "no swaps" sounds to me like taking away a major tool in limiting risk. Again, most swaps limit exposure. CDS was an arcane and almost extinct tool before AIG (which isn't a bank) started backing every tranche of CDO, CLO, CMO 30 times over. I'd agree that banks shouldn't be able to write options on publicly traded securities, credit defaults, or effectively place bets with federally insured funds, but there is definitely a place for derivatives.

Love it. Anyway they can get the ball in his hands. Screens, end arounds, backfield packages. If we can't get him involved in the passing game then find a way to get him touches.

Win the next 2 and get us into the playoffs and I think he'd at least be in the discussion. But at this point I'd say its unlikely.

http://imgur.com/gallery/WGT2YE3 Selective coverage?

Great. Ain't got no learnin' and proud of it. Now shut the f@#$ up while adults who did bother to educate themselves on the subject and Birdog discuss the topic at hand. What continues to escape your limited grasp, like chasin greased up chickns' at night I tell ya, is that there are people participating that are still in the process of forming opinions and educating themselves on the topic. There are people reading and lurking who haven't even heard about this particular legislation yet. In replying to even the biggest troll posts, I'm not trying to change their minds, but to put down rationale thought that someone else might read, consider and respond to. Or to get a few jabs in because thats fun for me. Your point of view is the biggest !@#$ing cop out. Claiming that this is a waste of time because no one will change their minds is not only false, but by that logic theres no reason to discuss anything, theres no reason for this board. How many people are changing their opinions about hackett on the main board today? You don't understand this thread or this subforum at all.

Well that was worthless. Just as profound as your last post. Well intentioned nit wits like you who have no comprehension of the subject matter but insist that some sort of "compromise" is necessarily the solution to everything do little to advance the conversation as well. I know you fancy yourself to unbiased and enlightened because you think the answer to all things falls somewhere in between Tasker and Birdog, but thats not an opinion. Thats a cop out.

I disagree. He publicly stated he would retire but that was purely a negotiation tactic. He wanted out of Dallas and a chance to compete for a starting job. He also wanted to keep the money he had pocketed and forced Dallas to let him go. If he quit, he would have owed them a lot of money. Questions about whether he wanted to play were a byproduct of his agent floating that he was questioning retirement, which we've already discussed. You claimed Orton's heart isn't in it anymore and he doesn't want to take hits. You supported this position with his supposed plans to retire, which is why its being discussed. No one is skewing the conversation.

A lesson Bills fans forget quickly. "[Fire/bench/sign/blow it up] already!!! Its not like it can get any worse!!"

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394635/its-still-tarp-kevin-d-williamson

Not sure but Pags hired him.

Its not his fault ESPN made him famous and made Johnny Football the new Tebow. Hes been doing the money sign thing since highschool. Becoming the first freshman to win a Heisman might count toward accomplishments.

It'd be nice if Ruben elaborated considering guys are getting open and Kyle is missing them. I don't see any rhyme or reason behind which throws he can make and which he can't right now. Hes pretty erratic. What plays should Hackett call where you can still throw 8 feet behind the guy, into the dirt, or 10 yards past your WR and still be successful?