RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions
OldEd, just who is this Soros guy?(16 posts)
|OldEd, just who is this Soros guy?||94Nole|
Nov 11, 2003 8:43 AM
|Just another big Democrat money bags with a big mouth?
I saw this on Newsmax: The Washington Post quoted him as saying that ending Bush's presidency was for him "a matter of life and death."
What does that mean?
|One of the richest men in the world||moneyman|
Nov 11, 2003 10:26 AM
|And the new bankroller of the Democrats. Read the article I linked in my post below re: evil politicians.
Soros made his money running hedge funds. Kind of ironic, really. Hedge funds are one of the least regulated, under-the-radar investment vehicles there are. Now he is supporting his political efforts through lightly regulated, under-the-radar political organizations. And the Dems are throwing out all their dignity to court his favor. I wonder whjat his price will be for ending the Bush administration. You can bet he will not be content to sit on the sidelines.
|Hedge funds helped accelerate the ...||Live Steam|
Nov 11, 2003 10:46 AM
|the decline in the markets through naked short selling. They violate most tenets of respectable trading practices. They are sleazy vehicles that enable the rich to get richer on the backs of the every day worker/investor, and are only open to individuals with very high net worth. Not a very altruistic lot. They bank on the negative and sometimes grease the skids to get things rolling. Now he wants to save the World?|
|I don't agree about the evil of hedge funds||moneyman|
Nov 11, 2003 11:08 AM
|There are plenty of reputable managers in the HF universe who employ "respectable trading practices" without resorting to upsetting the capital markets. There are others that fit your description perfectly (do a search for stories about Long Term Capital). And naked short selling is neither illegal nor immoral, although it is highly risky. Hedge funds are only open to high net worth and sophisticated investors because of the high risk of the funds and the need for people to be able to leave their money in for long periods of time. They also serve the common man in large pension funds where they fall into the "alternative investment" asset category, which serves to diversify and manage the overall risk of a portfolio.
Soros has been very, very successful in his money management and his ability to attract investors. What I disagree with is his new influence in politics by what is essentially a third party administrator, that of the advocacy organization. I don't like it for the dems, and I don't like it for the repubs, either. Money does not make politics corrupt, but rather the inability to account from where it came and to where it goes. Lets get rid of caps and insist on full disclosure.
Soros' ability to influence party politics is directly proportional to the size of his donations. He is representing his own personal interests, not those of "working class Americans" that the dems love to allude to. Harold Ickes and Howard Dean are just drooling over the possibilities, and it sure looks like their prize is the power, at whatever cost, and not the betterment of the common US citizen.
|You have no idea what a hedge fund is, do you?||TJeanloz|
Nov 11, 2003 11:08 AM
|Another great market commentary, brought to you by Live Steam.
Hedge funds aren't evil. They actually enhance most tenets of respectable trading by profiting on the inefficiencies of the market - thus eliminating those inefficiencies. The problem with them is that it is a zero sum game, and now that too many of them exist, they have sufficiently crowded the playground to the point where there is no more room to play. They don't "bank on the negative"; they bank on being more right than other investors.
|Ok if you say so. I believe in a free and open market but ...||Live Steam|
Nov 11, 2003 11:48 AM
|hedge funds rely on a herd mentality and can have a destabilizing effect on markets or individual equities. They put further pressure on markets that are under duress - reference the British Pound devaluation and trashing of the Asian markets in the '90s among other things. Their abusive practices are well known and acknowledged by many market insiders. It is not the idea of their existence that is troubling, it is the fact they are thinly regulated and their abuse of that privilege.
I may not have the in-depth knowledge of their workings that you appear to have, but I'm not a snobbish a$$hole like you either.
|I'll take that as a compliment,||TJeanloz|
Nov 11, 2003 12:00 PM
|Hedge funds do leverage markets, to a degree, and this could cause problems - but if it does, it causes a highly unprofitable situation for the fund. LTCM, for example, royally screwed up, and contributed to a minor market disaster, but they royally bankrupted themselves too.
Markets that are under duress are under duress for a reason, hedge funds merely bring about the inevitable more swiftly and dramatically than the market otherwise would. And I would argue that swift and dramatic is the preferred way to get it. Yes, hedge funds have brought about some massive devaluations - but none of the devaluations was undeserved. Without the hedge funds, it might have taken years for the market to reach their efficient points.
|Don't flatter yourself||Live Steam|
Nov 11, 2003 12:39 PM
|You mean that the average guy may have been able to get out before they handed him his a$$ in short order. There are tons of stocks in the pink sheets because HFs sit on them. They hold their debt in the form of junk bonds and the poor chump that had shares of that company is either forced to sell at a great loss or hold on to them in perpetuity until the debt is retired or sold off. If limiting regulations were in place for shorting practices, the prices of some of these stocks would rebound sooner. The link below illustrates some of the abuses in the markets by hedge funds in concert with mutual fund managers.
|Don't flatter yourself||TJeanloz|
Nov 11, 2003 1:00 PM
|There is no doubt that some hedge fund managers engaged in illegal activities - as did some (or apparently, most) mutual fund managers. This doesn't mean that the funds themselves are inherently bad. Criminals are criminals, but not all fund managers are criminals. Your logic is like me saying: some individual investors ran pump-and-dump schemes, hence ALL individual investors are greedy bastards who should be regulated out of the market. I maintain that the market is no place for the individual investor, but if they're stupid enough to sit at the table, who am I to stop them from playing?
A hedge fund is no more or less regulated than you are when it comes to trading, and why should they be?
I don't really understand either of these statements:
"There are tons of stocks in the pink sheets because HFs sit on them. They hold their debt in the form of junk bonds and the poor chump that had shares of that company is either forced to sell at a great loss or hold on to them in perpetuity until the debt is retired or sold off."
Stocks in the pink sheets are there for structural reasons, not because some hedge fund is holding them back. Is Nestle being held down by the hedge fund masters? It's a good company, traded on the pinks.
As for junk bonds, (or, as we like to call them, high yield bonds), the hedge funds don't issue them - they just buy them and sell them like other investors. Its not their fault the shareholder's company has a crap finance policy.
|If he keeps it up he will hurt the Dems more than help||chopper|
Nov 11, 2003 11:05 AM
|With comments like the U.S. under Bush reminds him of occupied Hungary when he was a child and some of the comments about comparing Bush's administration to Nazi's is loopy. People don't take too kindly to immigrants who come here and make a fortune berate this country. The Dems probably love his money but I bet they crinch when he makes statements like that.|
|He gives money to lots of good progressive causes.||OldEdScott|
Nov 12, 2003 6:01 AM
|All things being equal, I'd just as soon not have ANY single huge contributor throw money into the campaign on our side. It does create an appearance problem, and makes it harder for us to paste Repubs with the 'they're the party of big money'smear.
Still, I don't know how else we're going to compete with Bush. Good God, I've never seen so much money flowing to a candidate. And it ain't $70 at a time, either.
And I DO get a chuckle when my many, many Repub friends look at the Soros thing and suddenly get all worried and a-twitter about 'the influence of big money.' They sound like panty wastes. HA HA HA HA HA!
|"good progressive" - oxymoron?||moneyman|
Nov 12, 2003 7:37 AM
|He has always put his money where his mouth is. I really don't have a problem withhim doing that, but I do think the Dems should think two or three times before giving up control and taking his money. I really think Soros is going to be a lead weight on the party and a real distraction when it comes to getting their (your) message out.
Did you ever consider that the reason you guys are having trouble raising money is that people just don't like the product you're putting on the shelf?
|I think it's a bit of a badge of pride||TJeanloz|
Nov 12, 2003 7:46 AM
|I'm obviously no expert into the minds of left-wing lunatics, but I've always seen their inability to raise money as a badge of pride for them - affirmation that what they were doing was not popular with people who have a lot of money, and thus popular with the lower-end of the spectrum.
But that's just a guess on my part.
Nov 12, 2003 8:05 AM
|As a left wing lunatic, in your formulation, I can tell you:
a) We have no trouble raising money. It just takes more work.
b If any rich person wants to contribute, and many do, we're tickled to death. No dishonor attaches to us when some zillionaire sees the progressive light.
Not sure why that bolded. My left-wing PC must have decided on its own to emphasize that point.
|As you well know, I've always said||OldEdScott|
Nov 12, 2003 7:57 AM
|you have no business in a campaign unless to can raise the cash to pay for it. Of COURSE I would consider we were offering a 'bad product' if we couldn't do that. And in fact we're NOT having trouble raising money this year.
There is, however, one small structural imbalance in the system: More rich people support Repubs than support Dem. So it's EASIER for Repubs to get large war chests. We have to work a little harder at it, and get it from smaller (less affluent) contributors. I'm not complaining. That's fine. That's who we ARE, so no use whining about it.
With ALL that said, GWB is dead set on raising such a vast, almost incomprehensible amount of money for this campaign, it's hard to envision how we'd ever make up the difference. So it's nice that Soros wants to help. We won't give up 'control' to him any more than Bush gives up 'control' to his wealthy big contributors, eh? I mean, you just HAVE to believe that money can't buy control; otherwise, you'd have to favor public financing as a way to preserve democracy (something I oppose, by the way).
I ain't losing no sleep about Soros, although I realize I'll have to argue with panty waste Republicans about it for the next year and it seems a non-issue waste of time.
|can dubya(oh no, i said it) pass any unused money||rufus|
Nov 12, 2003 7:49 PM
|on to jeb for his future presidential campaign? and you just know that it's coming. after all, it's the bushes' god-given destiny.|| |