If by 'not bankrupt' you mean 'not rob the shareholders' then yes.
Fuck Israel
Indeed...Dilbert_X wrote:
You mean they'd have to earn their salary?Turquoise wrote:
Good question. I would think all of the upper management. Basically, all the VPs, the CEO, CFO, Chairman, etc.SenorToenails wrote:
In your system, if a corporation were to go bankrupt, who would go to jail?
Thats un-American.
You see bankruptcy as robbing the shareholders? Are shares now supposed to be FDIC guaranteed too? It's an investment. It isn't fair to keep gains, and never suffer losses. That's exactly what the bailouts promoted and continue to promote. Were you in favor of them? The bailouts are completely counter-productive to "financial reform".Dilbert_X wrote:
If by 'not bankrupt' you mean 'not rob the shareholders' then yes.
The bailouts just reinforced a system of privatized profits and socialized losses. Bad move, I say!Phrozenbot wrote:
You see bankruptcy as robbing the shareholders? Are shares now supposed to be FDIC guaranteed too? It's an investment. It isn't fair to keep gains, and never suffer losses. That's exactly what the bailouts promoted and continue to promote. Were you in favor of them? The bailouts are completely counter-productive to "financial reform".Dilbert_X wrote:
If by 'not bankrupt' you mean 'not rob the shareholders' then yes.
I do see bankrupting a company as robbing the shareholders, especially if its done with intent or recklessness.Phrozenbot wrote:
You see bankruptcy as robbing the shareholders? Are shares now supposed to be FDIC guaranteed too? It's an investment. It isn't fair to keep gains, and never suffer losses. That's exactly what the bailouts promoted and continue to promote. Were you in favor of them? The bailouts are completely counter-productive to "financial reform".Dilbert_X wrote:
If by 'not bankrupt' you mean 'not rob the shareholders' then yes.
I'm saying execs should get a beating if they run a company into bankruptcy and effectively rob the shareholders. At present there is rarely a sanction, they walk away with their golden parachute and retire, it doesn't matter to them they won't be directors of a company again.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-02 01:00:13)
Fuck Israel
Shareholders should know more about a company before investing then. What if a company goes bankrupt due to terrible business model? You're going to punish the CEO's as well?Dilbert_X wrote:
I do see bankrupting a company as robbing the shareholders, especially if its done with intent or recklessness.Phrozenbot wrote:
You see bankruptcy as robbing the shareholders? Are shares now supposed to be FDIC guaranteed too? It's an investment. It isn't fair to keep gains, and never suffer losses. That's exactly what the bailouts promoted and continue to promote. Were you in favor of them? The bailouts are completely counter-productive to "financial reform".Dilbert_X wrote:
If by 'not bankrupt' you mean 'not rob the shareholders' then yes.
I'm saying execs should get a beating if they run a company into bankruptcy and effectively rob the shareholders. At present there is rarely a sanction, they walk away with their golden parachute and retire, it doesn't matter to them they won't be directors of a company again.
You call a golden parachute punishment?Cybargs wrote:
Shareholders should know more about a company before investing then. What if a company goes bankrupt due to terrible business model? You're going to punish the CEO's as well?Dilbert_X wrote:
I do see bankrupting a company as robbing the shareholders, especially if its done with intent or recklessness.Phrozenbot wrote:
You see bankruptcy as robbing the shareholders? Are shares now supposed to be FDIC guaranteed too? It's an investment. It isn't fair to keep gains, and never suffer losses. That's exactly what the bailouts promoted and continue to promote. Were you in favor of them? The bailouts are completely counter-productive to "financial reform".
I'm saying execs should get a beating if they run a company into bankruptcy and effectively rob the shareholders. At present there is rarely a sanction, they walk away with their golden parachute and retire, it doesn't matter to them they won't be directors of a company again.
Because that is what most CEOs get when they fail utterly ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Their company, their policy. Tough shit they're in charge, they can do whatever they want with the money from their company. Bailouts on the other hand, I am very very against.Varegg wrote:
You call a golden parachute punishment?Cybargs wrote:
Shareholders should know more about a company before investing then. What if a company goes bankrupt due to terrible business model? You're going to punish the CEO's as well?Dilbert_X wrote:
I do see bankrupting a company as robbing the shareholders, especially if its done with intent or recklessness.
I'm saying execs should get a beating if they run a company into bankruptcy and effectively rob the shareholders. At present there is rarely a sanction, they walk away with their golden parachute and retire, it doesn't matter to them they won't be directors of a company again.
Because that is what most CEOs get when they fail utterly ...
A CEO doesn't own the company ... the shareholders own the company ...Cybargs wrote:
Their company, their policy. Tough shit they're in charge, they can do whatever they want with the money from their company. Bailouts on the other hand, I am very very against.Varegg wrote:
You call a golden parachute punishment?Cybargs wrote:
Shareholders should know more about a company before investing then. What if a company goes bankrupt due to terrible business model? You're going to punish the CEO's as well?
Because that is what most CEOs get when they fail utterly ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Depends who's controlling most % of the shares. Usually it's the top execs.Varegg wrote:
A CEO doesn't own the company ... the shareholders own the company ...Cybargs wrote:
Their company, their policy. Tough shit they're in charge, they can do whatever they want with the money from their company. Bailouts on the other hand, I am very very against.Varegg wrote:
You call a golden parachute punishment?
Because that is what most CEOs get when they fail utterly ...
Shareholders are still shareholders CyCybargs wrote:
Depends who's controlling most % of the shares. Usually it's the top execs.Varegg wrote:
A CEO doesn't own the company ... the shareholders own the company ...Cybargs wrote:
Their company, their policy. Tough shit they're in charge, they can do whatever they want with the money from their company. Bailouts on the other hand, I am very very against.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Nothin like corporate ethics..Cybargs wrote:
Depends who's controlling most % of the shares. Usually it's the top execs.Varegg wrote:
A CEO doesn't own the company ... the shareholders own the company ...Cybargs wrote:
Their company, their policy. Tough shit they're in charge, they can do whatever they want with the money from their company. Bailouts on the other hand, I am very very against.
Did I say terrible business model?Cybargs wrote:
Shareholders should know more about a company before investing then. What if a company goes bankrupt due to terrible business model? You're going to punish the CEO's as well?Dilbert_X wrote:
I do see bankrupting a company as robbing the shareholders, especially if its done with intent or recklessness.Phrozenbot wrote:
You see bankruptcy as robbing the shareholders? Are shares now supposed to be FDIC guaranteed too? It's an investment. It isn't fair to keep gains, and never suffer losses. That's exactly what the bailouts promoted and continue to promote. Were you in favor of them? The bailouts are completely counter-productive to "financial reform".
I'm saying execs should get a beating if they run a company into bankruptcy and effectively rob the shareholders. At present there is rarely a sanction, they walk away with their golden parachute and retire, it doesn't matter to them they won't be directors of a company again.
No.
'intent or recklessness'
Fuck Israel
I wonder what happened to the guy that ran Adelphia. Oh right, he's in jail until 2018.Cybargs wrote:
Their company, their policy. Tough shit they're in charge, they can do whatever they want with the money from their company. Bailouts on the other hand, I am very very against.
You can't just do whatever you want with corporate money. CEO John Rigas and his partners looted multiple billions from Adelphia and are now paying the price.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-07-02 07:06:23)
Conrad Black too.
Shareholders money - its not the execs private stash.
Shareholders money - its not the execs private stash.
Fuck Israel
Not every bankruptcy is a result of recklessness.Dilbert_X wrote:
I do see bankrupting a company as robbing the shareholders, especially if its done with intent or recklessness.Phrozenbot wrote:
You see bankruptcy as robbing the shareholders? Are shares now supposed to be FDIC guaranteed too? It's an investment. It isn't fair to keep gains, and never suffer losses. That's exactly what the bailouts promoted and continue to promote. Were you in favor of them? The bailouts are completely counter-productive to "financial reform".Dilbert_X wrote:
If by 'not bankrupt' you mean 'not rob the shareholders' then yes.
I'm saying execs should get a beating if they run a company into bankruptcy and effectively rob the shareholders. At present there is rarely a sanction, they walk away with their golden parachute and retire, it doesn't matter to them they won't be directors of a company again.
The shady derivatives that most people do not understand, yet rightfully criticize them, did not mind shareholders making lovely gains off of them before the crisis. Such hypocrisy. Shareholders deserve to get burned for electing poor leaders to manage their company, and I do not in anyway find that or equate that as to "robbing", even if the CEO and top executives walk away well off, unless there was fraud involved, such as Goldman Sach's that made bets against their own customers.
Corporate welfare, bailouts, and corruption within the political regulatory machine has encouraged the reckless and dishonorable ways in the corporate culture here in America, specifically Wall Street. Yes, I believe some of them should be in prison for their fraudulence, but not every bankruptcy was caused by fraud. Those that were should most certainly be investigated, and all guilty parties punished accordingly by the law.
At the same time, however, millions of people much farther separated from these corporations than shareholders got burned when they invested in mutual funds that were supposed to be "blue chip" so to speak.Phrozenbot wrote:
Not every bankruptcy is a result of recklessness.Dilbert_X wrote:
I do see bankrupting a company as robbing the shareholders, especially if its done with intent or recklessness.Phrozenbot wrote:
You see bankruptcy as robbing the shareholders? Are shares now supposed to be FDIC guaranteed too? It's an investment. It isn't fair to keep gains, and never suffer losses. That's exactly what the bailouts promoted and continue to promote. Were you in favor of them? The bailouts are completely counter-productive to "financial reform".
I'm saying execs should get a beating if they run a company into bankruptcy and effectively rob the shareholders. At present there is rarely a sanction, they walk away with their golden parachute and retire, it doesn't matter to them they won't be directors of a company again.
The shady derivatives that most people do not understand, yet rightfully criticize them, did not mind shareholders making lovely gains off of them before the crisis. Such hypocrisy. Shareholders deserve to get burned for electing poor leaders to manage their company, and I do not in anyway find that or equate that as to "robbing", even if the CEO and top executives walk away well off, unless there was fraud involved, such as Goldman Sach's that made bets against their own customers.
Corporate welfare, bailouts, and corruption within the political regulatory machine has encouraged the reckless and dishonorable ways in the corporate culture here in America, specifically Wall Street. Yes, I believe some of them should be in prison for their fraudulence, but not every bankruptcy was caused by fraud. Those that were should most certainly be investigated, and all guilty parties punished accordingly by the law.
Those people don't deserve to be burned without punishments doled out to the parties responsible, since they were just ordinary citizens investing in the economy.
Of course not.Phrozenbot wrote:
Not every bankruptcy is a result of recklessness.
Fuck Israel
Indexes beat most managers: Standard & Poor's says few active funds outdo its benchmarksTurquoise wrote:
At the same time, however, millions of people much farther separated from these corporations than shareholders got burned when they invested in mutual funds that were supposed to be "blue chip" so to speak.
Those people don't deserve to be burned without punishments doled out to the parties responsible, since they were just ordinary citizens investing in the economy.
And millions invested in mutual funds could have compared index performances vs their own mutual funds performance, accounted for fees, inflation, and other expenses, and realized that their money was being unwisely invested.
I understand that a mutual fund provides a service, and that it is to invest others' money wisely for those who are not confident enough, wise enough, or too busy to invest successfully in the market. Whatever the reason, it is to provide a service, but there is always risks involved, so irregardless of how busy you are or how ignorant you are of the market, a responsible individual should at least be careful not to have blind faith in their trusted investor, and research their performance to weigh if the risks are worth their service.
The market is not a place where everyone can invest and make large profits. Not everyone wins in the market, and sometimes people lose badly.
You implied it.Dilbert_X wrote:
Of course not.Phrozenbot wrote:
Not every bankruptcy is a result of recklessness.
Last edited by Phrozenbot (2010-07-02 22:08:41)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient- … hypothesis
That is, one cannot consistently achieve returns in excess of average market returns on a risk-adjusted basis, given the information publicly available at the time the investment is made.
No I didn't.Phrozenbot wrote:
You implied it.Dilbert_X wrote:
Of course not.Phrozenbot wrote:
Not every bankruptcy is a result of recklessness.
Fuck Israel
The EMH also makes the argument that fundamental or other structured model investments have little to no advantage over random investment. EMH makes little logical sense, even though it may seem to explain why mutual funds can be poor investments. The reasoning is more broad, specifically artificially inflating the economy and stock market, which I believe has resulted in a truly poor service model from mutual funds, who were simply riding on the market as it naturally grew.mcminty wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient- … hypothesisThat is, one cannot consistently achieve returns in excess of average market returns on a risk-adjusted basis, given the information publicly available at the time the investment is made.
Mises.
Dilbert_X wrote:
No I didn't.Phrozenbot wrote:
You implied it.
Remove the words not:Dilbert_X wrote:
If by 'not bankrupt' you mean 'not rob the shareholders' then yes.
Yes, you did. If I am mistaken, it is on your part for not making yourself clear.Dilbert_X wrote:
If by 'bankrupt' you mean 'rob the shareholders' then yes.
Last edited by Phrozenbot (2010-07-03 12:51:17)