Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Fund Manager #@$%*! Fired as Trump's Communications Director
@Lewis: "Fund Manager to Be Trump's Communications Director" I think you need to pay a lot more attention to details before you fire off another anti-Trump post. Skybridge Capital a single fund, SKYIX, which is managed by Raymond C. Nolte and Brendan G. Voege, not Anthony Scaramucci. Next time get your facts straight !!!!!!!!!!!! Regards, Ted
@Ted Sorry, but it's not fake news. The man founded the fund management firm that operates these funds and said the things reported and now has the job of communications director. I think you're confusing "fake news" with "truthful hyperbole." Your favorite guy loves truthful hyperbole.
I've heard him on the money shows. He fits in with the Trumpster. No conscience. Slick. Or should I say, "greasy?" @Ted, I just gotta post this one, because one good turn deserves another: (From "Harold & Maude." One of Harold's death scenes.)
Yes, I forgot he was the guy who chaired the attempted revival of Wall Street Week.
Wasn't that the show that premiered with a backdrop so cluttered, fast changing, and irrelevant to Wall Street (Times Square) that viewers were distracted from the program's content?
Is this topic relevant to fund discussion? I see a lot of political opinions here that are not relevant to mutual funds. This belongs in the "Off Topic" category since it went off the rails rather quickly.
@davidrmoran There are two things going on--one is the pursuit of raw power regardless of which party. Trump himself was once a Clinton donor until it no longer suited his ends. The other is an undying love for all things Wall Street. Both Trump and Hillary are friends of Wall Street no matter what either of them says otherwise. As was Obama, contrary to popular belief: https://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=n00009638 While such a pro-Street ideology might be suitable for the head of an exchange or investment bank, it is not necessarily ideal for the communications director to the most powerful public servant in the world. I wonder if this will affect the fiduciary rule in some way. Here's an interesting take on the appointment from one financial adviser who supports the fiduciary rule: https://riabiz.com/a/2017/7/22/in-letter-to-riabiz-ron-rhoades-reacts-to-the-ardent-of-dol-rule-detractor-commandeering-the-white-house-microphone Obviously hedge funds charging 2% of assets and 20% of profits might not fair so well in a world where advisers must always put their clients interests first.
Sure re the 'prez'*. Mooch seems different, having reasons and reasoning. Not saying it makes a real difference ultimately, necessarily, not saying we can use the word thoughtful, but he is not mini-DT no matter what tonight's articles say. So far as I can see.
Your 'friends of the Street' thing is waaaay too crude and uncomprehending for me and seems unworthy of you, actually. HRC is opportunistic, absolutely (and many things somewhat worse than that), in the sense of taking the money from where the money is. BO likewise. But if you're implying or even inferring that they're similar in their hearts about the baseness of ancillary, unproductive moneymaking (or inequality, taxation, healthcare, social policy, redistribution, any of that), and are remotely close to DT or anyone of his broad ilk sucking reflexively off the Street tit, I keenly disagree, and am the more bothered since you have cast it in this popular false equivalency locution. But her emails. But her speeches. But his palsiness w/ those CEOs. 'No matter what either of them says'.
Please.
Will read your links, thanks. And yes, Mooch effect on consumer fiduciary policies must be monitored. It will be.
@Davidrmoran There are obvious differences between these politicians. What I am saying is Mooch's once supporting Dems doesn't strike me as a sign of moderation but more so a hedge fund manager's expedience. (Or does expedience count as moderation these days? I'm not asking that facetiously.) A number of hedge fund managers supported Clinton and Obama in 2008 and then when Dodd Frank and the Consumer Protection Act came out switched teams, resenting any form of regulation.
There was a track record for them to believe especially in Clinton's case that she would be a friend to the Street. Both parties have been. While Republicans designed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act or the Financial Services Modernization Act which deregulated Wall Street in 1999, Bill Clinton eagerly signed it into law. He was also a supporter of much of the deregulation that occurred in the 1990s--deregulation that allowed many financial service firms to make a mint off M& A activity.
There is no moral equivalency I am claiming though between these three, merely stating that Wall Street never saw any of them until recently as enemies.
It is the way of his tweeted support and his snark, his wording (brief) and what it seems to convey and what is behind it, that seems something other than and beyond expedience. That's all.
Clintons' policy history even in its variety and evolutions over the decades doesn't seem notably at odds with their core values wrt the social issues I listed. Maybe I'm naive, and for sure am ignorant compared w your recitation.
I have often wondered about the greed policy monolithicity, or variety of thought, among plutocrats. Of the half-dozen financial moguls I know pretty well, meaning play weekly geezerball with for decades, none of them opposes or has opposed higher taxes and past recent regs on their amassing. Of course Singers and Mercers tend not to live in Boston suburbs, so surely my sample is skewed.
His reboot of 'WSW' was/is a joke and a far cry from Uncle Louis' content and PBS' quality. I saw one episode and barely made it through the whole thing.
As to Mooch himself, I remember seeing him as a regular on CNBC over the years .... he comes across to me as a stereotypical hedge-fund-bro -- slickly coiffed, perfectly-manicured, projecting overconfidence and a smooth/fast-talking Manhattaner. He may be what POTUS wants to have representing him now, but in terms of providing information to the public, I don't think I'll trust him farther than I can throw him. However, I'm sure to those the WH is trying to mollify (ie, its base) he's perfect, b/c he is a "made man" and "exudes wealth and success" which is what POTUS is all about -- ie, he's more concerned w/optics, appearances, and ratings than anything else.
All this emphasis (real or imagined) on loyalty, family and hierachy - coupled with undying obedience to the company - recently prompted me to watch all three Godfather episodes ('72,'74,'90). Absolutely amazing performances - especially Al Pachino as Michael Corleone.
From Mark Twain - “Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR"
And here I thought it was the fiduciary rule that was comparable to the greatest crime perpetrated by our nation against an entire race of people. Our leader is struggling mightily to break the chains of that pre-existing condition clause.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
Regards,
Ted
Regards,
Ted
http://www.skybridgecapital.com/about-skybridge/
Regards,
Ted
Seems like a perfect fit.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.thedailybeast.com/new-trump-hire-anthony-scaramucci-deletes-old-tweets-bashing-trump
There's more than this too, turns out.
Its on youtube, for anyone who is interested.
https://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=n00009638
While such a pro-Street ideology might be suitable for the head of an exchange or investment bank, it is not necessarily ideal for the communications director to the most powerful public servant in the world. I wonder if this will affect the fiduciary rule in some way.
Here's an interesting take on the appointment from one financial adviser who supports the fiduciary rule:
https://riabiz.com/a/2017/7/22/in-letter-to-riabiz-ron-rhoades-reacts-to-the-ardent-of-dol-rule-detractor-commandeering-the-white-house-microphone
Obviously hedge funds charging 2% of assets and 20% of profits might not fair so well in a world where advisers must always put their clients interests first.
>> pursuit of raw power
Sure re the 'prez'*. Mooch seems different, having reasons and reasoning. Not saying it makes a real difference ultimately, necessarily, not saying we can use the word thoughtful, but he is not mini-DT no matter what tonight's articles say. So far as I can see.
Your 'friends of the Street' thing is waaaay too crude and uncomprehending for me and seems unworthy of you, actually. HRC is opportunistic, absolutely (and many things somewhat worse than that), in the sense of taking the money from where the money is. BO likewise. But if you're implying or even inferring that they're similar in their hearts about the baseness of ancillary, unproductive moneymaking (or inequality, taxation, healthcare, social policy, redistribution, any of that), and are remotely close to DT or anyone of his broad ilk sucking reflexively off the Street tit, I keenly disagree, and am the more bothered since you have cast it in this popular false equivalency locution. But her emails. But her speeches. But his palsiness w/ those CEOs. 'No matter what either of them says'.
Please.
Will read your links, thanks. And yes, Mooch effect on consumer fiduciary policies must be monitored. It will be.
There was a track record for them to believe especially in Clinton's case that she would be a friend to the Street. Both parties have been. While Republicans designed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act or the Financial Services Modernization Act which deregulated Wall Street in 1999, Bill Clinton eagerly signed it into law. He was also a supporter of much of the deregulation that occurred in the 1990s--deregulation that allowed many financial service firms to make a mint off M& A activity.
There is no moral equivalency I am claiming though between these three, merely stating that Wall Street never saw any of them until recently as enemies.
Clintons' policy history even in its variety and evolutions over the decades doesn't seem notably at odds with their core values wrt the social issues I listed. Maybe I'm naive, and for sure am ignorant compared w your recitation.
I have often wondered about the greed policy monolithicity, or variety of thought, among plutocrats. Of the half-dozen financial moguls I know pretty well, meaning play weekly geezerball with for decades, none of them opposes or has opposed higher taxes and past recent regs on their amassing. Of course Singers and Mercers tend not to live in Boston suburbs, so surely my sample is skewed.
His reboot of 'WSW' was/is a joke and a far cry from Uncle Louis' content and PBS' quality. I saw one episode and barely made it through the whole thing.
As to Mooch himself, I remember seeing him as a regular on CNBC over the years .... he comes across to me as a stereotypical hedge-fund-bro -- slickly coiffed, perfectly-manicured, projecting overconfidence and a smooth/fast-talking Manhattaner. He may be what POTUS wants to have representing him now, but in terms of providing information to the public, I don't think I'll trust him farther than I can throw him. However, I'm sure to those the WH is trying to mollify (ie, its base) he's perfect, b/c he is a "made man" and "exudes wealth and success" which is what POTUS is all about -- ie, he's more concerned w/optics, appearances, and ratings than anything else.
From Mark Twain - “Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot. BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR"
https://nytimes.com/2017/07/25/us/politics/scaramucci-on-white-house-leaks-fire-everybody.html?src=trending&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Trending&pgtype=article
Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of weasels. (That may be a little unfair to weasels.)
https://theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/27/trump-battle-obamacare-reminds-scaramucci-lincolns-fight-abolish-slavery
And here I thought it was the fiduciary rule that was comparable to the greatest crime perpetrated by our nation against an entire race of people. Our leader is struggling mightily to break the chains of that pre-existing condition clause.