Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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

«13

Comments

  • TedTed
    edited July 2017
    @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:(:(:(:(:(
  • Yes, I forgot he was the guy who chaired the attempted revival of Wall Street Week.
  • @PressmUp: Yes, and it was a real turkey !
    Regards,
    Ted
  • edited July 2017
    @Ted Wait, I think you missed an exclamation point and frowny face.
  • @Lewid: You have been found guilty of 'Fake News", your punishment will be....!
    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.
  • edited July 2017
    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.)
  • edited July 2017
    "...Anthony Scaramucci is the Founder of SkyBridge..." @Ted.
    http://www.skybridgecapital.com/about-skybridge/
  • TedTed
    edited July 2017
    @Crash: Simply great, I take back everything that I said was good about you !
    Regards,
    Ted:)
  • PRESSmUP said:

    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?

    Seems like a perfect fit.


  • 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.
  • @willmatt72: You'll have to discuss that with Lewis. After all he is the world's leading authority on fund manager, just ask him !
    Regards,
    Ted
  • Anthony Scaramucci is the best looking fund manager and I will be watching many more press conferences now. Thanks for the heads-up Lewis!
  • Is that you Tony?
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • He had judgment and values once upon a time too:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/new-trump-hire-anthony-scaramucci-deletes-old-tweets-bashing-trump

    There's more than this too, turns out.
  • I watched his 1st day at the WH press room, doing Q&A with the national press. He struck me as very impressive.

    Its on youtube, for anyone who is interested.
  • edited July 2017
    @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.
  • edited July 2017
    fare

    >> 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.
  • edited July 2017
    @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.
  • A new spokesmodel is born and the world is all ablaze. Media, even Faux Media, is King.

  • 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.

  • made men, excellent :)
  • edited July 2017
    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"
  • Well, except every single one is Fredo or Sonny; there are no Michaels or Vitos.
  • edited July 2017

    Good to see Mooch is already fostering a collegial environment among the White House staff

    Sounds like one big happy family. (But they're going to run out of busses pretty soon.)
  • "Good to see Mooch is already fostering a collegial environment among the White House staff"

    Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of weasels. (That may be a little unfair to weasels.)
  • Now he's comparing Obamacare to slavery and Trump to Lincoln trying to abolish it:

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.