Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Fundamental Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Madharry who wrote (1169)	4/26/2010 2:51:16 AM
From: bruwin	Respond to of 4719

Yes, Madharry, I’d say you’ve picked a very good example of what can happen If ENOUGH people start taking a Real Interest in what is going to directly affect them and do something REALLY POSITIVE about it. For Scott Brown to have won that seat I presume a relatively large number of Democrats must have voted with the Republicans, which, of itself, is extraordinary, but was no doubt considered necessary considering what they believed was at stake. The way I see it there should be less voting along party lines just for the sake of voting along party lines. What the population of any country needs is to have laws and systems etc.., that are well thought out, well constructed, fair and reasonable, adequately policed, and which work to the ultimate benefit of as many folk as possible. It shouldn’t be about scoring political points in order to remain in a cushy political post. It should be more about working together for the ultimate benefit of the public, as Servants of the public. Most Democracies seem to have forgotten the inherent and guiding wisdom in Abe Lincoln’s statement ... “Government Of the people, By the people and FOR the people.”

To: Madharry who wrote (1169)	4/27/2010 1:30:29 PM
From: bruwin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4719

With regard to the following post … Message 26491688 … my understanding of a “Market Maker” is someone who oversees the buying or selling of a stock or instrument. He sets the buying price as well as the selling price and will match a buyer with a seller and vice versa. If a buyer or seller wants to transact at ‘Market Price’ and not at 'Limit Price’, the Market Maker’s responsibility is to match that deal even if he has to be the buyer or seller should he not be able to find one in the market place. Therefore he will always set the buy or sell price at a level that he would be prepared to transact at, bearing in mind that he has access to all the bids and offers for that stock or instrument. Now if that was what GS did in the “Paulson case” then they shouldn’t have anything to answer for because that’s their business. But from what I’ve read, GS were perfectly aware of the very poor quality of the instruments that they were recommending for their clients because Paulson informed them of that fact and in addition he bet against those instruments via GS. Needless to say, it’s not GS’s responsibility, as Market Makers, to give their client’s advice as to what they believe is the quality of an instrument in normal circumstances, based, for example, on their own fundamental or technical analysis. BUT, when they have been involved with the creator of those instruments, who has put together complete junk and parcelled it up to look much better than it is, and has also bet heavily against those instruments via GS, then, surely, there must be a conflict of interest when GS favourably recommend that junk to their clients. One would have to be very naïve to believe that an experienced player such as Paulson would bet very heavily against an outcome if he wasn’t 100% sure that he was betting in the right direction. That’s not to detract, in any way, from the responsibility of those in a Regulatory Capacity to have done something about the creation of those toxic instruments in the first place, which were largely based on the suicidal sub-prime mortgage process. I would certainly agree that those who should have done more in that regard should also be hauled up in front of Senatorial committees and made to answer for their actions, … or lack of them.