Re: WSJ: The Lessons to Be Learned From the Madoff Scandal

-DirtBag <Mud@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ausound wrote:
mugglefuggle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote in news:8ea12607-02f3-45d9-b8bc-
624cd81111fb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

The vast
majority of money managers are honest, hard-working professionals with
their clients' best interests at heart.

I don't know if this statement is true
Have there been exhaustive studies of every manager ?

I think the vast majority of money managers are out to keep their job #1
and provide just enough of a return to keep that job
and kiss enough ass to keep that job

if the client benefits along the way so be it


--rant begin--
Unfortunately, this systemic greed is here to stay. A prime example of
why it has fallen apart is the over-the-top performance bonuses which
certainly serve as a motive for many crooks. Some people just cant deal
with their responsibility to be fair.

This is the systemic greed syndrome that comes with the big-big money.
We have found that it is easy to build our investment base by being fair
and giving 80% priority returns to investors. Any windfall money is
shared with investors with the same split and fairness. The model works
well and everyone is happy. Greed is what screws up things IMO.

Wall Street and NYC in general got greedy. It became a part of the
culture and like a cancer it destroyed much of what was, at one time, good.


What about these recent Lottery Winners screwing over their coworkers
for that lottery win? Greed is a ugly thing $1000 or $10,000,000. It is
all the same.
--rant end--

Greed is certainly not a nice-making thing.

The thing about the profit motive is that it makes you earn a profit.
CEOs' incentive pay is usually/often in the form of stock options. If
the company does not show increasing profits the price of the stock
goes down. Might as well hit the CEO with a club.

The purpose of the corporation is to earn a profit for its
shareholders (owners). So what you have is companies that are
attempting to maximize profit. What that leads to is price
competition.

Which may be a very good thing for purchasers, or not. Because price
competition and profit lead to making the cheapest possible product
and selling it for the highest possible price.

Cost efficiency has become the Corporate God. Save a nickel on every
part and profit will increase, stock prices will rise, the CEO will
make more money. That encourages CEOs to be cheap.

Given the current system there is no way to turn things around from
the goal of making the most money to the goal of making the best
product. Perhaps quality could become a fad. But in hard economic
times fads are unlikely to cause change.

The only way I can imagine that would change the system from one where
cheap *** rules the market to one where the best *** rules the
market is for the goobermint to impose a 100% income tax on all profit
beyond some fixed percentage. Say 15% profit is all a company gets to
keep, the rest goes to the IRS. It sounds goofy at first, maybe even
after "at first". But if companies were limited in terms of profit
level, price competition might be replaced by quality competition. Or
by competition to be innovative, to be the first to come out with
something new.

The whole thing's a joke DB, as long as people believe there is a
fixed amount of stuff in the world that has to be fought over, it'll
continue to be a mud-westle and the concept of "unfair advantage" will
continue to mean "advantage you can't get away with".
--
victim: A newbie who has it all figured out.
.

Loading