Search results

Are you the original poster? Didn't you say they canned you after you got the gig? Or do you mean they canned you while you are still finishing up your temp, before transitioning into a full time gig? In any case, you got canned for being charged. That's pretty normal in the finance business...

You were let go because you have a felony charge and you blame BoA? What is this, upside-down world? (BoA sucks for many many reasons, but their HR policy with respect to this is pretty standard for a bank with a commercial operation)

In normal times, it would very unprofessional for internal HR recruiter to not know that compliance will slap this guy down; But his problem is a little "unique". He was hired by one entity for which his felony conviction isn't a problem. But it was in the middle of a corporate integration; The...

... Losing a limb because the factory floor manager refuse to comply with safety regulations is negligence. Getting jammed by regulatory compliance issues in the middle of a corporate integration event is just plan ol' bad luck. No one needs to pay because no one is at fault here. At the end of...

Um... the recruiter doesn't do compliance; Compliance is responsible for compliance. In his case, it's HR that initiates the process (under the supervision of compliance). Even if this is a tad unprofessional (which it is not; he happened to be unlucky enough to get jammed in the middle of a...

Being a felon does not make you a member of a protected class. They can fire you for that. As previously pointed out, it's at-will employment. Furthermore, you attitude blows. So BoA, now owner of Merrill, can't hire you because doing so violates FDIC regulations; Somehow this means you are...

Yeah... sure, you see a $20 on a floor, and this is the line of thought that's worth risk/reward effort? ... or, you can just go get a job rather than chasing after unlikely and unstable fact patterns. This sort of thinking is pretty symptomatic of retail "trader" thinking.

Sigh... and of course, the reality is the $20 is on the floor because it's a fluke - it fell out of someone's pocket. Meanwhile, you spend the next 10 years conveniencing yourself that every time a red car passes a blue car, another $20 will appear. Your sin is far graver than an academics.

Is there some sort of a point here? If you take a doctor and make him a burger flipper, he can't make the same amount of money he did last year; what's your point exactly? Bank traders != retail trader. It's not even remotely the same profession.

Where did I say in any of my posts that I *trust* them? There's a world of difference between trust and "they lied". I simply hold an opinion of professional indifference to them. I have insurance. I know that they are adversaries in that it's in their interest not to pay me. But there's a...

What exactly do they lie about? Were you supposed to care about you in some personal way? You are an inconvenient element in a perfectly normal statistical population. You mean shit to them. If you think any differently, I think you don't really have a grasp on life, nevermind insurance

All we need is some dueling banjo in the background... can't make this stuff up...

Yeah... you want to handle judgement risk and collateral value risk with "proper agreement"... were a risk manager for Lehman brothers or AIG, by chance?

If an insurance company isn't acting in the interest of profit maximization, it is no longer acting within its fiduciary duty to its shareholds. So yes, it's a foregone conclusion that they do everything for profit. What's your problem with that exactly?

Trump is a billionaire? .... that's news to everyone on earth. But aside from that, what exactly are you arguing with me about? You *can* declare bankruptcy. But there are certain limits to what you can do in a bankruptcy because there are so many of *you* (as in, people). So, unless there...

... collateral and proper agreement... I guess you've never had to contend with collateral value risk, custodial risk, judgement uncertainty, and bounderline fraud.

Let me rephrase the above poster's question then - instead of working for you, would you want trump to invest your money? better yet - would you lend money to trump?

Your hypothesis suffers from a logical fallacy called "excluding the middle". Your entire argument (which is the refutation of the hypothesis) suffers from both "strawman arguments" and "argument by ridicule). You are a walking textbook example of how to now rationally present a case.

Wouldn't this be a constructive sale and therefore offer no tax benefit?

As a pedantic point: no coupon doesn't mean no duration; It just means that bonds of the same maturity will be "comparable" without making adjustments. I didn't say you can't trade eurodollars (or for that matter, anything else) technically. My point is that what you should analyze isn't the...