BNP Paribas: US funds have completely shut down their lending to us

Quote from Martinghoul:

This article is bullsh1t, for a variety of reasons. Lots of factual errors in it.

See here for one explanation:
http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/why-you-shouldnt-trust-the-wsj-piece-on-bnp-paribas/

Moreover, there's all sorts of ways for BNP to fund in USD and it's not going to affect their costs much.
More...

The article you link to is more of a personal attack than a factual attack. It is more of a critique of the writer's and institutional credibility than a substancial rebuke. Regardless of the validity of the original article this is not a good counter in my opinion.
 
Quote from morganist:
The article you link to is more of a personal attack than a factual attack. It is more of a critique of the writer's and institutional credibility than a substancial rebuke. Regardless of the validity of the original article this is not a good counter in my opinion.
More...
What are you talking about? Didn't the author of the WSJ piece misrepresent the findings of a research paper that supposedly illustrates a point that he was making? Isn't that smth you'd call a "factual attack"?
 
Quote from Martinghoul:

What are you talking about? Didn't the author of the WSJ piece misrepresent the findings of a research paper that supposedly illustrates a point that he was making? Isn't that smth you'd call a "factual attack"?
More...

Regardless of that two thirds of the article makes derogatory comments about the author and the think tank. This makes it look unprofessional in my opinion.

Even if the writer has a valid point it makes it look like they don't because it looks as though they have had to criticise with ad hominem attacks. This would suggest they have a weak argument.
 
Quote from morganist:
Regardless of that two thirds of the article makes derogatory comments about the author and the think tank. This makes it look unprofessional in my opinion.

Even if the writer has a valid point it makes it look like they don't because it looks as though they have had to criticise with ad hominem attacks. This would suggest they have a weak argument.
More...
Well, the author of the original WSJ article has produced a sensationalist bombshell, quoted an "anonymous" source without verifying the facts of the matter, made a number of erroneous claims and misrepresented rresearch findings to bolster his argument. I would say that that's what's most "unprofessional" here, rather than the AFOE's response. And I'd say Mssr Lecaussin richly deserves every ad hominem attack that comes his way.
 
Quote from Martinghoul:

Well, the author of the original WSJ article has produced a sensationalist bombshell, quoted an "anonymous" source without verifying the facts of the matter, made a number of erroneous claims and misrepresented rresearch findings to bolster his argument. I would say that that's what's most "unprofessional" here, rather than the AFOE's response. And I'd say Mssr Lecaussin richly deserves every ad hominem attack that comes his way.
More...

Marty your so bitchy. You always defend the Euro to the hilt. Are you highly invested there?
 
Quote from morganist:
Marty your so bitchy. You always defend the Euro to the hilt. Are you highly invested there?
More...
I am not defending the Euro and I am not b1tchy. I just HATE sloppy journalism.
 
Quote from Martinghoul:

I am not defending the Euro and I am not b1tchy. I just HATE sloppy journalism.
More...

You are a little bit bitchy. Admit it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top