Comments on: Tuesday links are likely to be disappointed http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/28/tuesday-links-are-likely-to-be-disappointed/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Mike S http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/28/tuesday-links-are-likely-to-be-disappointed/comment-page-1/#comment-982 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:51:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/28/tuesday-links-are-likely-to-be-disappointed/#comment-982 I will make sure to no longer click on reuters. It’s a shame after all these years. You are no longer reliable.

]]>
By: Mike S http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/28/tuesday-links-are-likely-to-be-disappointed/comment-page-1/#comment-981 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:50:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/28/tuesday-links-are-likely-to-be-disappointed/#comment-981 Am I getting through that I don’t like Felix or are you simply resistant to any commentary that is contrary?

]]>
By: mike http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/28/tuesday-links-are-likely-to-be-disappointed/comment-page-1/#comment-980 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:49:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/28/tuesday-links-are-likely-to-be-disappointed/#comment-980 Who is felix and why are we bombarded with him? Try living up to a higher standard of journalism.

-m

]]>
By: mike http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/28/tuesday-links-are-likely-to-be-disappointed/comment-page-1/#comment-979 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:47:48 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/28/tuesday-links-are-likely-to-be-disappointed/#comment-979 I don’t like lookig at Felix every time a reuters news story is presented. He’s not he face or voice of anything. I expect reuters to be less promotional.

sincerely,
-mike

you don’t need to know my last name. I will have less faith in you and rely on reuters less in the future if you choose to not pay attention to comments like this.

]]>
By: Thomas Pindelski http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/28/tuesday-links-are-likely-to-be-disappointed/comment-page-1/#comment-935 Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:57:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/28/tuesday-links-are-likely-to-be-disappointed/#comment-935 Apropos the BoA piece and Lewis’s survival chances, it seems to me that one of the greatest institutional failures in this market crash is the refusal – through sloth or passive collusion – of institutional shareholders to wield the power of their vote. Witness the very high percentage of proxies voted in line with management during the past 2, 10, 50 or 100 years – pick your period – regardless of the economy.

It would be interesting to hear your analysis why passivity is preferred to activism, especially in these times when lots of CEOs should long ago have been directed to the unemployment office by their shareholders.

]]>
By: Trieu http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/28/tuesday-links-are-likely-to-be-disappointed/comment-page-1/#comment-925 Wed, 29 Apr 2009 07:22:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/04/28/tuesday-links-are-likely-to-be-disappointed/#comment-925 Have you watched Eric Ronsenfeld’s talk at MIT about LTCM? It’s quite good. One of the more compelling parts of the lecture happened about 50 minutes in when he describes the Fed and the systemic dangers posed by the failure of LTCM. In particular, he talks about how hedged positions with low NET risk become two separate, unhedged positions were LTCM to have gone into bankruptcy, because LTCM hedged with different counterparties. Furthermore, he cites this specific effect as the Fed’s main worry back then. He also explains that this effect was also the reason why Lehman’s bankruptcy caused so much damage. (So much irony!)

]]>