[John Galt]

But generally our prospects are not of massive wealth and hence might not need us if they were. I beg to differ.

[Karen37a]

I agree. He is my jr partner and best friend? Got pulled into this business by me and waiting to give me money if I ever decide to take it to syndicate.

This is why I am usually looking at things from the Lenders perspective, when I am just a lowly broker. Ive been on the investment side too long.

I didnt even tell him, or a few other investors about the DF... they mentioned it to me one day." did you ever see this site, they have good info on it" ..yes I am on it. They wandered onto the net to look into Cash advances so they could get a good understanding of what I was going to do with their money, if I took it. They did their own homework, without telling me, due diligence.I was actually insulted. " you dont trust my judgement" And they pretty much said..we would never give anyone that kind of money not know what we are getting into.

This is why I have been yelling for months saying " people are watching these boards" regulators, scam artists, debt restructuring companies, future brokers , potential investors

And this is why I spent time typing out the counter arguments to stories that people spun to disparage our industry because they didnt make it in sales.

no matter how many times people yelled Regulation, my potential investors have not been scared off.

Volcker rule BOO

[WestCoastFunding]

Would kind of think the term would be implode not explode. And Lehman was a mark to market implosion. Stupid rule, where are they now? Even Bernie Madoff would be whole by now. Too big to fail is true..where is AIG now? Redistribution of wealth as always, what we are about (the US)? Mark to market is good for regulators and buyers, great reason to move markets as is all the hoopla. Where after bailouts are most of those companies now, Oh gosh is the DOW lower???

"Implode" implies that the damage is contained to one entity. When a company's meltdown affects an entire industry, creates a commercial paper blowout, and causes the economy to go into a "sudden stop" it's an explosion. You don't get massive collateral damage like that from and "implosion". Save that term for the CAN Capital types.

[WestCoastFunding]

Instead of you guys complaining about the brave few who object to massive regulation when you do not know whats coming if it happened.

Weird that your qualify your comment with "massive regulation" as if anyone on here is advocating "massive" regulation. Seems like a bit of a straw man.

[John Galt]

seriously, the markets recovered and redistributed. So did most companies. Entity was dollars. Was only a hiccup, lol. Can was a bad management issue like Mother Merryl, BOA, Levine, Boesky and Milken. Economies change. Anyone with a lowly series 7 will tell you mother Merryl is on the test....lol. Not meaning to be pompous, but come on, way old news. We all watched the money markets dive...most knew we couldn't support the fictitious market we were having but we all participated and took the money anyway.

[WestCoastFunding]

seriously, the markets recovered and redistributed. So did most companies. Entity was dollars. Was only a hiccup, lol. Can was a bad management issue like Mother Merryl, BOA, Levine, Boesky and Milken. Economies change. Anyone with a lowly series 7 will tell you mother Merryl is on the test....lol. Not meaning to be pompous, but come on, way old news. We all watched the money markets dive...most knew we couldn't support the fictitious market we were having but we all participated and took the money anyway.

Do you understand how bad your argument is when you're admitting the market was "fictitious" while also arguing against regulations?

And do you normally call the worst financial crisis in 80 years that essentially led to a global depression to be a "hiccup"?

I mean: come on.

[John Galt]

What I said was it was a redistribution of wealth. If the mark to market rule was not in place, eventually the markets would have returned after the bubble went. It's not the first crisis the US saw but it was the largest in scale. Lots predicted it, a lot made a real good profit. I don't think Dodd did much, the market did it as it always eventually prices things correctly. Whether it was AIG or Equity Funding or Enron or FSLIC. Prices go up, prices go down. Banks learned to keep properties off the market to cause a supply and demand issue rather than wholesale forclosure sales and save their capital which was bailed out anyway. Buy, sell who can tell. Always the same. It is a market fueled by crisis and media so it's fictitious. Their are plenty of examples of Countries going out of business, we got bailed out by another fictitious item, dollars that we can print plenty of.

[jotucker1983]

I just find it funny that there's this notion that if you put checks/balances in place, this is guaranteed to lead to massive over-regulation that stifles business activity because, the regulators are "all evil", thus, let's continue operating with no checks/balances in place.

It's like a minority that lives on the bad side of Chicago (where thugs are shooting up folks like it's the damn Vietnam War) saying let's not bring in more law enforcement because, "all law enforcement officials are evil", and it will lead to tyranny.

Has anybody ever heard of a word called, "Balance" lol? It's where we can implement the right levels of law and order, checks and balances, industry regulation, etc., in such a way to decrease/eliminate the mass amount of foul play, while not stifling honest, credible, and productive, activity.

That's the "common sense" solution and my proposal has always been that we as an industry take a pro-active role alongside state regulators to draft said solution. I mean come on:

- How does it makes sense for our industry to not do any background checks, not require any certifications, and not have any checks/balances in place, for individuals we hire who are going out and collecting SSN, DOB, bank accounts, tax returns, and other sensitive information of merchants?

- How does it makes sense to not require a lender/funder and a broker to disclose themselves in the marketplace, where there's no broker running around acting like a funder/lender?

- How does it makes sense to not have anything in place to punish employees, brokers, or funder/lenders who steal deals?

- How does it makes sense to not have anything in place to punish brokers or funders/lenders who steal/don't pay commissions that are due?

- How does it make sense to not have some level of limits on stacking to where a percentage of a merchant's monthly gross isn't dedicated solely to cash advance related payments?

- How does it make sense to not have some "truth in advancing" where all costs, fees, etc. of an advance deal are clearly explained to the merchant upfront?

[WestCoastFunding]

Look it up. Then you might..and i say might understand what money is used for speculative bets inside banks prior to the Dodd Frank laws---The FDIC is very restrictive on how insured money can be used by banks.

SEC:

"Statement on the Volcker Rule: Reducing Systemic Risk By Banning Excessive Proprietary Trading with Depositors’ Money"

http://www.sec.gov/News/PublicStmt/D.../1370540478214

Feel free to lecture the SEC while repeating the same boilerplate nonsense over and over again.

[Happy Horse Shit]

SEC:

"Statement on the Volcker Rule: Reducing Systemic Risk By Banning Excessive Proprietary Trading with Depositors’ Money"

http://www.sec.gov/News/PublicStmt/D.../1370540478214

Feel free to lecture the SEC while repeating the same boilerplate nonsense over and over again.

The Securities and Exchange Commission regulates securities, not FDIC funds (Cash and cash equivalent is not a security). The FDIC regulates what FDIC deposits can used for. I suggest you look at the link here that has very detailed rules of what and when FDIC funds can be used within a "BANK" (by the way the SEC does not regulate banks, (Comptroller of the currency (OCC) and the office of thirft supervision (OTS) and various other state agencies are the banking regulators) --just to break it down for you the FDIC allows those funds to be used when trading Govt securities and making markets. The prohibition list is long and includes just about everything else. Including hedge funds
https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/law...2000-7350.html

[Karen37a]

The Securities and Exchange Commission regulates securities, not FDIC funds (Cash and cash equivalent is not a security). The FDIC regulates what FDIC deposits can used for. I suggest you look at the link here that has very detailed rules of what and when FDIC funds can be used within a "BANK" (by the way the SEC does not regulate banks, (Comptroller of the currency (OCC) and the office of thirft supervision (OTS) and various other state agencies are the banking regulators) --just to break it down for you the FDIC allows those funds to be used when trading Govt securities and making markets. The prohibition list is long and includes just about everything else. Including hedge funds
https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/law...2000-7350.html

And this comment was overlooked .

west coast you said to me "strawman" . I am not "misrepresenting facts", you are not aware of the rules or regulations that are in place before or after Dodd Frank in regards to the trading of certain funds or investments. I can say you are using untruthful hyperbole vs truthful hyperbole.

HHS is a very very very conservative person who errs on caution with money and everything he does, almost nagging me to get a flu shot "just in case".

As stated it is not speculation or trading of FDIC money or grandmas bank account , and you need to know the difference between paid in capital vs FDIC deposits.

And again regulating money doesnt have anything to do with zoot suit pinky rings outclosing people

[WestCoastFunding]

And this comment was overlooked .

west coast you said to me "strawman" . I am not "misrepresenting facts", you are not aware of the rules or regulations that are in place before or after Dodd Frank in regards to the trading of certain funds or investments. I can say you are using untruthful hyperbole vs truthful hyperbole.

HHS is a very very very conservative person who errs on caution with money and everything he does, almost nagging me to get a flu shot "just in case".

As stated it is not speculation or trading of FDIC money or grandmas bank account , and you need to know the difference between paid in capital vs FDIC deposits.

And again regulating money doesnt have anything to do with zoot suit pinky rings outclosing people

Karen, the FDIC regulation quoted above comes from..... DODD FRANK. Yes, HappyHorse**** was trying to prove that the FDIC already prevents trading in exotic securities, but he literally cited a regulation thats in place because of Dodd Frank. So nice try.

But I doubt this will stop you from following-up with another massive word salad post.

(also, if you'd like to view the rule pertaining to this, please click here and notice the date: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2013/bhca-1.pdf )

You were saying, Karen?

Don't you think its weird that you attempt to make the case that certain rules, regulations and protections were in place before Dodd-Frank by quoting the rules and regulations put in place after (and because of) Dodd-Frank? I mean: come on.

[CreditGuy]

word salad post.

Heh.

[WestCoastFunding]

And this comment was overlooked .

west coast you said to me "strawman" . I am not "misrepresenting facts", you are not aware of the rules or regulations that are in place before or after Dodd Frank in regards to the trading of certain funds or investments. I can say you are using untruthful hyperbole vs truthful hyperbole.[/I]

Karen, please feel free to click on the link provided by HappyHorse****. When you do, please note that the document states this:

"The provisions of part 351 appear at 79 Fed. Reg. 5805, Jan. 31, 2014, the interim final rule is effective on April 1, 2014, except as otherwise noted."

Karen, pretty clear those provisions went into place in 2014. Dodd Frank became law in 2010. Do you honestly believe the year 2014 came before 2010?

[Karen37a]

Karen, please feel free to click on the link provided by HappyHorse****. When you do, please note that the document states this:

"The provisions of part 351 appear at 79 Fed. Reg. 5805, Jan. 31, 2014, the interim final rule is effective on April 1, 2014, except as otherwise noted."

Karen, pretty clear those provisions went into place in 2014. Dodd Frank became law in 2010. Do you honestly believe the year 2014 came before 2010?

And Dodd Frank came into Law in 2010. It didnt have all he provisions in it. It was BLANK or a few words or passages in it ( I dont recall at this point )

They had over 20,000 pages of regulatory content, added along the way...AFTER the law came into play.I do not think you know that they added things after the fact and its still not complete.

They created Doody Frankenstein so hastily the Volcker rule was not properly vetted. Some of the things were needed but some of the things they added, they didnt understand and just threw their hands up in the air , did a study , then added it.

I do not believe in smart regulation, because the people who are doing the regulating have never been in the industy , and if they were, they never ever ever moved out of some back office. (This is why certain people wanted people to talk in some way, or join an organization to have voice on capitol hill. and I am busy, so I said my peace)

Its like Undercover boss when the CEO of the Sandwich franchise cant make a Sandwich. I am a firm believer in leading from the front. I do not like when people tell me how to close sales when I have 10 funded on the board personal in 1 week and they have 1 a month

Regulating money isnt regulating Cash Advance Brokers or the Lenders

Ok have a great weekend all

[WestCoastFunding]

Do you actually have a point to make, or just trying to filibuster? You get caught making poorly-informed comments and then try to change the subject in hopes that no one will remember how poorly-informed your previous comment was.

Keep moving goal posts if you must.

[John Galt]

What does SEC have to do with banks? Other than reg t or reg U?

[WestCoastFunding]

What I said was it was a redistribution of wealth. If the mark to market rule was not in place, eventually the markets would have returned after the bubble went. It's not the first crisis the US saw but it was the largest in scale. Lots predicted it, a lot made a real good profit. I don't think Dodd did much, the market did it as it always eventually prices things correctly. Whether it was AIG or Equity Funding or Enron or FSLIC. Prices go up, prices go down. Banks learned to keep properties off the market to cause a supply and demand issue rather than wholesale forclosure sales and save their capital which was bailed out anyway. Buy, sell who can tell. Always the same. It is a market fueled by crisis and media so it's fictitious. Their are plenty of examples of Countries going out of business, we got bailed out by another fictitious item, dollars that we can print plenty of.

Oh sure, let's blame the entire financial crisis on an accounting measure. Come on now.

Can we please refrain from alternative facts and Alex Jones economics.

[WestCoastFunding]

The Federal Reserve already crushed the nonsensical theory that mark-to-market caused the crisis:

"Capital destruction was due to deterioration in loan portfolios and was further depleted by items such as proprietary trading losses and common stock dividends. These are a result of lending practices and the actions of bank management, not accounting rules."

https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Do...DF/qau1001.pdf

[John Galt]

Then why did all markets recover so fast? More like Keynesian economics not infowars. Howard Ruff and James Sinclair were right. Fed speaks out of both sides as always, had to cover itself. Rates artificially low. Frank wanted everybody to own a house. No docs etc.
PS: Alternative facts are where the US is now anyway. Makes cents....lol. Von Mises was right.

[WestCoastFunding]

Would kind of think the term would be implode not explode. And Lehman was a mark to market implosion. Stupid rule, where are they now? Even Bernie Madoff would be whole by now. Too big to fail is true..where is AIG now? Redistribution of wealth as always, what we are about (the US)? Mark to market is good for regulators and buyers, great reason to move markets as is all the hoopla. Where after bailouts are most of those companies now, Oh gosh is the DOW lower???

Von Mises? I generally don't take seriously people that get their economic ideas from Lew Rockwell and the black helicopter crowd that stashes gold bullion in their Idaho bunkers while stressing about fluoride in the water and FEMA camps.

[fisheMS]

Von Mises? I generally don't take seriously people that get their economic ideas from Lew Rockwell and the black helicopter crowd that stashes gold bullion in their Idaho bunkers while stressing about fluoride in the water and FEMA camps.

damn you mean there's someone else left on this forum who doesn't get all their stock advice from zerohedge...shocking

[John Galt]

First job on WS was a commodities broker so grew up within the metals complexes (Gold especially)before going legitimate and becoming a stock broker, manager etc. I don't do the black helicopter bit but believe the US is in for a rude awakening. Don't do Rockwell but background from Columbia was economics and Von Mises was statutory for Praxeology (the study of choice and human action) even though he was born in 1881 and considered one of the most eminent liberal thinkers of the 20th century. Every one has their own theories on economics methinks but most don't listen to fedspeak because their lips are moving. Mises was just like Ayn Rand's theories, or Eric Blair in his pen name, yet they are still valued 70 years later. And most stock brokers still quote Mises. Mises thought the abandonment of free trade caused the 2 world wars.

[WestCoastFunding]

I can only think of one country that followed Austrian economics to a tee, and that would be the Somalia. I would rather not base our models off of theirs.

[John Galt]

Didn't say anyone should follow Austria, just that mark to market was bad rule causing a lot of unnecessary pain. Bubbles implode, just a redistribution of wealth. And Hayek won a Nobel.