Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication is provided for informational purposes only and has been obtained or derived from sources believed to be reliable. No representation or warranty is being made, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of such information, nor is it recommended that such information serve as the basis of any investment decision. This report contains forward-looking statements that are subject to change. Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties, and the predictions, forecasts, projections and other outcomes described herein may not occur. A number of important factors could cause results to differ materially from the views and opinions expressed herein and there are no guarantees of return. This material is not an offer to sell or a solicitation to purchase securities of any kind. Before making an investment of any kind, readers should carefully consider their financial position and risk tolerance to determine if such investment is appropriate. Mr. Jurgensmeyer may allocate assets to positions described herein and reserves the right to enter, modify or exit any such positions without notice.

Friday, November 11, 2011

Video Friday

It's Video Friday!  This is quickly becoming my favorite day to write the blog.  However, I want to start with an open letter written by CNBC.com's editor, Allen Wastler.  Does anyone remember the last time the media was so scared of a Presidential candidate?  Ron Paul won the CNBC.com poll on the debate at a 75% clip.  So they pulled the poll.

Dear folks,
You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.
That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.
Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.
So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.
Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.
The next day, our email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.
But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.
Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.
Sincerely,

Allen Wastler
Managing Editor, CNBC.com

****************************************************************************

If you didn't read the blog yesterday, I'm replaying the end of Rick Perry's chances for the GOP nomination.


Since I'm on politics, here is Mike Tyson doing a Herman Cain impersonation.  Fantastic!



***************************************************************************

Here is what you get when you put your money with a hedge fund or an investment bank.  From Stansberry Research:

Now, let's take the opposite of capital efficiency. What if, instead of rewarding shareholders, a company took the majority of its revenues and paid its executives and employees? You'd have investment banks. Investment banks are notorious for lavish employee compensation, often allocating 50% of revenues to compensation. Some banks set aside even more. UBS, which recently suffered an unauthorized $2.3 billion trading loss, will set aside nearly 90% of its investment banking revenue (revenue, not earnings) for compensation – 90% of revenues…

That's what investment banking is about. It's a compensation scheme. It's like the hedge-fund industry in that way. The entire industry is based not on what service the business can offer, but on how efficiently it can pay itself. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose. But you'd have to be certifiably insane to put your money into the shares of an investment bank. There is no way anyone outside the company can hope to get paid a reasonable share of the profits. It's as though these companies are still partnerships, but they figured they could raise some money by going public, knowing shareholders will never get much.

And if they mess up, good chance they get a bailout...

**************************************************************************

The Best Buy Uniform Prank


****************************************************************************

The Lonely Island guys are great.  D*ck In A Box was maybe the funniest thing I've seen on SNL.



****************************************************************************

Tim Brando impersonating Nutt.  Pretty funny...


*****************************************************************************
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)