One of the more perplexing things to me is how idiocy survives through the ages. Granted, a strict Darwinian approach doesn’t work because their stupidity is not on the same level of poking a Sabre Tooth tiger before the age of puberty. Which is a pity because my guess is a grumpy cat weighing 200 kg was pretty good at weeding out the dim. So theses loons reach an age where they can breed with some other magical thinking peanut.
This little piece is on some traders still use astrology to guide their actions……..FFS
Kind of blind faith, hahahaha…
Chris … any comments on this … ???http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/derivatives-Lehman-CFDs-CDOs-Gaming-Act-investment-pd20120926-YGRTE?opendocument&src=idp&utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=108423&utm_campaign=kgb&modapt=commentary
I would say that Alan Kohler has confused several points and doesn’t seem to understand the difference between an instrument and the conduct of those who market/sell them and the responsibility of the individual in making their decisions.
He has confused several markets. For example he references the sale of CDO’s to various US councils but lumps CFDs in the same bag. CDO’s are are wholsesale products whereas CFDs are a retail product. CDO’s were part of the GFC and are uniquely American in the form used in the Lehman case. CFDs cannot be traded in the US.
Kohler forgets that structured debt instruments such as those he references are sold by investment bankers to sophisticated investors who are also advised by investment bankers. They are not offered to members of the public. The important word here is structured – that is they are put together for someone at their request. They are not simply sold door to door to unsophisticated investors.
The piece completely confuses the instrument with the conduct of those selling the instrument. If the banks selling the instruments were crooked then that is a completely different thing to there being a problem with the instrument. Likewise if ratings agencies rated these instruments without due diligence that that is also a matter for the legal profession. And if local bodies took up these instruments without appropriate advice then that is a matter for them to deal with internally and for their regulatory bodies to investigate.
The issue here is not one of the instrument doing something to someone it is a matter of unethical conduct and the failure of the system to deal with them under existing law.
PS: I did read some of the comments under the article and I do love the naiviety of those who stated that they were buying a company to support it. Good luck with that.
Chris,
Yes…Kohler’s opinion was very confusing to me.
Thanks for your comments!!
Much appreciated.