You dumb ass they were talking about the par value of the lots that compose the MBS.

They weren't just selling the MBS in the firesale, they were selling the mortgages they used to make the MBS

This is literally spelled out for you in the board meeting.

What a dumb fucking argument, do you think that they'd be originating the MBS if they couldn't sell them?

2 things:

1 - The firm in the movie wasn't purely a trading firm. They were the originators of the MBS, and that's how they made money, there would be no MBS without them. In fact that's a core reason why they took too much risk and had to liquidate. It's a key plot point!

2 - Even pure traders are not zero sum. There is value in providing liquidity and in making the market more efficient.

They were trading MBS, which is a perfectly useful and positive value financial instrument that gives both borrowers and lenders options they didnt have available to them.

> trading is a zero sum game.

thats not the case

Why is a Thai-born, korean based artist singing a song in korean assigned to "Japan" as a country of origin? Especially when the band she is in is under Korea.

That tends to happen when you have no arguments.

Thank you for proving me point :)

I understand the argument, the problem is that you haven't actually done the math, and your view and the policies you support are not actually backed by any data.

Even just looking at it from purely economic terms, you need reliable answers to the following questions just to begin calculating a high level estimate of the costs and benefits of the policies you support.

Since you support these benefit, surely you will be able to provide me with well sourced answers to the following questions:

1 - What is the discounted lifetime cost of this historical institutional imbalance that you mention?

2 - How many years earlier would those institutional imbalanced be fixed, if such a system as you propose (whether quotas, or anything else) were to be implemented?

3 - What is the discounted lifetime total economic cost of imposing such policies? Not just the first order costs, but also the effect it would have on present (and near future) hits of productivity, structural incentives, risks, etc...

Once you have answers to those 3 questions, then we can start looking into other effects, and other costs, but the fact of the matter is i suspect you haven't actually got reliable and well sourced answers to those questions, and that the answer you do have are not likely to support your stance.

You're really just proving my point.

When you make a law so that they will get those positions, then you're guaranteeing that they are not competent enough for them.

If the discounted returns on that spending is less than the spending, then absolutely I would oppose it.

What's the return on systemically screwing your economy for "gender balance" when compared to doing nothing? Here's a hint, whatever number you say... It's lower.

It's in line with the 100 year average after inflation.

>I've tried looking at credit card loans to help reduce the payment amounts, but I can't even get one since I get declined.

The first step to get out of a hole is to stop digging down. Don't do this.

>I'm not sure how I can reduce the monthly payment amounts, but they are crushing me completely.

You will need to pay off the debts to get rid of the monthly payments.

What do you use as a brokerage?

Do you have any other details on the strategy?

Risk transfer isn't a negative sum game...

> The big question is: If nuclear was the cheap better obvious answer these last 30 years, why have the super smart and way better countries not built any?

political histeria as a result of nuclear doommongering.

It's not a coincidence that china has led the world in nuclear powerplant construction over the past 40 years.

>There is 165M depreciation. Thats a paper expense, great for taxes, but no real money leaving hands.

Depreciation and amortization are real expenses that cost real assets to make up for them.

> The club is also spending a fortune on dividends to the Glazers and on Interest payments.

Dividend payments don't show up on earnings, if it did, it would make these numbers worse not better.

And interest payments are real expenses.