I have a theory that great traders/investors need to be psychologically balanced since this game is very much a psychological game. Those who aren't will blow up. Psychos have no chance surviving long-term. No old, bold psychos in this game. I check out this psycho, Howard Rubin. Indeed, he was sacked by Merrill Lynch in 1987 for blowing up $377 million. Sounds small today but during 1987, $377m was big money. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/04/business/ousted-merrill-trader-hired.html
One thing I don't understand. Why didn't the non-disclosure agreements protect him? Not that I care in his case but NDAs are common everywhere else. Why aren't NDAs effective? http://nypost.com/2017/11/03/portfolio-manager-accused-of-raping-beating-women-in-penthouse-dungeon/ Rubin — who collaborated with two female fixers and a lawyer — had the women sign non-disclosure agreements, the papers state.
I think the greatest traders are psychologically imbalanced. My fried was the junior to one of the largest macro traders in the world and he had some pretty funny stories to tell. I think you have to have two misdeveloped parts to your brain. Your pleasure senses have to be heightened (like constantly doing cocaine) to require you to constantly feed that part of your brain and the second is you have to lack concern for consequences (in order to live with the uncertainty in the job).
Sounds like a trader who will look like the greatest trader when luck is on his side. But when luck runs out, he blows up. This happens when the trader lacks concern for consequences.
They will earn big. And they will lose big. In the end, some will do very well and others won't. My friend's former boss is a billionaire and is a hedgefund celebrity.
I certainly don’t feel bad for Howie. My problem with all these stories (Dominique Strauss Kahn, Kobe Bryant, this situation) is that we get desensitized to these types of accusations. First, you are exposed to a multitude of stories like these. Then, at some point you hear about some Sudanese refugee that she was beaten and raped while escaping the war zone. Some people, consciously or not, might equate her very real tragedy with the accusations of the cleaning lady that accused DSK.
That's the male perspective. For women, they have been abused for eternity and men of power have for the most part, always gotten away with it. What is happening now for women is how African Americans felt during the civil rights movement. For the first time perhaps, women feel comfortable reporting these crimes and now men are being forced to deal with it. The flood gates are open. This will permeate all areas of society. Yeah, things are going to get very uncomfortable for a lot of people in power.
Well, do you believe a crime (besides prostitution) has been committed here? Or, in case of DSK or Kobe Bryant? It’s not clear, at the very least (the fact that it’s a civil suit is very telling, IMHO). It’s not a problem of women’s rights and equality (I am an active supporter) but a behavioral economics problem. In an ideal world, the justice system would evaluate these cases based on the merits of the evidence. Unfortunately, in the real world of limited physical and (just as importantly) emotional resources, the society will rather quickly start ignoring the signal because of the noise.
Yes, I believe a women can sell prostitution services without getting the shit beat out of her. It's an issue of entitlement. Men, whether they be husbands, bosses, coaches or Johns, believe they are entitled to abuse and take advantage of women due to their position. No prostitute, not even one specializing in S&M should be "abused". So yes, I think there is a crime. Again, I really don't like the boy cries wolf analogy. So should I tell "black lives matters" to go f*ck themselves because I'm tired of hearing about all these police beatings? Our legal system is suppose to be blind to the noise. If a crime is committed, that's what the law is for. It should not matter how often it happens. For example, child abuse is one of the most under reported crimes in the country. Your logic would say if children could suddenly speak out and report it, we would ignore the the signal because there is just too much noise. I don't agree with that. The "noise" would affect the signal to the point where parents would stop abusing their kids if they knew there were consequences. THAT is the whole point behind creating what you call the noise. Hell, it's the point behind protesting. Sure I get annoyed when 100k people march down a city street and block traffic, but THAT is the point. They are creating noise to draw attention to an issue that is not getting any.