Next on sick, sad democracy!
Next on sick, sad democracy!
Coachella vet: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
Nice look at a different side of Occupy. The article is a few weeks old but Barry Ritholtz just recommended it on his The Big Picture blog. I'm a fan.
Occupy the regulatory system! (Washington Post - Wonk Blog)
In its heyday, the tea party turned to elections to enact change, rallying supporters to primary incumbents and helping the GOP retake the House. Occupy Wall Street, by contrast, has largely eschewed the traditional political process. Instead, as protesters have moved off the streets, a small minority of Occupiers has waded deep into the weeds of the federal regulations, legal decisions and banking practices that make up the actual architecture of Wall Street. And they’re drawing on the technical expertise of the financial industry’s own refugees, exiles and dissidents to do so.
Many of the Occupy wonks once worked on Wall Street, and some of them still do. They’re former derivatives traders, risk analysts, compliance officers and hedge fund quants. They hail from Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Bear Stearns, D.E. Shaw, Merrill Lynch and JPMorgan Chase — and at least one is a former Securities and Exchange Commission regulator. They’re more likely to use a flowchart than protest signs to fight big banks. But they identify with the movement’s animating belief that America’s financial heavyweights wield too much power, and that its political leaders are too eager to do their bidding.
As the more visible signs of the movement fade, with their encampments all but cleared from the country’s public spaces, the Occupy wonks have doubled down on their policy work behind the scenes. They’re slowly gaining attention for their efforts — not just from the news media, but also from the some of the financial rulemakers and gatekeepers they’re hoping to influence.
Daddy want num-nums from big boss man.
num-nums are only awarded to those with clever placards.
while I don't believe there was any chance that a conversation like this could be anything but hilarious, I think the biggest reason to get an organized PR together is so Fox News is given someone better than this to deal with arguments like Hannity's.
Have any of you read From Dictatorship to Democracy by Gene Sharp? I found this article to be very interesting.
It's interesting to see the views and philosophies of contrasting forms of political protests i.e. non-violent and violent.
Fax I know on a previous post that you mentioned that non violent and violent protest have always existed side by side. That is true in the sense that maybe the same time period/cause they have existed at the same time. My point is that both cannot be used at the same time to ultimately achieve the same goal everyone is after. Gene Sharp seems to agree with this as one of his "weapons" is "Isolate or remove from the movement people who use or advocate violence". Now I understand that the media plays a big part in trying to place blame on recent violent protests on Occupy. The reality is that Occupy doesn't advocate violence at this moment but unfortunately they have played host to such people which in turn has caused the media and public to pin such tactics to the group.
I remember there were several nights at the GA at city hall in LA where a group of "anarchist" would show up and their message was one of taking physical action against the state. No one from the non violent side denounced them or tried separating them from the group at large. They were welcomed.
Coachella vet: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
Or I should say I seem to agree with Gene Sharp as he is the brilliant mind who came up with that point.
Coachella vet: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
This is sort of a multi faceted question and might depend on personal interactions with groups like anarchists. I've recently worked with anarchists and marched with some and they didn't exercise any violence. In fact they organized actions that were interesting IMO and I was happy to join them in organizing an effort to turn vacant public land into a community garden. I also believe strongly that people (anarchists or not) will react differently in the midst of an action to police aggression. We would also need to start up the never ending debate of what is non violence as many would argue shouting at police who are assaulting another protester is not a "non violent" thing to do.
I understand being frustrated with a particular Occupy group not condemning violence. In Occupy San Francisco they did the opposite, after May Day they put out a release saying the violence was not done by Occupiers. It took them a good 5+ hours to consense on a media release but in the end even the anarchists within the movement agreed to what was finally put out. There is random ignorant activists within all protests. I don't agree that all anarchists are instigators of violence and vandalism either though. I think that's my problem overall with media coverage. They ultimately suck at journalism. I think as citizen media becomes more popular, the mainstream news will become less and less relevant.
Here is a short blog about the anarchist organized action in Tempe, AZ.
Oh and I didn't mean to ignore your focus on Gene Sharp. I wanted to read the whole article first. I think many of his methods are excellent. The more people that follow Gene's methods though the better. Educating the public and exposing more truths through social media are important going forward.
I have zero faith in the major network news media becoming a regular asset to the movement. I also don't know how you isolate or ignore those who decide to join a public protest. We can denounce and shun all day but actions are in public so how do you stop or avoid piggy backing and when it happens how do you convince the media they aren't with you? What are your thoughts on how to accomplish this?
Some craziness in Mpls documented by Rogue Media recently. The Drug Recognition Evaluator program (known as the DRE program heehee) involves training police to recognize symptoms of people under the influence of various substances. Short story - cops drove to the local Occupy protest site and recruited volunteers, allegedly provided these volunteers with weed to smoke, and while evaluating their behavior also tried to convince them to act as informants regarding Occupy plans. Occupy Mpls and Rogue Media responded with video documentary showing cops dropping off impaired people at the Occupy site. When the story first broke it wasn't taken very seriously ... until some police came forward stating they did see cops providing drugs. The program is suspended in MN, some cops are on leave pending investigation, the mayor is pissed the state police didn't notify the city, and it's getting entirely different treatment by the media.
The point is that this guy can get away with claiming to be the head of the OWS movement. If Fox News can get away with parading this guy out as the "leader" then it only reinforces people's notions and makes them less likely to pay attention to anyone else.
cue: "they've already made up their minds anyway" or somesuch nonsense. You're actually far more cynical than I am, ya know.
Of course I don't fucking advocate spending on debates with sean hannity. Do you think they'd have had this guy on Hannity at all if he were just some dude and not the only "leader of OWS" they could find?
Except we are talking about Fox news and when you say "people's notions" we are talking about Fox viewers. So they are already less likely to pay attention to anyone else. Did you read what I said? Occupiers don't need to waste any time with Fox at all. It's a complete waste.The point is that this guy can get away with claiming to be the head of the OWS movement. If Fox News can get away with parading this guy out as the "leader" then it only reinforces people's notions and makes them less likely to pay attention to anyone else.
Yes Fox viewers aren't looking for any progressive causes to grow sympathy for or to support. Hannity is ranting about people shitting on cars for fucks sake.
Crazy to be cynical about Fox and its viewers, I know.
“While I don’t believe that there’s any chance that the that a conversation like this could be anything but hilarious…”
You reply with “Occupy should be concerned about how Fox News is portraying them [?]…”
Do you read all of your posts in a vacuum? You were somehow assuming I thought that a different guy was going to win an argument with Sean Hannity? All I meant is what I said, a more thoughtful and polished spokesman might give some Fox News viewers some pause. This isn’t a communication skills issue, it’s a comprehension issue. If I keep accusing you of jumping on a misunderstanding of an argument it’s only because you KEEP DOING IT. If you don’t want to put even the slightest effort into observing context before jumping on your response then don’t bother responding.
You are the laborious one here. I was trying to do you a favor by preempting your cynical response so you would put some more thought into it to prove me wrong but you just parroted it back to me. You are by far the more closed-minded and cynical person in this thread. Fox News is the number one news agency, and you would simply write them ALL off. Because “fuck them” I guess. There’s no need to explain shit to those who disagree with you. Perhaps your biggest nightmare is that maybe there are some folks to be swayed to your way of thinking, and there just might be some amount of middle ground. Maybe you’ve given up and have some sort of martyr fantasy for yourself and your cause. It’s shitty because that’s a fantastic way to guarantee failure. Like it or not Fox News viewers live in this country too. Congratulating yourself for your cynicism about them makes you look like the childish and furious one.
EDIT: slightly unfair. I won't write you off completely yet.
Last edited by jackstraw94086; 05-14-2012 at 01:18 PM.
I want to make sure I have part of your argument correct here. I'm very cynical because I'm dismissing Fox News and Sean Hannity as a suitable outlet for Occupy to make a case for itself?
You then failed to comprehend what I said and decided to paint me with the opinion of
Which I never said. Ever. But i'm the one with comprehension issues? I think I said Fox and Hannety specifically, not just those who disagree in general.“fuck them” I guess. There’s no need to explain shit to those who disagree with you.
and i'm the laborious one? That's some spin you got going on there. Maybe you would like to try again.
wtf dude? I really have to quote this again?
what the hell am I missing? You clearly did not reference JUST Hannity himself. How can anyone read that and assume you're not indicting all Fox News viewers when you call them out SPECIFICALLY. How does this not logically equate to "fuck them. there's no need to explain shit to those who disagree with you."? You are dismissing a fuckton of americans in a flagrantly out of hand way. These are a very large component of the people who disagree with you. Who would you prefer to get your message to? Those who already agree with you?Except we are talking about Fox news and when you say "people's notions" we are talking about Fox viewers. So they are already less likely to pay attention to anyone else. Did you read what I said? Occupiers don't need to waste any time with Fox at all. It's a complete waste.
Yes Fox viewers aren't looking for any progressive causes to grow sympathy for or to support.
yes. you are being incredibly laborious.
Last edited by jackstraw94086; 05-14-2012 at 03:17 PM.
First you tried to turn that into me not wanting Occupy to explain shit to those who disagree with them. Now you have us swimming in semantics. Your statement would be accurate if you said "fuck them, there is no need to explain shit to Fox news". I maintain there is still no reason to explain shit to them. There are plenty of more reputable news agencies who disagree and the general population who may disagree that Occupy can message too. They need not waste their time with an agency that is biased, has a targeted agenda filled with propaganda and aren't willing to have a real discussion. They are disengenuous where the other agencies and people who may disagree are not.
I'll let that go. It doesn't matter.
Whether you want to equate Fox News viewers (i.e. the largest news viewership there is) with “those who disagree with you” or not. Doesn’t fucking matter. You are still doing exactly what I am accusing you of doing. It doesn’t even matter that you assume every viewer has already made up their mind forever, or even that you assume that Fox News will construe whatever they want.
THE POINT. For the last time, Is that if there was an organized message and spokesman in play, Fox would have a lot harder time getting away with parading this idiot as the “leader”. And the people watching them JUST MIGHT be forced to invest more thought in the message, WHEREVER it’s delivered to them. And if you can’t make them watch someone articulate, at least take away the clown. You call it a waste, but preaching to the choir is a bigger waste.
I swear it really seems as though you do want to remain firmly in the minority.
But just in case you're not simply being recklessly stubborn. Where is this other huge pool of "those who disagree with you" where your the message is more appropriately applied?
Communicating revised (lower) revenue expectations to a limited group of insiders seems like a pretty good reason for a protest. If it's not illegal, it should be.
(Reuters) - In the run-up to Facebook's $16 billion IPO, Morgan Stanley, the lead underwriter on the deal, unexpectedly delivered some negative news to major clients: The bank's consumer Internet analyst, Scott Devitt, was reducing his revenue forecasts for the company.
The sudden caution very close to the huge initial public offering, and while an investor roadshow was underway, was a big shock to some, said two investors who were advised of the revised forecast.
They say it may have contributed to the weak performance of Facebook shares, which sank on Monday - their second day of trading - to end 10 percent below the IPO price. The $38 per share IPO price valued Facebook at $104 billion.
The change in Morgan Stanley's estimates came on the heels of Facebook's filing of an amended prospectus with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in which the company expressed caution about revenue growth due to a rapid shift by users to mobile devices. Mobile advertising to date is less lucrative than advertising on a desktop.
"This was done during the roadshow - I've never seen that before in 10 years," said a source at a mutual fund firm who was among those called by Morgan Stanley.
JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, which were also major underwriters on the IPO but had lesser roles than Morgan Stanley, also revised their estimates in response to Facebook's May 9 SEC filing, according to sources familiar with the situation.
Morgan Stanley declined to comment and Devitt did not return a phone message seeking comment. JPMorgan and Goldman both declined to comment.
Typically, the underwriter of an IPO wants to paint as positive a picture as possible for prospective investors. Investment bank analysts, on the other hand, are required to operate independently of the bankers and salesmen who are marketing stocks - that was stipulated in a settlement by major banks with regulators following a scandal over tainted stock research during the dotcom boom.
The people familiar with the revised Morgan Stanley projections said Devitt cut his revenue estimate for the current second quarter significantly, and also cut his full-year 2012 revenue forecast. Devitt's precise estimates could not be immediately verified.
"That deceleration freaked a lot of people out," said one of the investors.
Scott Sweet, senior managing partner at the research firm IPO Boutique, said he was also aware of the reduced estimates.
"They definitely lowered their numbers and there was some concern about that," he said. "My biggest hedge fund client told me they lowered their numbers right around mid-roadshow."
That client, he said, still bought the issue but "flipped his IPO allocation and went short on the first day."
Sweet said analysts at firms that are not underwriting IPOs often change forecasts at such times. However, he said it is unusual for analysts at lead underwriters to make such changes so close to the IPO.
"That would be very, very unusual for a book runner to do that," he said.
The lower revenue projection came shortly before the IPO was priced at $38 a share, the high end of an already upwardly revised projected range of $34-$38, and before Facebook increased the number of shares being sold by 25 percent.
The much-anticipated IPO has performed far below expectations, with the shares barely staying above the $38 offer price on their Friday debut and then plunging on Monday.
Companies do not make their own financial forecasts prior to an IPO, and underwriters are generally barred from issuing recommendations on the stock until 40 days after it begins trading. Analysts often rely on guidance from the company in building their forecasts, but companies doing IPOs are not permitted to give out material information that is not available to all investors.
Institutions and major clients generally enjoy quick access to investment bank research, while retail clients in many cases only get it later. It is unclear whether Morgan Stanley only told its top clients about the revised view or spread the word more broadly. The firm declined to comment when asked who was told about the research.
"It's very rare to cut forecasts in the middle of the IPO process," said an official with a hedge fund firm who received a call from Morgan Stanley about the revision.
Basically I'm curious about the 40 day window law (if it is one), and whether that information was necessarily private or just not widely communicated.
All I can tell is that in a very public filing with the SEC on May 9th, Facebook warned that advertising growth hasn’t kept pace with the increase in users. Immediately after that, Morgan Stanely, JPMorgan, Chase, Goldman, and most other analysts (including those playing at home) cut their earnings estimates and price target based on this publically available information.
I really haven’t been following the offering at all, but I distinctly remember the buzz about lower targets as some analysts were very public with their opinions (which made mainstream news channels) and others kept the information for their clients interested in the offering as Morgan Stanley did. And as for Morgan Stanely, underwriters are barred by Securities and Exchange Commission rules from publicly issuing research on the IPOs they are involved in. But they are allowed to discuss their views with clients.
Tom, what exactly are the red flags that you see?
- Facebook files IPO public disclosures -> Analysts prepare and communicate projections
- Facebook updates public disclosures -> Analysts revise and communicate projections
The process seems pretty transparent.
*edit: What Jack said
If there's Coachella to be had, I'm gonna have it
basically it sounds like the insinuation here is that fb and morgan stanley may have conspired to inflate the IPO price, and it is very suspicious to hear about a major hedge funds lowering investments and even shorting more (although they would have all been hedging to some degree no matter what).
It probably is "very rare" for a company revise estimates during an IPO, but it's also probably rare for a company as large as fb to experience a significant paradigm shift in the middle of an IPO. Not sure we can assume fb had this analysis complete long before the IPO, and it may have been responsible if anything to divulge it before the IPO got out of hand and then crashed. By virtue of it not exploding out of the gate seems to me to demonstrate that most investors seem to know about this.
It was interesting watching Yahoo news articles lead up to the offering. It seemed every single day they had a headline about Facebook being worthless and risky.
http://www.republicreport.org/2012/j...ing-committee/Luckily for Dimon, the professional staff in charge of managing the banking committee will be quite familiar to him and his team of lobbyists. That’s because the staff director for the Senate Banking Committee is none other than a former J.P. Morgan lobbyist, Dwight Fettig.
In 2009, Fettig was a registered lobbyist for J.P. Morgan. His disclosures show that he was hired to work on “financial services regulatory reform” and the “Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2009″ on behalf of the investment bank. Now, as staff director for the Senate Banking Committee, he will be overseeing the hearings on J.P. Morgan’s risky proprietary trading