Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Man Who Made Too Much

portfolio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 51 posts

Re: The Man Who Made Too Much

#11

Post by Rod »

ph0rque wrote: post #2

What a whiny tone in the article... the man made money on people's downfall; why doesn't he repent? He must be punished!

You clearly have no clue about trading.

Though short-sellers are hated, they are necessary. For every trader who goes short, there's a trader who goes long. No one is forcing them to enter this trade. They do so because they want to. Banning short-selling would be a disaster because prices would stop reflecting reality.

Paulson may have made money in an "unethical" way, but he played by the rules. I didn't hear any investment banks complaining about short-selling when they were making money. They were dumb. They lost. They won't be missed.

Re: The Man Who Made Too Much

#12

Post by dgabriel »

mdasen wrote: post #7
quellhorst wrote: post #3

I don't see this person doing anything wrong. People are envious of someone else doing well.

I don't care that much, but I can see why people might. He didn't create value. Like, when PG creates something, it adds a certain value to society. Even when PG puts money behind a firm like Disqus, he enables value to be added. This guy didn't create any value or enable value creation. He just saw a situation he could take advantage of. The banks had created value, but not as much as everyone had thought and he too…

Why are we downvoting this comment? It's not offensive, and it contributes a different viewpoint to the conversation. Is it going down because the opinion the poster presents is unpopular?

Re: The Man Who Made Too Much

#13

Post by rockbilly »

whacked_new wrote: post #10
mdasen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care that much, but I can see why people might. He didn't create value. Like, when PG creates something, it adds a certain value to society. Even when PG puts money behind a firm like Disqus, he enables value to be added. This guy didn't create any value or enable value creation. He just saw a situation he could take advantage of. The banks had created value, but not as much as everyone had thought and he too…

I'm not the trader type and I don't like the idea of such extreme income disparity, but to say that Paulson didn't create value is factually incorrect; he created it in the same way as the banks you mentioned did: by exposing and exploiting a market inefficiency and causing it to patch itself up. The reasons behind his actions can make him a saint or an asshole, but the fact that people like him exist just reveal pro…

Banks can make money by exploiting market inefficiency but banks also create real value. A loan to start a business creates value if the business works.

Re: The Man Who Made Too Much

#14

Post by Rod »

mdasen wrote: post #7
quellhorst wrote: post #3

I don't see this person doing anything wrong. People are envious of someone else doing well.

I don't care that much, but I can see why people might. He didn't create value. Like, when PG creates something, it adds a certain value to society. Even when PG puts money behind a firm like Disqus, he enables value to be added. This guy didn't create any value or enable value creation. He just saw a situation he could take advantage of. The banks had created value, but not as much as everyone had thought and he too…

"Capitalism allows you to act without regard for morality so long as it's within the law and that's fair game. Doesn't mean we need to like the people who do act that way."

It's easy to be "noble" when you don't have the chance to be "evil". Don't get me wrong, but I find it very, VERY hard to believe that if you were on Paulson's shoes and had the chance to make some $3.7 billion, you would still be so moralistic.

Paulson made money within the law (though "unethical" his trade may have been). Seems to me that people who bash him are just jealous.

Paulson can now invest some money in new businesses and create some value. He took money from the idiot banks and those who invest in them. I won't shed a tear.

Re: The Man Who Made Too Much

#15

Post by skalpelis »

rockbilly wrote: post #13
whacked_new wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the trader type and I don't like the idea of such extreme income disparity, but to say that Paulson didn't create value is factually incorrect; he created it in the same way as the banks you mentioned did: by exposing and exploiting a market inefficiency and causing it to patch itself up. The reasons behind his actions can make him a saint or an asshole, but the fact that people like him exist just reveal pro…

Banks can make money by exploiting market inefficiency but banks also create real value. A loan to start a business creates value if the business works.

By the same logic he kept the market in check so that it wouldn't implode catastrophically, therefore allowing banks to exist and continue their business giving loans to start a business.

Re: The Man Who Made Too Much

#16

Post by steveplace »

mdasen wrote: post #7
quellhorst wrote: post #3

I don't see this person doing anything wrong. People are envious of someone else doing well.

I don't care that much, but I can see why people might. He didn't create value. Like, when PG creates something, it adds a certain value to society. Even when PG puts money behind a firm like Disqus, he enables value to be added. This guy didn't create any value or enable value creation. He just saw a situation he could take advantage of. The banks had created value, but not as much as everyone had thought and he too…

The value of what he did comes in liquidity to the market as well as the returns his customers received.

Re: The Man Who Made Too Much

#17

Post by steveplace »

Rod wrote: post #14
mdasen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care that much, but I can see why people might. He didn't create value. Like, when PG creates something, it adds a certain value to society. Even when PG puts money behind a firm like Disqus, he enables value to be added. This guy didn't create any value or enable value creation. He just saw a situation he could take advantage of. The banks had created value, but not as much as everyone had thought and he too…

"Capitalism allows you to act without regard for morality so long as it's within the law and that's fair game. Doesn't mean we need to like the people who do act that way." It's easy to be "noble" when you don't have the chance to be "evil". Don't get me wrong, but I find it very, VERY hard to believe that if you were on Paulson's shoes and had the chance to make some $3.7 billion, you would still be so moralistic. P…

How was his trade unethical? Shortsellers are not evil. Financial speculation is amoral.

Re: The Man Who Made Too Much

#18

Post by Rod »

steveplace wrote: post #17
Rod wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Capitalism allows you to act without regard for morality so long as it's within the law and that's fair game. Doesn't mean we need to like the people who do act that way." It's easy to be "noble" when you don't have the chance to be "evil". Don't get me wrong, but I find it very, VERY hard to believe that if you were on Paulson's shoes and had the chance to make some $3.7 billion, you would still be so moralistic. P…

How was his trade unethical? Shortsellers are not evil. Financial speculation is amoral.

"Unethical" was tongue-in-cheek. I whole-heartedly agree with you. Short-sellers are necessary. Speculation is amoral. Trading is war. If one does not want to get shot, then one should not go to war, period.

It's soooo amusing to see the big banks who professed "free markets" and "deregulation" now advocating that short-selling is evil. It's the "heads I win, tails you lose" kind of thing. "Free markets" are only good just as long as they're winning...

Re: The Man Who Made Too Much

#19

Post by Rod »

eru wrote: post #6
quellhorst wrote: post #3

I don't see this person doing anything wrong. People are envious of someone else doing well.

And short sellers are the defense of capitalism against bubbles. (Not always working --- but at least they have an incentive to pop bubbles.)

Exactly. Some comments on this:

http://www.automatedtrader.net/announcements-1748.xhtm

Re: The Man Who Made Too Much

#20

Post by steveplace »

Rod wrote: post #18
steveplace wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How was his trade unethical? Shortsellers are not evil. Financial speculation is amoral.

"Unethical" was tongue-in-cheek. I whole-heartedly agree with you. Short-sellers are necessary. Speculation is amoral. Trading is war. If one does not want to get shot, then one should not go to war, period. It's soooo amusing to see the big banks who professed "free markets" and "deregulation" now advocating that short-selling is evil. It's the "heads I win, tails you lose" kind of thing. "Free markets" are only goo…

On a related note, I'm kicking myself for not holding on to my HBC puts I bought yesterday. Guess I was feeling a little too ethical.
Post reply on HN