Slashdot Mirror
Regulators Criticize Banks For Lending Uber $1.15 Billion (venturebeat.com)
Federal regulators criticized several Wall Street banks over the handling of a $1.15 billion loan they helped arrange for Uber this past summer, reports Reuters, citing people with knowledge of the matter. From the report: Led by Morgan Stanley, the banks helped the ride-sharing network tap the leveraged loan market in July for the first time, persuading institutional investors to focus on its lofty valuation and established markets rather than its losses in countries such as China and India. The Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which are trying to reign in risky lending across Wall Street, took issue with the way in which the banks carved out Uber's more mature operations from the rest of the business, the people said.
Make the banks take the risk when an driver hit's and kills / get's in a real bad accident and they try to get out of it.
I hope that Uber dies and with each loss they sustain, I cheer. The company cheats its drivers out of so much. Uber is just another predatory company.
....persuading institutional investors to focus on its lofty valuation....
...Wall Street, took issue with the way in which the banks carved out Uber's more mature operations from the rest of the business,....
Maybe because the banks aren't stupid enough to get suckered in by horseshit valuation like Wall Street is?
But Uber proved a popular draw for investors because of their familiarity with its business and because it had recently closed a $3.5 billion round of financing from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, giving it a valuation of $62.5 billion, dwarfing that of blue-chip companies such as General Motors Company.
Unbelievable. But, if Uber goes public, they'll probably make out because the IPO will be sold too people who are going to go, "D'uuuuuuuuhhhh; it's a techonology company and it can only go up! D'uuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhh. Things are different! D'uuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
It's 1999 all over again.
The whole point of corporations in the US is so that nobody's liable for what corporations do. Corporations can't/don't go to jail, and a member of a corporations going to jail for something done under the auspices of the company is rarer than lightning strikes or lottery winners.
I don't respond to AC's.
REIN in. Jesus, people, this is not difficult.
and THAT is the problem
"hit's", "get's"? Seriously?
Ride sharing has a specific meaning, and Uber is not it.
The head of foreign corporation building diesel engines programmed to cheat emissions tests can be arrested while on vacation in the US.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Realize though that the reason people working for a corp don't go to jail is mostly on the shoulders of the DoJ. If the DoJ wanted to throw the CEO in prison for something illegal the company they are responsible for did, they can. See here for evidence. If you would like to see the DoJ throw more CEOs in prison for wrong doing of their companies, demand it of your elected officials and vote them out if the refuse. This actually is one item you can directly blame the president for since he actually does preside over the DoJ.
Totally a problem.
So enjoy your lengthy sentence for that buggy ass code you wrote, chump.
I'm guessing Muslims
When every last customer and driver you have can walk away after a 3-minute download, how can that "lofty valuation" be justified?
What I don't get is how the company can be worth more than every last taxi medallion in every major US city combined.
Yup. That's one of the only ones I can think of off the top of my head. Oh, maybe that kid who tried to run a pharmaceutical company. But, that's my point. It happens much more rarely than it should. Who from GM was sent to jail for killing over 100 people by knowingly using bad ignition switches? Every industrial accident that was the result of negligence? Or even companies that willingly and knowingly sell things to people that give them cancer?
I don't respond to AC's.
Where were these "regulators" when the banks were lending trillions on junk mortgages then reselling them to people as bonds?
No sig today...
What does Uber do?
Write application software? Maintain some servers? Ok. Those sound like real things.
But they sound like something that costs less than a million dollars per year. Is the rest all spent on embezzlement services?
They were making sure the banks complied as an "equal opportunity lender"
"His name was James Damore."
Found the cabbie scum.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
In theory, the people up the chain of command get a huge salary because they are responsible when something breaks.
in practice, they get to blame you.
That's almost as much money as it took Nick Leason to bankrupt Bearings Bank ($1.4M) back in the ninety's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
They lined their pockets with money to deregulate ?
Why did you write "hit's" (hit is, or something belongs to the hit), but kills? Get's means get is, or get was.
Why not also write bank's?
What is it about the smallest punctuation mark in the English language that is so confusing? Is it the letter "s" that's confusing?
The whole point of corporations in the US is so that nobody's liable for what corporations do. Corporations can't/don't go to jail, and a member of a corporations going to jail for something done under the auspices of the company is rarer than lightning strikes or lottery winners.
This is the result of corporate lobbying over the last 20 years, and the growing view (among the wealthy elite) that white-collar crime isn't really a thing. After the savings-and-loan collapse in the 1990s, over 900 bankers were convicted of criminal offenses; after the most recent (and much worse) financial crash, nobody in the banking industry has spent even a night in jail.
If you would like to see the DoJ throw more CEOs in prison for wrong doing of their companies, demand it of your elected officials and vote them out if the refuse.
The DoJ under Obama hasn't been very strong on this, and people have now voted for Trump. If you think Trump's DoJ is going to do any better, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
...long long ago, an out-of-town visitor to New York was admiring the elegant vessels harboured off the Financial District; "Those are the bankers' and brokers' yachts!" exclaimed the guide. "But where are the customers' yachts?" questioned the naÃve visitor in response...
Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
...or, for a rather heavily-regulated industry, banks seem to behave in a rather cavalier fashion?
-Styopa
What part of my statement implied I thought Trump was going to do any better? I don't think Clinton would have done better either. Partly why I didn't vote for either of them. If we the people want companies to be held responsible, then we need to voice this as something we want of our elected officials, and vote for the ones who will do something about it. But the people seem fine with how things are right now, thus nothing happens. They'll moan about things, but ultimately when it comes to vote time, they'll base their entire vote based if there's an R or a D at the end of the name.
Seriously, with Trump, it becomes increasingly obvious that most people, both Ds and Rs don't actually care about a candidates actual position. They assume a position based off of emotion and run with it. The media has been making an ass of itself claiming Trump is against certain things (gay rights specifically comes to mind) because he's an R and Rs are against it in their opinion, even though Trump isn't against it. Facts are unimportant. He's an R, Ds don't like Rs, so clearly an R can't support anything they support in their minds. You can flip the Ds and the Rs on another subject and the same holds true. It's pathetic.
Funny how it only happens to foreign corporations while wall street bankers and ratings agencies walk free after the sub-prime crisis.
Aww, that's so cute...
I think at the moment with allegations that his campaign team was in regular contact with the Russians and that the Russians may have something pretty nasty on him, I'd say there are a lot of Ds AND Rs who probably ain't so thrilled with him.
(And yes, I know, the dossier is problematic and may be false in part or in whole).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Everyone is judging how much Uber is worth and talking about their services but no one here has actually looked at their finances, loan agreements, and most probably haven't even read the article. How can this? How can that? Uhh guys you have no idea what makes a company valuable and especially the government doesn't know. They look at one thing, collateral, and say screw it when it comes to all the other details. Of course a 'new' and growing company doesn't have much collateral. Banks don't just loan based on that, although it is the main factor, they bet on the leaders of the company, the potential of the company, and the business model. A business model where someone downloads an app to drive and then you start making hundreds of dollars a day from their service is a pretty damn good one.
The problem with Slashdot these days is that 4chan trolls like yourself are here. There's should be a "-100000 4chan scumbag".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
In theory, the people up the chain of command get a huge salary because they are responsible when something breaks. in practice, they get to blame you.
Of course. They are important to the company (that's why they make that huge salary). The company can't afford to lose them. However some cog way down the chain of command that makes a fraction of what they do (and thereby obviously isn't as important to the company as they are) is easily replaced so they are the ones that get blamed and get fired. Even if they do "resign", they get a seven or eight figure buyout and land somewhere else a few months later after taking a nice long vacation.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The 2008 crisis taught investment banks an important lesson. If you are politically connected enough, the government will bail you out if you screw up.
I cannot wait until I'm elected president in 2020, my first executive order will be to round-up every b-tard and force them to watch Barney and Friends until they gouge their own eyes out.
You completely failed to recognize the sarcasm in my post.
My apologies. Hadn't had my first cup of coffee
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They get hit by other means. A plane in the face for example.
There was no regulation.
Congress "deregulated" that piece of the banking industry when it repealed sections 20 and 32 of the Glass–Steagall Act in 1999.
It only took the corporations 9 years to create a national disaster.
It turns out some regulations are very, very good ideas.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Please, Mr. Trump! Stop the regulators from deciding who they should be lending to!
If anything should happen to these banks the U.S. taxpayer will be there to bail them out and make sure the executives get their bonuses.
Just like the last time.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
There's been an entire attitude shift: Remember, civil forfeiture laws were created to steal boats and houses from rich criminals. Now, they're being used to steal a traveler's laptop and iPhone. Citizens who have won court cases against such theft have never gotten their property back, putting those police in contempt of court.
There were many complaints when NY police began 'stop and frisk' procedures but the courts have approved such fishing expeditions so the practice has spread. Police departments have militarized to combat civilian militias that don't exist and even bought house-smashing tanks for arresting non-violent criminals, such as illegal immigrants.
It's not a war on terror or drugs, it's class warfare, with the welfare-dependent and black communities being the enemy.
They are important to the company (that's why they make that huge salary).
Janitors are important too, but look at what they make. A CEO not showing up for two months while he has a vacation in southern France and no one would notice. All the toilets in the company overflowing for two months and that would cause serious productivity damages.
So why are executives "important" if their absence is not missed?
But, without all the shit the CEO generates, they might not need the janitors.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
What part of my statement implied I thought Trump was going to do any better?
You didn't, but you implied that the people could vote for someone who would do better.
My assertion is that they can't. The system is too broken for that to happen. It simply isn't feasible to get someone who will do better, with the way our election systems work.
they'll base their entire vote based if there's an R or a D at the end of the name.
And they have to, because of first-past-the-post voting. It's simply mathematically impossible to have anything besides two dominant parties with such a voting system, so we're stuck with it until we somehow manage to get the Rs and Ds to pass a constitutional amendment reducing their power by changing the voting system to something else.
They are important to the company (that's why they make that huge salary).
Janitors are important too, but look at what they make. A CEO not showing up for two months while he has a vacation in southern France and no one would notice. All the toilets in the company overflowing for two months and that would cause serious productivity damages.
So why are executives "important" if their absence is not missed?
A janitor is a cog. They can be easily replaced, and in most cases aren't even part of the company: most major companies outsource cleaning. Now, of course my comment was mostly sarcastic, as we all know that most cogs tend to do much more work than those higher ups.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Trust us.
There is a difference between 'necessary' and 'mission critical'.
Which isn't to say CEOs are all 'mission critical', some are about as competent as drunk monkeys throwing darts at 'decision boards'.
If your Janitors (digital or mop) are 'mission critical', you are doing it wrong.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What is it about the smallest punctuation mark in the English language that is so confusing?
Period's are smaller than apostrophe's.
Kanye?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
It only took the corporations 9 years to create a *global* disaster.
FTFY
rarer than lightning strikes on lottery winners
FTFY
Well, some were gaoled. But mostly low-level, none of the big fish.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Awful example, the engineer responsible for the forged data is being prosecuted and could spend 20 years in jail.
The Feds will bail Wall Street out anyway if it fails so that executives can get million dollar bonuses. Thanks citizens.
Sanders would at least have been more interested in prosecuting high executives, and he came close to winning the Democratic nomination. Whether he could have won in November is an open question with lots of unknowns.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No, that's not an open question at all. Sanders would have won, easily.
Hillary wasn't that far behind Trump, she won the popular vote, but she screwed up (among other ways) by not campaigning in key states like PA that the DNC thought were "safe". Bernie was always much better about campaigning in places like that. Hillary's campaign was totally full of hubris; they really thought they couldn't possibly lose, especially to Trump. Her campaign was also full of condescension, esp. to the Bernie voters, and of course to anyone on the right. A lot of Trump voters were just sick of mainstream, incumbent politicians and voted for him out of spite for that and her. Many would have actually voted for Bernie. Bernie brought a lot of enthusiasm from the under-30 crowd. Obama himself won largely because he got young people to get out and vote. Hillary didn't: young people didn't like her, and her campaign didn't care much to court them either. It didn't help that she and her followers specifically told the Bernie crowd that "we don't need you". It also didn't help that she and the DNC were seen by the Bernie voters as having knifed his campaign in the back with dirty tricks, as shown in the leaked Podesta emails.
Hillary lost an election to the 2nd-most unpopular candidate in history. That's because she was the most unpopular candidate ever. There's really no way Bernie could have done worse. People actually *liked* Bernie, he had the support of the youth, and he wasn't hamstruck by scandal after scandal. The only arguments against Bernie were from Hillary supporters inventing nonsense to try to back their queen (like, "the Republicans would have found dirt on him too!" Except that they didn't.).
Just look at the election numbers. There were millions more votes in the 2008 election than in November's, even though the population is a little bigger now. Lots of people simply sat at home. Obama was famous and acknowledged for getting a lot of people out to vote, particularly younger people who are infamous for not turning out to vote; Bernie had the same effect, but Hillary had the opposite effect. Assume that Bernie would get those several million people out to vote unlike Hillary, add in all of Hillary's voters (because they sure as hell aren't going to vote for Trump, and they're generally older so they're more reliable about both turning out and voting along party lines even if they aren't enthused about the candidate), plus definitely more swing voters since he didn't have Hillary's baggage, and it's quite clear that Bernie would have won.
It's just too bad the DNC and their lapdogs in the media will never admit to itself that this is the case, and Trump being president is really all their fault for doing everything they could to keep Bernie from winning their nomination. (Remember the day when Washington Post published almost 20 hit pieces on Bernie in a single day?)
Hillary lost an election to the 2nd-most unpopular candidate in history. That's because she was the most unpopular candidate ever.
Ah, the Superlatives, they hit so hard. They aren't really true as you may think though.
Trump is controversial, not unpopular. If he could learn to stop running his mouth, he'd probably not be so mocked.
And with Hillary, not even that. The main dislike was the partisan, everybody else was really more meh than you realize for her.
Just look at the election numbers. There were millions more votes in the 2008 election than in November's, even though the population is a little bigger now. Lots of people simply sat at home.
Exactly. It's even more apparent when you do it state by state. It's worth looking at, if you haven't. And so should Trump, so he doesn't think he has a landslide. Check out Wisconsin in 2004, for example.
It's just too bad the DNC and their lapdogs in the media will never admit to itself that this is the case, and Trump being president is really all their fault for doing everything they could to keep Bernie from winning their nomination. (Remember the day when Washington Post published almost 20 hit pieces on Bernie in a single day?)
Bernie should have been rejected from the start, he was never a qualified Democrat. Maybe I could see letting him be the VP candidate, but not on the Presidential Ticket. Of course, I feel the same way about Trump, but no need to get into that.
Still, you really don't know how this election was a technical victory, only occurring due to the arcane nature of the Electoral College AND the aforementioned depressed turnout. Which makes you wonder about some states. Really hard.
What Hillary should have done, was picked a barnstormer of a VP candidate, Kaine may have gotten her Virginia, but I'm not sure he brought in the crowds anywhere else. The real clincher would be if she could have nabbed somebody from the minority Republican side of things, I personally don't like Rubio or Cruz, but they would have given her some traction, if they could be steered properly. Rubio easier than Cruz.
But I don't know that anybody even thought about that. I know they looked at Cory Booker, but I would have gone for a strong Hispanic.
Wow, you're really a loon if you think that's a winning strategy: have Hillary pick a Republican running mate? That might pick up some R voters who don't like Trump, but it'll also cause tons of D voters (including everyone who considers themselves a progressive) to sit out the race or vote third-party. This strategy actually would have been great for getting the Green Party a lot more votes than they got with her crappy pick of Kaine.
Sanders *was* a qualified Democrat. He ran as one, and that's all you have to do. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Democrat Party faithful think that only long-time Party members should be allowed to play in their party. No wonder they have such a hard time getting progressives to turn out to vote for them, by pushing partisan politics over ideals and doing the right thing. Honestly, if there's any good to come out of this crazy election, it'll be the utter destruction of the Democratic Party. At least the Republicans are somewhat honest about their intentions and who they work for.
And Trump absolutely *is* unpopular. Countless polls have proven this. Just because people voted for him doesn't mean they actually liked him, same as Hillary.
Wow, you're really a loon if you think that's a winning strategy:
You're a loon if you think calling me one is an effective strategy. It won't work. I'd rather be a crazy shit in this world than sane.
Every day, I get more and more convinced, that it'd be better to be going rip-snorting bonkers.
have Hillary pick a Republican running mate? That might pick up some R voters who don't like Trump, but it'll also cause tons of D voters (including everyone who considers themselves a progressive) to sit out the race or vote third-party.
Not really no. Oh sure, if she'd picked somebody who didn't know how to spin things the right way, she'd have been in trouble, but you know, I'd think they'd have the sense for a little coaching. At least, anybody WORTH picking. Yeah, ok, another Sarah Palin would be a bad idea, but even Dan Quayle could have worked.
Selling yourself as "The alternative to the crazy guy that's taken oven my party" would cause voters to swoon across the spectrum. And maybe throw in a few lines about "Now I've seen the light, and will support this wonderful Democratic lady" and wham, here comes the voters, eager to suck on the teat of lies.
A more salient objection is that none of them would have the moxie to do it. Not that going into the VP job is a good idea, when you can' t even be guaranteed you won't be pushed out in 4 years. But still, it'd take a cast iron set of balls to run that table.
The better choice (since it would be more likely) would be a dynamic and exciting Democrat. Even Sanders. Should have courted him for the VP job before he entered to run. But no, no, we got blahbity-blah Tim Kaine.
Who couldn't even fuck up Mike Pence. Seriously. Guy was totally a whiff at the VP debate. Against a guy who should have been a total target.
Who in the name of hell coached him? They ought to be slapped. The goal was to make Pence look like he was working for a crazy guy, maybe a little crazy himself, not to make yourself look asinine.
It's a fine line to walk, I'll grant you, but surely somebody told him that his Plan B was to back off?
This strategy actually would have been great for getting the Green Party a lot more votes than they got with her crappy pick of Kaine.
Please, they haven't managed to get anything in the way of traction in this country. You want to change that? Change the electoral system on a more fundamental level. That'll help.
Sanders *was* a qualified Democrat. He ran as one, and that's all you have to do.
Nope!
Even further...well, you'd have to read the convention by-laws. Even the GOP could have rejected Trump.
Yeah, technically there's a lot of easy ways to get in, but that's like the Electoral college, a result of America's haphazard system, it only seems stable and effective because it hasn't been fully broken all that often. Like a farce of security, not actual protection, but as long as nobody breaks in, you're cool.
But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Democrat Party faithful think that only long-time Party members should be allowed to play in their party.
I think Donald Trump is a good example of why it's a terrible idea for a political party to let any Johnny-Come-Lately grab the presidential nomination without any form of commitment or participation. I wish they had said "No, no, thank you, stay away!" but they knew from 1992 that they didn't want to risk an independent with chutzpah and resources enough to run. They got greedy. They knew they had nothing else to take on Hillary, so...they gave themselves up to be screwed.
(They wanted it anyway, that's their dirty secret. The horny bastards.)
Sorry, but I think a political party SHOULD be able to identi