Shot:
"Many top hedge fund managers back Obama"
More here.
UPDATE: the comment thread at Horsey's cartoon reminded me of something I almost forgot: Chelsea Clinton works at one.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 24, 2008 08:04 PM | Email ThisHmmm. So, it will be pretty easy to buy Obama? Yeah, that makes sense. It worked Tony Rezko. So it will probably work for these hedge fund managers too.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 24, 2008 09:37 PMI believe that Clinton made it possible for Goldman and Sachs to be involved in oil speculation without owning oil commodities in 1999. What did Bush do about it ? Nada. It's a muddled mess, in other words not only connections to Obama but likely a number of other politicians.
Posted by: KS on June 24, 2008 10:20 PMAs far as Horsey is concerned, anybody legally working in a capitalist society and being legally successful at it is "greedy". Hedge funds aren't against the law so what's the rub? Why, they are a little to successful for Mr. H's tastes, that's what.
Screw him.
Posted by: G Jiggy on June 24, 2008 10:46 PMCute try. Romney ran a venture captial fund that invested in companies directly. VC firms need need the companies they invest in to thrive in order to make money. The more complicated world of hedge funds includes winning big by making bets on the losses of others (via stock shorts, currency trading, commodities, etc.). Same universe, different genre.
Get your facts straight before you criticize.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 25, 2008 07:44 AMNice retort Eric. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 25, 2008 07:48 AMI look outside and it is warm weather, so I doubt hell has frozen over, either. What gives?
The DalaiBama- same old, same old politician.
My 7th grade teenage daughter has fallen in love with what the DalaiBama says and she likes what he is going to do with the country. I don't know, but it could have been the time of day or whatever, so I was a little more animated in my response.
I asked her, "What has Obama ever done in his life? I talked to my friend, Henry, a black middle manager for thirty years and told him that he was more qualifed to be president than Obama. He laughed and said he doesn't have the voice of Obama when speaking with a teleprompter."
A hem and a haw, then she squeaks, "but he was Senator."
I respond, "how come as a leader does he not vote on issues? Whenever a critical vote came up, he votes present. A leader would lead the vote one way or another. Why doesn't Obama?"
She says, "How come that isn't being reported?"
Silence on my part. Makes you go hmmmmm.
Posted by: swatter on June 25, 2008 08:00 AMAnd this guy thinks he's so good he has a seal made just like the Prez. WOW does that say something about this guy. (unreal) Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 25, 2008 08:23 AM
As for why they are financially backing Obama, hedge fund managers don't tend to make losing bets. Have you seen the polls lately? Better yet, go to intrade and check out the contracts tracking the presidential race.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/MutualFunds/RomneyRichestCandidateHedgesHisBets.aspx Posted by: tc on June 25, 2008 11:14 AM
No, I wasn't damning hedge fund managers or their work. I was simply pointing out the irony between Horsey's view of hedge fund managers versus who actual hedge fund managers are supporting for President (which by chance, might be the same soul Horsey favors).
I have no truck with the hedge fund industry, even accepting the fact that just like every other profession there will inevitably be bad actors in it.
Moreover, my original point with tc was to draw the clear distinction between the work of a venture capitalist versus that of a hedge fund manager. They are two entirely different components of the financial services industry.
As for Romney's investing some of his money in hedge funds, I believe that's pretty common practice for people in his asset range (and above). Thus, given all my points above, I don't have a concern with it as tc apparently does.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 25, 2008 06:32 PMMy comment (poorly written) wasn't directed at you or the post; the post was fine. It was some of the comments afterwards that just fell in line with Horsey's basic reasoning, which is the worst kind of populist posturing.
I'm an Obama supporter, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt. But the idea that all of these hedge fund managers are donating money to Obama for hedge-fund related access and influence is, I think, misguided. I really don't think an Obama administration would be a friendlier environment for hedge funds, regardless of donors.
More likely is that a lot of hedge fund managers have made an unbelievable amount of money in a short period of time, and are now looking to spend it to "make a difference". For example, hedge fund managers have given huge sums of money to start charter schools in Boston, New York and the District of Columbia.
Successful hedge fund managers have tons of disposable income, many of them like Obama, and they're giving him money. I'm sure some of them are giving to McCain as well. Eric's point about liberal hypocrisy when it comes to big-money donations is a good one, but I'm not sure what else there is to say.
Posted by: Zeeb on June 25, 2008 06:45 PMThat's not entirely accurate. Currency trading provides liquidity and risk management to companies that do business in multiple countries and are at risk if foreign exchange rates swing against them (think Boeing and Microsoft and their reliance on exports). Commodity trading provides liquidity and insurance to, say, Eastern Washington wheat farmers, who are at risk if the price of wheat at harvest time is lower than what they expected it to be in the spring. It also provides, say, airlines with insurance against unexpected increases in fuel prices.
Shorting stocks is not just "betting on the losses of others". It's an essental part of the price discovery process which steers capital toward its most efficient uses. And it was short-selling hedge funds, who, while making money for their efforts, also alerted the rest of the world to the Enron fraud and helped protect investors from the disaster becoming even bigger.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114894232503965715-search.html
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 25, 2008 11:13 PMI wasn't necessarily stating a problem, but more the potential of hypocrisy. You were trying to use the cartoon to paint Obama as hypocritical on the issue. I was just raising the point that to me it seemed a little hypocritical since you were also such a big Romney supporter.
To me the problem isn't hedge funds, in and of themselves, but what the controls or lack of controls in the system to manage the funds. To me, the deregulation has swung too far and put individual, small-time investors at a disadvantage. They can also swing too far the other way (too much regulation). What is important is balance that benefits all classes of investors equally. This has not necessarily been the case over the past few years, and is the responsibility of both the Clinton and GW administrations (not just GW's).
Posted by: tc on June 26, 2008 09:57 AMThe bills comprising the act wer introduces in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[1] and with bipartisan support in the House of Representatives[2]. It was signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton.
Posted by: Acid Brain on June 26, 2008 10:02 AM