Rawls if he can hang onto it, I'd guesss
Mitch Cumstein
History
- Member for
- 2 years 33 weeks
- Blog
- View recent blog entries
Karma
- Current value
- 2
Recent Comments
| Date | Title | Body |
|---|---|---|
| 3 weeks 5 days ago | Only if you |
Stop putting mouths on other peoples' assholes words. |
| 3 weeks 5 days ago | As a side note |
After watching the 2nd episode I decided to read your blog. While I still don't know much about finance, and I'll have to "take your word for it" for now with regards to the crisis, I also read some of your other posts and enjoyed reading them. Especially the one about the Cap1 bowl. That was the year after I graduated and despite the first 2 games of the season, I really enjoyed watching that team, and that last win for Lloyd was as rewarding for me as a fan than any win I can remember (Ohio this year and some other ones while I was a kid as well). |
| 3 weeks 6 days ago | Questions |
I'm an engineer and admittedly don't know much about finance or Wall Street, but I would like to learn a lot more as I manage my savings. A lot of times I get lost in some of the vocabulary associated with information like this documentary, but the more I read and learn from shows like this, the faster I can make sense of new information. I watched the 1st hour of the special and have some general questions for people that are in the field. My main question is this: it sounded like this all started from one entity selling their risk to another entity. What I don't understand is why the second entity (in this case, as the documentary described, the banks in Europe) would buy the risk. It seems like they would have to be getting less benefit than the seller (otherwise the seller wouldn't sell) and obviously a higher probability of loss. One guy said in the documentary that "risk will flow to the dumbest person". Is that really what this was all about? Basically shoveling risk to people that didn't understand what they were getting into? For me its just hard to understand why there would have been buyers to start. It wasn't really clear from the show what there was to gain on the other side of things. Thanks to anyone that can help me out on this. |
| 3 weeks 6 days ago | ugh |
What terrible news. |
| 3 weeks 6 days ago | interesting |
I don't know a lot about English, but does just "gruntle" work? |
| 3 weeks 6 days ago | Hmmm |
If you replaced "tsiO" with "scUM", and moved this from mgoblog to rcmb, this post would make a lot of sense and be expected. |
| 4 weeks 2 days ago | I agree |
I was originally considering a masters, but realized that I could have my tuition covered and get a stipend for going the PhD route (basically being paid for research). It took longer, and was very challanging, but I agree it was worth it to not have the cost attached. I would recommend the OP look into options along this line. |
| 4 weeks 2 days ago | is getting a job an option instead of more school? |
I would recommend getting a job now, pay off some, if not all of the debt, and then figure out if you still want to pursue a graduate degree. Either that, or go for a PhD in a funded program (in other words find a way to go to school for free/get paid). Unless you're going to med school or engineering or something that will allow you to definitely pay off the loans, I'd recommend against it. Also, if going to school part time and working part time is an option look into that. You really don't want to finish a graduate degree and have no realistic way to pay off your loans. |
| 5 weeks 8 hours ago | Millenball |
Preseason Champs!
Millenball - watch more funny videos |
| 5 weeks 8 hours ago | Uh Oh |
Hopefully they aren't successful. If Brian starts talking about Ohio like he talks about Oregon I'm going to be sick. |
