3 ms·

> and it sounds rhetorical It's rhetorical: the answer is, given how much money he made, a lot. > But junk bonds aren't inherently useless or defective This

by dvt 4y ago

> and it sounds rhetorical It's rhetorical: the answer is, given how much money he made, a lot. > But junk bonds aren't inherently useless or defective This seems a bit disingenuous, as they have, by definition, a very high risk of defaulting. He also manipulated stocks[1], which, again, is technically a victimless crime (but is it really?). [1] https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-09/s70809-4614.pdf https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-09/s70809-4614.pdf

vba616 4y ago
>This seems a bit disingenuous, as they have, by definition, a very high risk of defaulting I'm aware junk bonds have a relatively high expected risk of default and I'm not being disingenuous. Please assume that I'm sincere, as it's required by the HN guidelines, and also, I am. I didn't say anything is a victimless crime or say victimless crimes are ok (or acts that have victims are always wrong). So let's not go on that tangent for now. Or talk about details about Milken, which are beyond the scope of my previous comment. So: I infer you think high risk loans are bad, like poisoned milk. I don't have a problem with that concept, really. But there must be a threshold, right? And I have never heard of anyone seriously putting that threshold precisely at the word "junk". As far as I know, "junk" is a term of art, that is opposed to "investment grade".
- dvt 4y ago
  Okay, maybe we're just speaking past each other. My point is pretty simple, and you're right that I should not have brought up victimless crimes, etc. I'm just trying to say: here's some rich guy that did bad stuff, went to jail, and received the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, essentially rebranded his image, and is now back at the adults' table as a philanthropist, even though his wealth is funded by his past illegal/unethical endeavors. And to make things more bizarre, everyone is totally playing along. Isn't that kind of funny?
  - thedailymail 4y ago
    I came here to say pretty much the same thing. Thanks for putting it so well. Not all strategic use of ill-gotten wealth is "philanthropic" (= motivated by the love of humanity).
RobRivera 4y ago
manipulation of stock is far from a victimless crime

by dvt 4y ago

vba616 4y ago

>This seems a bit disingenuous, as they have, by definition, a very high risk of defaulting I'm aware junk bonds have a relatively high expected risk of default and I'm not being disingenuous. Please assume that I'm sincere, as it's required by the HN guidelines, and also, I am. I didn't say anything is a victimless crime or say victimless crimes are ok (or acts that have victims are always wrong). So let's not go on that tangent for now. Or talk about details about Milken, which are beyond the scope of my previous comment. So: I infer you think high risk loans are bad, like poisoned milk. I don't have a problem with that concept, really. But there must be a threshold, right? And I have never heard of anyone seriously putting that threshold precisely at the word "junk". As far as I know, "junk" is a term of art, that is opposed to "investment grade".

dvt 4y ago
Okay, maybe we're just speaking past each other. My point is pretty simple, and you're right that I should not have brought up victimless crimes, etc. I'm just trying to say: here's some rich guy that did bad stuff, went to jail, and received the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, essentially rebranded his image, and is now back at the adults' table as a philanthropist, even though his wealth is funded by his past illegal/unethical endeavors. And to make things more bizarre, everyone is totally playing along. Isn't that kind of funny?
- thedailymail 4y ago
  I came here to say pretty much the same thing. Thanks for putting it so well. Not all strategic use of ill-gotten wealth is "philanthropic" (= motivated by the love of humanity).

RobRivera 4y ago

manipulation of stock is far from a victimless crime