Love, sweet love. No, no just for some, but for everyone.
...salsa-and-sour-cream-flavored pork rinds.
8: Totally overrated, I assure you.
1 should probably be specific.
Melted cheese!
12 do-over.
1 should probably be more specific.
Melted cheese!
A good five cent cigar.
I knew I would love reading everyone's answers.
more tripping undergrads wandering around.
A big nail through it to hold it together.
(the clear and canonical answer, of course, is 'cock jokes.' Hope this hasn't spoiled the fun.)
"More cowbell," Tom said, Walken on by.
NORTH KOREA SPIDERMAN ORGASM
Off to teach! Keep up the good work!
Minor, technical revisions to the UN Charter.
Minor, technical revisions to the UN Charter ICANN bylaws.
...two chicken fried steaks, a triple-meat bacon cheeseburger, fried okra, a pound of barbecue, three fajitas, a meat lover's pizza, a pint of ice cream and a slab of peanut butter fudge with crushed peanuts.
for the question game in Rosenkranz & Guilderstern to be played at the professional level.
New french fries at Burger King. (That was '98ish, right?)
37: So you admit he is trying to impose a one-world government?
. . . to have sex with other people.
A well-designed device, small enough to fit comfortably in a pocket, that can store and play thousands of digital music files.
A three or more digit calendar system
Twenty dollars--same as downtown!
Realistic betting odds:
"Love" at 2:1
"Jesus" at 3:2
"to give Peace a Chance" 4:1
"Krishna Consciousness" 9:1
"better acid" 35:1
I'm also reminded of the huge "Jesus Saves From Hell" graffiti in downtown LA, to which someone added "-o Dolly Revivals."
Store-bought tomatoes that aren't mealy.
Fewer television shows with Will Arnett.
"Chocolate-covered donut," which would explain why I saw that phrase all by itself underneath a bridge in Herkimer, NY.
52: What kind of sacrilegious crap is that?
54: What kind of sacrilegious crap is that?
||
Dsquared makes the New York Times! OK, a different one. But the headline, Dsquared Tromps On, was so right.
\>
Further to 56:
In looking up "Hello, Dolly!", I have learned that I don't know anything about it other than the title song and the fact that one production starred Carol Channing. The original title was "Dolly, A Damned Exasperating Woman."
Will Arnett is great, but nobody will write the right part for him.
58.2: Comity. The best thing I've heard from him was an interview on Fresh Air.
What? G.O.B? What is wrong with Stanley?
Yeah, there's only been three failed Will Arnett-starring shows since the end of Arrested Development. Plus a couple failed pilots, and the not-yet-failed Up All Night and TIPDoTM.
I was assuming Stanley meant since Arrested Development. If not, he should be keel hauled.
Arnett was definitely not the worst thing about Arrested Development, so I guess I'm safe.
huckleberry macaroons, which could by dipped in chili chocolate.
Hmm...no one's said "another folk singer" yet?
I guess it falls to me to give the truly obvious answer.
...a little Allegro con brio on the tiny violin.
68: Nono. It's clearly "a new Frank Sinatra".
Oh my god. I just realized that I was misreading the OP: I thought the graffiti artist had finished his/her thought with the suggestion that what we needed now was Guesses.
I thought that was pretty brilliant, actually.
(Actually, I didn't really misread the OP in that way. Just in the first few seconds, before I realized it was too good to be true.)
to exterminate all rational thought.
I worry for the youth of the World. Stanley dislikes Arrested Development and VU.
The world needs more poutine!
75 actually happened a couple years later, and it didn't turn out so well.
It's because you let the rational thought back in. It's like a recurring infection. You must be ever-vigilant.
I worry for the youth of the World. Stanley dislikes Arrested Development and VU.
You'll be alarmed to learn that when I see "VU" the first thing that comes to mind is the Free University of Amsterdam.
The initial burst of energy seems to be subsiding. Is it time for the big reveal?
In order to be truly unified, what the world needs now, more than ever, is a scapegoat.
Yeah, I remember being surprised that it formed a coherent statement.
Oh shit did I just become a Nazi?
Check what you're wearing. Dramatic black overcoat and boots? Could be.
I think someone had just read Watchmen!
re: 88
I think this is now obligatory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsNLbK8_rBY
88: More like spiked leather, but close.
I agree with the graffito, and propose bankers as the scapegoat, on the grounds that they really are a bunch of motherfuckers who have made things worse for a lot of people.
Less of a scapegoat than a culprit.
You're going to hurt d-squared's feelings, rob.
I remain baffled by the financial industry, and would love to see a breakdown of their income.
My impression is that the finance industry generally makes most of its money on fees. This is why derivatives like CMOs are so attractive -- they charge fees for putting them together.
By "finance industry" I mean commercial and investment banks. Hedge funds and mutual funds make their money on speculation, obviously.
Though hedge fund managers make big bucks on fees, so who knows?
98: investment banks also make big bucks on speculation - it's called "prop trading".
the only hedge fund people I know are the salespeople, as it were, old line WASPS who can convince their daddy's friends to pony up another 10 million at the start of the operation. I asked if some indian guys were in the back being quants and it seemed so. my cousin is crazy rich from that.
he's pretty douchey too, honestly, so he might make a good scapegoat. he wear's tod's driving shoes but only to drive his lambourghini, after which he changes into penny-loafers or dress shoes as the conditions demand, like a kind of spock-in-a-beard inversion of mr. rogers and his cardigan. douchetastic.
102: if you mean "hedge fund managers", the answer is "because 2 and 20 is the industry standard, and almost no one seems to feel the need to undercut their buddies by charging only, say, 1.5 and 15."
the answer is "because 2 and 20 is the industry standard, and almost no one seems to feel the need to undercut their buddies by charging only, say, 1.5 and 15."
Of course, there are tons of people who have no buddies in the industry and would be plenty more than happy to scrape by on 1.5 and 15. But the industry is very difficult to break into from outside. Partly because ex ante, performance is all but impossible to evaluate. Charge 2 and 20 an unproven newcomer, and people would rather trust their money to someone they perceive as having more experience/credibility. Charge 1.5 and 15, and people take it as a sign that even you don't really believe your investment thesis, you're just trying to lure me with a sales pitch.
But aren't large corporations getting ripped off as well?
Thanks, urple.
106: yes indeed. For example, 80% of mergers destroy shareholder value; that is, if company A has a market value of $100m and B is worth $50m and they merge, there's an 80% chance that, three years later, AB will be worth less than $150m.
However, 100% of mergers contribute to investment banker and M&A lawyer value. No one, on the other hand, makes money by being paid to stop companies merging with each other. Hence, we still have lots of mergers.
(The other reason: the CEO of AB will be paid a lot more than the CEO of A, even if he isn't actually doing as good a job for his shareholders, because, hey, he's running a bigger company now. And the CEO of B will have taken his golden parachute and gone elsewhere.)
So the financial industry is in the business of leveraging misaligned incentives?
No one, on the other hand, makes money by being paid to stop companies merging with each other.
The very wealthy Marty Lipton would be very surprised to learn this.
107 -- Can't talk about any details, but my colleagues and I got paid a bucket of dough to stop a merger a decade or so ago. Not nearly as much as the company planning the merger lost in not being able to effectuate it, and it wasn't crazy money, to be sure, but, well, our standard hourly fees were more than sufficient to allow a decent UMC lifestyle for all the professional staff.
There should be more of this.
So the financial industrycapitalism is in the business of leveraging misaligned incentives?
Fixed. And, yes, it is.
Oh look, we're already having a thread where we bitch about banking. Oh well.
I stand corrected. Not many people make money by specifically stopping companies from merging with each other. Marty Lipton advises you on whether you should do a merger or not, but (I assume) he gets paid whatever his conclusion is. Nobody employs Marty Lipton - or anyone else - and says "We'll pay you $2m a year, except if we do a merger that year, when you'll get nothing."
But there are lots of other people in the loop who will only make any money if the merger goes ahead.
So the financial industry is in the business of leveraging misaligned incentives?
Not exclusively - there's also moving income around in time and moving risk around in space, which are pretty much what you need a financial industry for - but, yes, that's where the big bucks are made.
Marty Lipton advises you on whether you should do a merger or not, but (I assume) he gets paid whatever his conclusion is. Nobody employs Marty Lipton - or anyone else - and says "We'll pay you $2m a year, except if we do a merger that year, when you'll get nothing."
The first sentence is wrong and the last sentence is very close to right (it's not a contingent fee as you describe, but a retainer).
No one hires Lipton for anything other than to prevent a hostile takeover (or to implement a poison pill aimed at preventing a future hostile takeover).
I would like to start a hedge fund. I have no idea how to raise money, though. The money is raised by people like alameida's cousin. Rich people have no idea whether they're giving their money to somebody who has a good idea, so they basically just give their money to somebody that makes them feel good about it.
No one hires Lipton for anything other than to prevent a hostile takeover (or to implement a poison pill aimed at preventing a future hostile takeover).
True, but it's basically always aimed not at protecting the value of a corporation against negative financial consequences from being acquired, but protecting the management of a corporation against negative individual consequences. So still a matter of misaligned incentives.
I have no idea how to raise money, though. The money is raised by people like alameida's cousin.
You have a few options. Your best bet it to know a lot of rich people. Second best is to hire alameida's cousin (or someone else who knows a lot of rich people) to work at your nascent hedge fund. They will be in charge of fundraising and "investor relations". The final option is to hire a placement agent, which is a third party who knows a lot of rich people and will sell your fund to them. The downside of this approach is that you have to be rich first in order to take advantage of it, since a placement agent will charge a 5-10% fee for all the money they bring in to your fund. That's a great deal since you'll be making a 2% management fee for 7-10 years on the money, plus a 20% carried interest on profits, but your management fee will only be paid over time as the fund operates, so you'll need to have cash in hand to pay the placement agent up front. On, say, $500 million raised, that's $25,000,000. Investors absolutely will not want this taken out of the amount the amount they invest with you on day 1. It's possible you can talk a bank into lending you the money. (No, seriously: the loan can be secured by your interest in the fund, which, again, with 2% coming in annually (that's $10,000,000 on $500 million), makes this a well-secured and fairly safe loan for a bank. But you'll have to pay back the bank loan out of the proceeds you'd otherwise earn from the fund--with a 5 year loan at 10% interest, that's almost 6.5 million of your $10,000,000 in annual management fees that will be going to pay off the bank. And you still have to run the fund.
So still a matter of misaligned incentives
Of course. See 111.
The numbers in the last half of 117 assume a 5% placement agent fee, which is on the low side. If you're an unproven commodity, your fees will probably be towards the high side, in which the economics are somewhere between that much tougher and unworkable.
Oh, sorry, you said hedge fund. I was thinking buyout fund. Strike the bank loan option--if investor money isn't locked in for 7-10 years, but instead can be withdrawn at nearly any time, the loan will be too risky for a bank. So, you'll have to pay the placement agent fees yourself, which means you'll need to be rich.
114: ah, OK. I was wrong about what Lipton does - I thought he was just a normal M&A lawyer. Sorry.
But I will fight back here and point out that, from what you say, Lipton gets hired to help companies not get involved in mergers that they've already decided they don't want to get involved in.
For him to have a balancing effect, he would have to be employed by a company to dissuade that company from wanting to take over other companies. I should have said that no one gets hired on the condition "We'll pay you $2m a year, except if we do a takeover that year, when you'll get nothing".
121: I wasn't actually disagreeing with your broader point, which is completely correct. I'd actually intended 109 as a joke. This is why I don't have friends.
So, I'm ignorant. What does "1.5 and 15" mean?
Hedge fund manager compensation of 1.5% per year of assets under management, plus 15% of profits.
You may already know this part, but that 15% or 20% of profits is taxed at capital gains rates, even though the manager doesn't have capital at risk, which is the "carried interest" preference all right-thinking people want to eliminate.