General Discussion - Boston

[Anne Elk]

NEWS UPDATE: Former NASA chief Daniel Goldin will not be assuming the post of Boston University president, the vice chairman of the school's board of trustees said. The board has named medical school dean Aram V. Chobanian to serve as interim president of the university until a permanent candidate is chosen. --Developing

Any BU grads out there? Will this affect any of your alumni donations?

From this article it sounds as if Goldin was correct to question some of the business dealings of the Trustees, their business interests and BU.

Goldin has reportedly questioned the financial stake that several trustees have in the university and suggested they amount to a conflict of interest. According to BU's most recent tax filings, the university paid $30 million in 2001-2002 to companies and nonprofits in which BU trustees were involved, including $5.6 million for insurance to a company run by a trustee.

Full article here

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Anne Elk


From this article it sounds as if Goldin was correct to question some of the business dealings of the Trustees, their business interests and BU.

From what I've been reading, the real issue is one thing: whether John Silber is still a megalomaniac. Apparently he is, and either he or the trustees who curry favor with him refused to assure Goldin it was no longer the case.

The conflict of interest stuff, while certainly of concern, seems more like Goldin's nuclear retort to the board's nuclear threat to rescind his contract (or whatever they actually did, since I don't know what the terms were).

I'm not a BU grad, so it's sort of irrelevant, but BU is going to be in a world of hurt for a meaningful president as long as John Silber and friends/cronies are perceived to be running the place instead of the nominal president.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
From what I've been reading, the real issue is one thing: whether John Silber is still a megalomaniac. Apparently he is, and either he or the trustees who curry favor with him refused to assure Goldin it was no longer the case.

The conflict of interest stuff, while certainly of concern, seems more like Goldin's nuclear retort to the board's nuclear threat to rescind his contract (or whatever they actually did, since I don't know what the terms were).

I'm not a BU grad, so it's sort of irrelevant, but BU is going to be in a world of hurt for a meaningful president as long as John Silber and friends/cronies are perceived to be running the place instead of the nominal president.

BU has run into trouble with the A.G.'s office for its conflict of interests before - the question to me is how long a board that is utterly comfortable with all kinds of conflicts of interest and meglomaniac behavior will hold on, and whether the change to a less interested board will cause any damage to the place.

Rather sad.

[Anne Elk]

Have been posted on the BBO website. Link here

Congratulations to all who passed.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Anne Elk
Have been posted on the BBO website. Link here

the pass rate for repeat takers is fasicinatingly low. It amazes me that people pound their head against this wall 4+ times. Twice I can see, three times, perhaps, but after that, shouldn't you realize that you aren't cut out to pass the bar (putting aside whether you couldn't be a lawyer)?

[Anne Elk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
the pass rate for repeat takers is fasicinatingly low. It amazes me that people pound their head against this wall 4+ times. Twice I can see, three times, perhaps, but after that, shouldn't you realize that you aren't cut out to pass the bar (putting aside whether you couldn't be a lawyer)?

A paralegal I used to work with took it 4 times (that I know about) and failed. I didn't see his name on this list so it may be up to 5 or 6 by now. He would take weeks off to study and prepare for it. He wasn't very bright, even in the everyday work environment, so it's not surprising that he didn't get the hint.

[Anne Elk]

Link to boston.com article here

The probable cause hearing for Nelson and Garcia has been postponed until December 12th. Garcia's attorney joined the case this past Thursday and requested additional time to acquaint himself with the facts.

Anyone ever hear anything about the whole incident being caught on tape? I heard rumors that security cameras in the bullpen. Any truth to that? I'm sure all those sitting in the bleachers had a perfect unobstructed view of the events.

[Anne Elk]

Anyone else wondering why Putnam and the SEC settled so quickly? Is it fishy, or was Putnam trying to make it go away to try and save face (and the billions that haven't been pulled out yet)?Article here.

The SEC alleged that at least two Putnam money managers, Justin M. Scott and Omid Kamshad, made dozens of in-and-out trades in international mutual funds they directly supervised. SEC fraud charges against the two are pending. Scott's attorney declined to comment, and Kamshad's didn't return a call seeking comment. Such rapid trading reaps quick profits for the investors, but lowers the returns for other participants in the fund. Most funds discourage frequent trades to protect the interests of their investors.

I still don't understand how the practice of in and out trading was allowed in the first place. Isn't it a version of insider trading?

Anybody local getting a piece of this work?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Anne Elk
Anyone else wondering why Putnam and the SEC settled so quickly? Is it fishy, or was Putnam trying to make it go away to try and save face (and the billions that haven't been pulled out yet)?Article here.



I still don't understand how the practice of in and out trading was allowed in the first place. Isn't it a version of insider trading?

Because, as you suggest, Putnam wants to put the bad vibes behind them as quickly as possible. The bad vibes alone are costing them huge dollars in withdrawals. And, it potentially exposes them to suits from others, based on the fact that the withdrawals continue, driving up their costs and lowering other investors' returns. From the SEC's perspective, my understanding is that the trading is not explicitly illegal, which is why the SEC is considering rules to make it so, so the charges might not ultimately survive a strong defense. So the SEC can make it look like they're doing something even though they might not have the power to do so. (Of course, I don't know the securities law on this beyond what I've been reading about these practices in general).

It's not insider trading because the traders were using public information--what the markets were doing in other parts of the world after the close of US markets. The unfairness is simply that they were allowed to do it, but small investors were not. Favoritism is the problem, not inside information. Like when banks are able to buy a lot of shares at IPOs and then flip them for a quick profit.

[Anne Elk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's not insider trading because the traders were using public information--what the markets were doing in other parts of the world after the close of US markets. The unfairness is simply that they were allowed to do it, but small investors were not. Favoritism is the problem, not inside information. Like when banks are able to buy a lot of shares at IPOs and then flip them for a quick profit.

I used the insider trading analogy because frommy limited reading on the subject, I thought they were buying and selling based on what they knew would happen to the price from the institutional decisions that were made within Putnam. SO even if I had the time to do the research and watch the price it would take longer, maybe days, for the information to trickle down to me.

I heard a bit on NPR last morning where the SEC is looking at (or is about to) traders on the Stock Exchange who do something similar. They get word of a big buy or sell, and do their own buying and selling before placing the big orders.

Anyway, just heard rumors about another IP defection from Testa, can anyone confirm?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Anne Elk
I used the insider trading analogy because frommy limited reading on the subject, I thought they were buying and selling based on what they knew would happen to the price from the institutional decisions that were made within Putnam. SO even if I had the time to do the research and watch the price it would take longer, maybe days, for the information to trickle down to me.

Yeah, the Putnam thing (on further reading) is a bit different, because it involves insiders, not just institutions. But I'm not sure they would have any better information than a large institution. All of this timed trading stuff is something big players can do because they can take a calculated risk on 2-3 basis point differences.

As for the SEC thing, they just got a guilty plea out of a goldman sachs economist, who bought wads of 30 yr bonds right before the treasury publicly announced they were goign to stop offering them for sale.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Was it my eyes, or did the Pats' equipment guy throw the blue pants in with the white jerseys laundry before last night's game?

[nyerinexile]

Was it my eyes, or did the Pats' equipment guy throw the blue pants in with the white jerseys laundry before last night's game?

Looked that way to me. I think they ought to go back to the old uniforms. These new uniforms still look like something that would have worked in the 80's, but is just plain ugly.

[Anne Elk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Was it my eyes, or did the Pats' equipment guy throw the blue pants in with the white jerseys laundry before last night's game?

It was an easy way to get the third color jersey. Wash the home jerseys with the away jerseys in hot water. Thank goodness they didn't have red jerseys in stead of the blue ones. Doesn't matter how big you are, or how many steroids you're taking, a pink jersey on a football player just isn't going to work.

[Anne Elk]

''The plaintiffs are members of our community, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends. We share a common humanity .... Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend to the plaintiffs, and to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect.
We should do so because it is the right thing to do.''
-- SJC Justice John M. Greaney

Coverage at boston.com. I skimmed the Reader Response pages and was happy to see that most are positive.

I was surprised to learn that I know one of the plaintiffs. You go girl!