A VC - Latest Comments in When Government Funds Business

Re: When Government Funds Business

GoldBuggg — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:31:19 -0000

Then bankers and our Government representatives are corrupt to the core. There will be no justice for the people.

Everyone has been betrayed on a colossal scale and we must defend ourselves by exiting all assets and hunkering into cash. We've been betrayed and lied to by bankers, politicians, military brass, and corporate chiefs. By the way, cash is prescribed in that perfectly crafted document called the US Constitution. Gold & silver are the only forms of money that can legally satisfy debts public and private.

Anyone who believes that the US Dollar will prevail and survive this turmoil as the global reserve currency is precisely as incorrect as those who believed the US banking system could survive the mortgage debacle as it unfolded. We're witnessing a long slow drawn-out death experience for the US Dollar, liquidation of the US Economy, to be followed by a default by the US Treasury Bonds. During the panic phase, the response in the gold & silver prices will be profound, with advances to date only a prelude to a march to $2000 gold and $50 silver. This article is an excellent map of unfolding events in this massive economic disintegration. The following article will give you a good idea of where we're headed in this global calamity:
http://www.goldnewswire.net...

Re: When Government Funds Business

fredwilson — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:34:14 -0000

And that's my point. Its fucked up once gov't starts funding businesses, and
puts targets on the backs on even the good ones

Re: When Government Funds Business

deadvoter — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:40:14 -0000

First of all Northern Trust signed on 2 years ago to sponsor the golf tournament. Northern TRust's Clientele cater to high net worth clients. If they throw a party for their clients to retain them attract new ones, that is how they do business.

Northern Trust was one of those banks doing just fine. They were forced to take the money.

Now Congress who has no clue about business is telling Northern Trust how to do theirs. Congress who has a post office banking scandel that sent Daniel Rostenkowski to jail, now telling banks how to operate.

Barney Frank one of the chief architects of this finanical crisis is now telling banks what to do. Did you know Bush tried 17 times to instill stiffer regulations on Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, but was rebuffed by Congress? 17 times.

Maureen Dowd needs to put away her Jump-To-Conclusions mat, and dig a little deeper.

I've worked at 7 major financial institutions including Northern Trust. And I can tell you from working there that they are a damn good organization. In fact they hold Obama's Mortgage on his Chicago home. They are profitable and continue to be. They only took the money because the Gov't forced them to. The Gov't insisted that if only troubled banks took the money, then there would be runs on those banks.

Northern didn't want the money and didn't need the money.

Re: When Government Funds Business

fredwilson — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:59:19 -0000

I guess he reads this blog

Maybe he'll comment too someday

Re: When Government Funds Business

fredwilson — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:30:40 -0000

Yes, I am taking TARP money

And giving to away to charities!

Re: When Government Funds Business

Jerry solomon — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:47:37 -0000

i noticed that bank of america advertised on your blog. does that mean that you are taking TARP money? if so, as a taxpayer, i insist on congressional oversight on all future postings.

Re: When Government Funds Business

JLM — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:52:23 -0000

Speaking of liability --- I wonder how long it will take for a shareholder to sue GE over Immelt's utterances in regard to their dividend policy. Perhaps the single most damning and memorable utterance from Ken Lay of Enron fame was his assurances that the stock was a good buy for 401Ks. Meanwhile, he was selling.

Re: When Government Funds Business

JLM — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:39:04 -0000

Just for the record Pres Bush was not on the ballot. He served 8 years and that is the max. So the idea that the people of the US threw HIM out is nonsense. I am not an apologist for Pres Bush and the Republican Congress, they spent like drunken sailors and their deathbed conversion is a difficult pill to swallow --- I just hope that St Augustine actually did get into Heaven.

It was brilliant for Candidate Obma to run against a "straw man" who could not defend himself --- his detractors and most ardent critiques might find fault with it. Politics is not bean bag and his strategy was brilliant --- more importantly, it worked. He was helped an awful lot by the awkwardness of his opponent and the ineptitude of his campaign. Who can really say how or why Candidate Obama won when he was running against such a weak candidate? Perhaps he won by default having defeated his only real rival in Hillary.

Hope and change? WTF does that really mean? It is the bong pipe of the masses filled with the placebo weed of their own making. They voted for the "cool" guy. And he is cool. It is suspect whether the arithmetic margin of victory could even identify their VP candidate. Shows how "retail" politics can really be.

Nonetheless, President Bush was not on the ballot. I think your comment that we should not be fixating on the past is the correct view of things.

I agree that in times of crisis it is important to act. I would temper that by also saying that it is important to ensure that the acts are well thought out if you are going to commit a huge portion of your finite reserves to any single solution. If you were mixing up a new brew, you might make a small batch first before making 10B gallons.

The acts should also be focused on fixing the most pressing problems first --- this is my incrementalism argument. It is the triage approach. Stabilize the victim before attempting to move the victiim. Get a bit of feedback from the victim before deciding to go "all in".

In addition, it is very difficult to embrace an "everybody wins" approach. This is my kindergarten T ball rant --- everybody gets a hit, everybody gets on base, everybody scores, nobody is out, both teams win and then we all go out for ice cream. Darwin never gets out of the parking lot. This is not real life. Bankruptcy court is where you go to figure stuff out when legacy contracts compromise the future of an enterprise which otherwise MIGHT be salvageable.

While Pres Obama is stabilizing the patient, I question the wisdom of prepping for the NYC Marathon or pitching a $3.5T budget which includes arguably the largest expansion of government ever. A decent period of mourning might have been useful.

The Ears of Pork or the 1000 Points of Pork just makes me sick, not so much because of its cruel, greedy hypocrisy but because it is such a raw and obvious repudiation of the basic integrity of Pres Obama. I was thinking for a while that we had gotten the ONLY HONEST POLITICIAN from Illinois. But perhaps not so much. It truly saddens me to see how cheap the price is on his soul.

Re: When Government Funds Business

Scott Chait — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:37:42 -0000

I feel like the Fred Wilson quote alert! I'm sure you saw Crovitz's piece in the WSJ where you're quoted. An outstanding read.: "Too Risky for Venture Capitalists:
Why proposals for a government bailout were roundly rejected," by L. Gordon Crovitz, WSJ 3/2/09
http://online.wsj.com/artic...

Re: When Government Funds Business

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 06:35:08 -0000

I like the fireman analogy JLM and agree with it. Looking backwards is almost a waste of time unless you are a historian or doing a post-mortem

But in times of crisis, you need to act. And obama is acting. Whether his acts are correct is the source of debate and it should be

But obama is not wasting time thinking about bush and cheney and we should not be doing that either. They are gone, thankfully. Thrown out by the board of the US - the people

Re: When Government Funds Business

fredwilson — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 06:31:08 -0000

I love being on boards but I will get off the board as soon as it goes public. That level of scrutiny and liability is not for me (or most people)

Re: When Government Funds Business

Kasi — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:42:31 -0000

Irrelevent comment ....

The photograph is great... in terms of aesthtics and content...

The blackish background with dents (is it varnished wood or marble?) and ligting
on one side of the paper...light on real problem.

On top it talks about a security manager turned janitor on tears with his
wife and at the bottom citi wasting janitors money!!!.

A single-piece representation of early 2009.

(Good to have the touch and feel of NYT after 10-years from otherside of the world...thanx to CMOS technology).

Re: When Government Funds Business

Noah David Simon — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:50:39 -0000

we solved Iraq with a surge. more investment (blood) and selling off parts to he worst element. perhaps our present economic war is no different. we need to put trust in the bad guys.

Re: When Government Funds Business

JLM — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:50:28 -0000

A Director who has any real net worth today has to be pretty damn careful as it relates to D & O exposure and the coverage offered by an insurance policy. It is a very difficult thing to attract good quality Directors to small and medium size public companies because of liability exposure, SEC risk and SOX obligations.

Today you have to do right by the SEC and the PCAOB --- two sets of regulators. You have to serve on the nominating, compensation, audit, governance committee, etc. etc. etc. And for what? You are lucky to get $20,000 and a pocketful of options. Meanwhile you may have unlimited personal exposure when you blow through the D & O policy.

The poor guy who has to be designated the "financial expert" under SOX is in deep trouble.

Rubin, a former Sec Treas, had a damn tough time keeping Citi floating between the buoys. You could argue that he eventually failed.

I just hope that in the course of re-writing all the SEC and PCAOB regs somebody spends some time thinking and developing a general indemnification theory for corp Directors. Otherwise, nobody would ever serve on a public company board.

Re: When Government Funds Business

JLM — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:35:00 -0000

Let's just say for the sake of argument that everything can be spun in such a manner that President Bush is personally responsible for each and every bad thing with which President Obama is confronted --- what difference does it really make?

The guy wanted the job because he said he could do the job. The only question is can he do the job? Will his plans work?

When a fireman happens upon a fire, he does not spend his time inquiring as to how the fire started and who was responsible for starting the fire.

HE JUST PUTS THE DAMN FIRE OUT.

Can Pres Obama really put the fire out?

Thus far we have the TARPasouras, the Porkulus, the Ears of Pork (the 9000 Points of Pork?) and the Gigantor Budget. All (less the TARPasouras in which Candidate Obama only consulted) have been created to solve the problem. They are his plans, they are his babies and they are his intellectual work product.

I just don't think they are going to work.

What good does it do to blame it on President Bush and VP Cheney? And why is that even relevant?

Re: When Government Funds Business

Noah David Simon — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:23:50 -0000

we don't have inflation problems yet. we are worth our money. we need to convince ourselves that we are valuable. it isn't war that is a problem, but how you fight it. to fight you need confidence. the mechanics of control is no different then any other struggle. centralized force is always unnerving, but at times necessary. The buyout isn't that different then invading Iraq. If we say it won't work. It won't. like usual we don't have a blue print and no one is designing breaks for this machine.

Re: When Government Funds Business

Noah David Simon — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:38:19 -0000

lol... excellent point.

Re: When Government Funds Business

danhung — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:56:20 -0000

With regard to the Citi newspaper advertisement, it just seems that Citi can't win. They're getting reamed over the naming of the NY Mets stadium even though a very good argument could be made that it's a very high ROI marketing investment. On the other side, people get upset when they use traditional marketing routes like newspapers. What can the Company do that people will be satisfied with? I think we all agree that some form of marketing is necessary to sustain their business.

Re: When Government Funds Business

Eben Thurston — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:47:23 -0000

"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

-- Henry Hazlitt
Economics in One Lesson

Re: When Government Funds Business

Jim in Colorado — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:23:25 -0000

I have a good numbers of years in marketing, but I wont "arm chair fortune 100 marketing exec" that this is an "obvious" marketing mistake. I am sure their budgets have been slashed but they still have millions to spend and so do their agencies.

Maybe they have a long term deal with the NYT? Maybe the older wealthy demo who still reads the paper is who is still opening new accounts at Citi. I don't think anyone here can presume to know that (unless they have done it themselves) or has that experience to know what a company with over 100 billion in sales should and shouldn't be spending to at least maintain that revenue, and I am sure they need to maintain it to pay back the government.

I think these things are getting a little silly. Take the Goldman Sachs event in Vegas. From what I read they paid a huge cancellation fee ($600k) to move it to SF and the cost of hotels, flights, and food would be much much more for all the attendees. All in the name of appearances. Not good business. Also, if a company like Wells Fargo rewards its top employees with a junket maybe they do more to help the company rather then jump to a bank or another job not under such scrutiny? As a small company we spend 10s of thousands on trade shows and such when we really cant afford it, but we also feel we cant afford not to to maintain business. I can only presume its an order of magnitude when you are 8, 9, or 10 digit revenue company.

Re: When Government Funds Business

markslater — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:10:38 -0000

brand building? i would say brand creation.

And if we prop up the NYT, then we all may as well pack up our tools and hitch a boat ride back to that from whence our ancestors came.

Re: When Government Funds Business

kidmercury — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 09:21:07 -0000

hahahaha, way to put the smackdown boss! though given this fool's handle it would have been more fun IMO to use the word "example" instead of metaphor." lol

hope you did not waste too much energy on this clown though. remember he is the punk ass chump who thought JLM's guest post on housing was an assault on apartment renters. lol, quite possibly the most ridiculous misinterpretation in the history of blogging. i'm not exaggerating.

Re: When Government Funds Business

fredwilson — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 06:58:10 -0000

I was thinking of private companies and the boards I sit on where those
practices are less common

Re: When Government Funds Business

vincentvw — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 03:32:51 -0000

"Being the CEO of a company who has taken government money is like having a big target on your back. Everything you do is going to be second guessed, debated and discussed like never before." Love that quote, welcome to Europe! :)

Re: When Government Funds Business

ap — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 23:16:28 -0000

I am a little surprised that everyone is pointing the finger at citi for the nytimes ad and no one mentions that it is the ad-agency who must be doing some crappy media buying that deserves the boot, not to mention citi is a little pre-occupied making ends meet. I am not defending citibank, but if anyone goes outside of the US especially India, you will notice citibank's global presence. And yes, I am not a citibank employee :)