Financial Services Specialist

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

Here's a link where you can learn more:

http://www.theamericancollege.edu/Prospective_Students/Desig nations/fss.asp

I've been moderating the online courses for several years now, and up until now, the LUTC program was probably the only high impact sales training available from an accredited higher education institution (that focused on financial services).

[quote=Put Trader] One would think that somebody who had been "moderating the online courses for several years" would be aware of a new development at the American College before the rest of us.[/quote]

Most people would think, but since you're not among the thinkers...

I already have plenty of education. I don't visit TAC's web site very often, except when I need to. Today, I sent a link to a prospective student and I noticed the changes.

Unlike you, the crack addict, I actually share new information with others. A rising tide lifts all boats, which is why I help rookies.

I haven't read a single post by you that helped anyone, unless you count the laughter you cause. Every court needs a jester, and you're it.

[quote=Put Trader] Just what does it mean to "moderate" an online course Roger?  Is it a lot like reading message boards but not contributing--or contributing for that matter.  Are you moderating this forum too?[/quote]

Are you brain dead?

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=Put Trader] One would think that
somebody who had been "moderating the online courses for several years"
would be aware of a new development at the American College before the
rest of us.[/quote]

Most people would think, but since you're not among the thinkers...

I already have plenty of education. I don't visit TAC's web site very often, except when I need to. Today, I sent a link to a prospective student and I noticed the changes.

Unlike you, the crack addict, I actually share new information with others. A rising tide lifts all boats, which is why I help rookies.

I haven't read a single post by you that helped anyone, unless you count the laughter you cause. Every court needs a jester, and you're it.

[quote=Put Trader] Just what does it mean to "moderate" an online course Roger?  Is it a lot like reading message boards but not contributing--or contributing for that matter.  Are you moderating this forum too?[/quote]

Are you brain dead?

[quote=Put Trader]
Pathetic response, absolutely pathetic.

***drivel snipped***
[/quote]

I agree, you are pathetic. Go smoke.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

"..... high impact sales training of the LUTC program ...."*

[/quote]

* tacky plaid sports coat not included in tuition cost.

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=Roger Thornhill]

"..... high impact sales training of the LUTC program ...."*

[/quote]

* tacky plaid sports coat not included in tuition cost.

[quote=stanwbrown]* tacky plaid sports coat not included in tuition cost.[/quote]

You must be looking for a replacement for your threadbare tacky plaid sports coat.

Ask Put...he has several. He could loan you one until you save up enough to buy your own.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=stanwbrown]* tacky plaid sports coat not included in tuition cost.[/quote]

You must be looking for a replacement for your threadbare tacky plaid sports coat.

Ask Put...he has several. He could loan you one until you save up enough to buy your own.

[/quote]

Yeah, that's it. I don't own a "Bob, the insurance guy" bright pink and green plain sport coat because I can't afford one.

Say, the insurance guy in "Groundhog Day", did you get paid to do that, or was it a freebie?

[quote=stanwbrown]Yeah, that’s it. I don’t own a “Bob, the insurance guy” bright pink and green plain sport coat because I can’t afford one.

Say, the insurance guy in "Groundhog Day", did you get paid to do that, or was it a freebie?

[/quote]

So my advice was spot on. Go borrow a coat, boy.

[quote=Put Trader]

[quote=stanwbrown][quote=Roger Thornhill]

<span =“post”>"… high impact sales training of the LUTC program …"<span =“post”>

[/quote]

tacky plaid sports coat not included in tuition cost.

I'm bustin' a gut laughin'

I need some tissue...Now Melissa wants to know why I'm laughing. My whole office will be in here soon.

I'm bustin' a gut laughin'

I need some tissue...Now Melissa wants to know why I'm laughing. My whole office will be in here soon.

[quote=Put Trader]What a sad-sack place that must be.  A certifiable cretin sitting in the corner laughing as if he has lost his mind while the fat clerk stares in disbelief.
[/quote]

Is that what you imagine when you take a hit on the ol' crack pipe, boy? 

Melissa is 5'10" and she might weigh 130. She did the www.hotornot.com thing last year, and ranked above a 9. I think she runs about 6 or 7 miles per day. She probably knows more about this business than you do, too, and she's just my assistant.

She just rolled her eyes when I told her what you posted. Okay, gotta go. Mel's got my next appointment waiting on me in conference room 2. Dosvidaniya, crack boy.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=Put Trader]What a sad-sack place
that must be.  A certifiable cretin sitting in the corner laughing
as if he has lost his mind while the fat clerk stares in disbelief.
[/quote]

Is that what you imagine when you take a hit on the ol' crack pipe, boy? 

Melissa is 5'10" and she might weigh 130. She did the www.hotornot.com thing last year, and ranked above a 9. I think she runs about 6 or 7 miles per day. She probably knows more about this business than you do, too, and she's just my assistant.

She just rolled her eyes when I told her what you posted. Okay, gotta go. Mel's got my next appointment waiting on me in conference room 2. Dosvidaniya, crack boy.

[quote=Mojo] [quote=Put Trader] [quote=stanwbrown][quote=Roger Thornhill]

"..... high impact sales training of the LUTC program ...."*

[/quote]

* tacky plaid sports coat not included in tuition cost.

[/quote]

Were you at that NAIFA meeting on Long Island?
[/quote]

Stop it! You mean insurance bigots.

[/quote]

Does that make me and anti-insurite? I'll reexamine my soul on that one. I enjoy your posts too much to want to be on the wrong side of you. Perhaps there's some sensitivity training I could attend? <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=Put Trader]What a sad-sack place that must be.  A certifiable cretin sitting in the corner laughing as if he has lost his mind while the fat clerk stares in disbelief.
[/quote]

Is that what you imagine when you take a hit on the ol' crack pipe, boy? 

Melissa is 5'10" and she might weigh 130. She did the www.hotornot.com thing last year, and ranked above a 9. I think she runs about 6 or 7 miles per day. She probably knows more about this business than you do, too, and she's just my assistant.

She just rolled her eyes when I told her what you posted. Okay, gotta go. Mel's got my next appointment waiting on me in conference room 2. Dosvidaniya, crack boy.

[/quote]

I’m sure I’m not the only one here impressed to find someone with a fantasy life as well developed as Put and Tellmenotruth have. You three belong in the DSM-IV 

[quote=Put Trader]  
Yep, most highly qualfied business women post their picture on
hotornot.com–I’m sure Babblinglooney does it several times a year.


 What a joke this guy is.

[/quote]



I am going to post a picture on Hotornot.com of Willie Sutton with the
title “Putsy Trader aka  John Dillinger.” Did you know, one of
these men,  when asked why he robbed banks, replied “because
that’s where the money is.”  Hint: 
Ask any nearby Gowanus Lily of the brook if she has "white negro"
family ties. I am a cookin in Crooklyn, one potato, two potatoe (VP
spelling)…

[quote=stanwbrown] 

Does
that make me and anti-insurite? I’ll reexamine my soul on that one. I
enjoy your posts too much to want to be on the wrong side of you.
Perhaps there’s some sensitivity training I could attend? <o:p></o:p>

[quote=Put Trader]

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=Put Trader] One would think that
somebody who had been "moderating the online courses for several years"
would be aware of a new development at the American College before the
rest of us.[/quote]

Most people would think, but since you're not among the thinkers...

I already have plenty of education. I don't visit TAC's web site very often, except when I need to. Today, I sent a link to a prospective student and I noticed the changes.

Unlike you, the crack addict, I actually share new information with others. A rising tide lifts all boats, which is why I help rookies.

I haven't read a single post by you that helped anyone, unless you count the laughter you cause. Every court needs a jester, and you're it.

[quote=Put Trader] Just what does it mean to "moderate" an online course Roger?  Is it a lot like reading message boards but not contributing--or contributing for that matter.  Are you moderating this forum too?[/quote]

Are you brain dead?

[quote=Mojo] 

 maybe the
Cut&paste-negatronizer 

[/quote]



SuperMenso (as he fingers another boiled peanut): “Oooooh noooo HE
didn’t. Did HE say negatronizer. I bet he doesn’t know all the
different jobs I’ve done done. He probably doesn’t even know I had my
picture taken with Jackie Chan (well, he looked like Jackie…and it
isnt my fault my Kinder-Portrait employee discount hadn’t kicked in
yet…or I’d have that nega-ga-ga, the proof for proof) Wait til I tell
him that. I bet he hasn’t even taken the time to read all my posts yet.
Dumb ass.”

[quote=joedabrkr]



And are you just another old fool who’s lived in the world of useless
bloated overhead(er I mean Sr. VP of Administration and ordering
pencils) who thinks he has any true grasp of reality to dispense to the
rookies?

[/quote]



Forget me–think of yourself.  Could you, Joe, benefit if you
served on an NASD committee that dealt with ways to deflect predatory
lawyers, or joined a roundtable that met two or three times a year to
brainstorm whatever was on your mind?



How about this.  If you had been offered a chance to accept the
challenges of a management role would you be a bloated useless
individual, or would you be capable of contributing.  Don’t answer
by sidestepping the issue–the premise of my question is if you had
taken the path that I took would you be well rounded, experienced,
knowledgeable?  Or would you be nothing more than bloated useless
senior management?



Can you grasp the vacantness of an argument that is based on “The more
experience you have the less you understand” and goes from there?

[quote=Put Trader] Yep, most highly qualfied business women post their picture on hotornot.com--I'm sure Babblinglooney does it several times a year.[/quote]

If you've got it, flaunt it. All my girls are hot.

[quote=Put Trader]WAIT, did you say you have a client waiting in conference room 2? I thought you did all your work at the end of twelve mile long driveways that intersect rural routes thirty miles from town?[/quote]

I did. Followed by one more in conference room 1. Then I had lunch with a key center of influence, and one more meeting in my office. Now I'm finished for the day.

I never said I did all my work in the hinterlands. That's your bad memory failing on you.[quote=Put Trader]What a joke this guy is.[/quote]

Jokes on you, crack boy.

[quote=stanwbrown]You three belong in the DSM-IV  [/quote]

I have no desire to join you in your club of wack jobs.

Can you boys stop fighting for a moment to help a new woman who is entering into the finance business? SmithBarney has offered me a position... then AG Edwards calls and says "... we allow you to take your clients with you and remember we allow you to sell any financial products...". Now I am confused. Could someone kindly tell me what would be the better choice of the two? Or is it simply all based on my performance and truly not much more from any company? I am a brand junkie, so I am drawn to the larger firms... am I being foolish?

Thanks

Oh yes... I am an educated business woman and curiousity even got the best of me... I wonder if I am hotornot? Yes we all want to be admired... don't we?

[quote=homesbn]

Can you
boys stop fighting for a moment to help a new woman who is entering
into the finance business? SmithBarney has offered me a position…
then AG Edwards calls and says “… we allow you to take your clients
with you and remember we allow you to sell any financial products…”.
Now I am confused. Could someone kindly tell me what would be the
better choice of the two? Or is it simply all based on my performance
and truly not much more from any company? I am a brand junkie, so I am
drawn to the larger firms… am I being foolish?

Thanks

Oh yes... I am an educated business woman and curiousity even got the best of me... I wonder if I am hotornot? Yes we all want to be admired... don't we?

[quote=homesbn]

Can you
boys stop fighting for a moment to help a new woman who is entering
into the finance business? SmithBarney has offered me a position…
then AG Edwards calls and says “… we allow you to take your clients
with you and remember we allow you to sell any financial products…”.
Now I am confused. Could someone kindly tell me what would be the
better choice of the two? Or is it simply all based on my performance
and truly not much more from any company? I am a brand junkie, so I am
drawn to the larger firms… am I being foolish?

Thanks

Oh yes... I am an educated business woman and curiousity even got the best of me... I wonder if I am hotornot? Yes we all want to be admired... don't we?

Remember Mojo has the emotional age of about 6 or 7.



His advice is worth precisely zero.  He is an insurance guy who
prides himself on the fact that he doesn’t know schidt about the
securities industry.

[quote=Mojo]
For complete aggregate branding you have to love Smith Barney. In the long successful run, Smith Barney would be my choice on the weft and right coasts. In the heartland, I plead ignorance. I know some hot spots where Indy's swing for the fences. I wouldn't be against asking for region specific advice if I were in your shoes.

Most producers will tell you that an offer on the table ready to ink are the smartest cards to bet on. You have a winning hand right now. Since this is your life "we" are betting on - what's wrong with accepting the opportunity to consider the offer from SB where you pencil in a date in 2 weeks time while you mull it over. This would give you time to meet with AGE management and talk to some 4-5 year players to gauge how they like the firms deliverables. You should do the same with SB. It's not about the money...it's about the personalities and how they match your strengths and weaknesses that will likely drive the results - money, peer relationships, and increasing your competitive edge. Good luck.
[/quote]

Well written, Mojo.

I'm in the heartland for most of the year. The wirehouse RRs I know around here that are doing the best are with AGE. One of the best closers I've ever known hangs his hat there. There's one Top Gun over at ML, but he's doing 95% fees, which is just plain stupid giving away all that money to ML. There's two big fish at USB, but they get cursed at daily by their largest account (he's a client of mine, I've heard him yelling at them). They lost $30,000,000+ of his money one year. He joked "I need to buy more life insurance, because I'm going to have to die to replace thirty million!" (that was less than 10% of his net worth, to put things in perspective -- he ain't broke).

If you've never practiced in the craft of advice before, do like Mojo suggested, and jump in with both feet. Being an indy from scratch is a tougher row to hoe.

[quote=Put Trader]Remember Mojo has the emotional age of about 6 or 7.

His advice is worth precisely zero.  He is an insurance guy who prides himself on the fact that he doesn't know schidt about the securities industry.
[/quote]

The above is more neurotic projection.

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=joedabrkr]

And are you just another old fool who's lived in the world of useless bloated overhead(er I mean Sr. VP of Administration and ordering pencils) who thinks he has any true grasp of reality to dispense to the rookies?
[/quote]

Forget me--think of yourself.  Could you, Joe, benefit if you served on an NASD committee that dealt with ways to deflect predatory lawyers, or joined a roundtable that met two or three times a year to brainstorm whatever was on your mind?

Regarding the above, I don't know that I'd benefit directly other than perhaps feeling as if I was providing some service to the broader community in my profession, and perhaps it might be interesting.  Unless my 'brainstorms' were truly meaningful, the greatest benefit to participating in such a committee would be that it would provide a couple days away from the office and a nice hotel room on the cuff.  Frankly, I'd rather spend that time on the golf course or working ot help my clients....

How about this.  If you had been offered a chance to accept the challenges of a management role would you be a bloated useless individual, or would you be capable of contributing.  Don't answer by sidestepping the issue--the premise of my question is if you had taken the path that I took would you be well rounded, experienced, knowledgeable?  Or would you be nothing more than bloated useless senior management?

Perhaps you have a point.  Truth is as the owner of my own indy branch-as of about 30 days ago-I am now in 'management', though for the time being I'm managing only myself and large stacks of paper,  whilst studying for my series 24.   (66 out of the way as you may recall)  In reality, not sure I would have ever accepted an order to be in management in a traditional wirehouse or regional format.  Too damn much politics, too many directives from above by folks trying to shove inferior products and artificial goals upon you.  Too many damn conference calls.  I just don't have patience for that, and don't know how you put up with it.

Can you grasp the vacantness of an argument that is based on "The more experience you have the less you understand" and goes from there?

Put I'm merely suggesting that you don't know what life on the front lines is really like any more....you've been too far away from too long.  How to best prepare for the series 24, however, or waht the failure rates might be, or what the NASD's latest stance might be on reforming annuities or the arbitration process...you know far more about that than I.......
[/quote]

[quote=Put Trader]Remember Mojo has the emotional age of about 6 or 7.

His advice is worth precisely zero.  He is an insurance guy who prides himself on the fact that he doesn't know schidt about the securities industry.
[/quote]

Actually Put I thought his advice was pretty accurate and well presented.

IMHO, AGE is superior ethically and a more pleasant place to work.....SSB is better though if you think you're going to pursue the really big fish.

[quote=joedabrkr]Actually Put I thought his advice was pretty accurate and well presented.

IMHO, AGE is superior ethically and a more pleasant place to work.....SSB is better though if you think you're going to pursue the really big fish.[/quote]

Another great post, Joe.

[quote=joedabrkr]

Actually Put I thought his advice was pretty accurate and well presented.

IMHO, AGE is superior ethically and a more pleasant place to work.....SSB is better though if you think you're going to pursue the really big fish.

Whew!

Thanks... I'll go with my first instinct as it usually proves fruitful.

Hate to pick sides here, but the only reason I am being offered positions at highly reputible companies is because of my education... it opens doors.

[quote=homesbn]

Whew!

Thanks... I'll go with my first instinct as it usually proves fruitful.

Hate to pick sides here, but the only reason I am being offered positions at highly reputible companies is because of my education... it opens doors.

Somewhere Mojo wrote that if you’re trying to land huge business your
chances would be enhanced if your business card said Smith Barney
rather than AG Edwards.



That indicates a lack of appreciation for the similiarity of the nation’s larger firms–including AG Edwards.



What Mojo’s statement suggests is that sophisticated investors are
swayed by the name recognition factor on a business card–which is
nonsense.



Among sophisticated investors the name AG Edwards quite possibly
carries more gravitas–a slightly smaller firm that would
(theoretically) be more responsive to the needs (demands) of a client.



If there is an impression conveyed by the name on your business card it
is among the retail investors–where Merrill is lead dog and virtually
every other name in the street is an also ran.

[quote=Put Trader]Somewhere Mojo wrote that if you’re trying to land huge business your
chances would be enhanced if your business card said Smith Barney
rather than AG Edwards.



That indicates a lack of appreciation for the similiarity of the nation’s larger firms–including AG Edwards.



What Mojo’s statement suggests is that sophisticated investors are
swayed by the name recognition factor on a business card–which is
nonsense.



Among sophisticated investors the name AG Edwards quite possibly
carries more gravitas–a slightly smaller firm that would
(theoretically) be more responsive to the needs (demands) of a client.



If there is an impression conveyed by the name on your business card it
is among the retail investors–where Merrill is lead dog and virtually
every other name in the street is an also ran.

[/quote]



Homesbn, take my advice and get to know both places…keep asking questions and evaluating answers.



Putsy, did you ponder the probability that when I take every advantage
of charitable gift tax benefits, its parts and sum are more then you
make each year. My strategy will replenish itself about every 10 years
. Unlike yourself.



Out of coffee. What kind of rennaisance would allow that. The blowdryer
started up again. There may be time for another game of checkers,
champ. Tiddlywinks?



In reference to a childs education and the summary effects of love:



My wife and I crunched the numbers for the public school district in
our 'hood. The pro’s were cost and standing. The local schools rank in
the top 1 percentile in the country and continue to be off the charts
for the state. One of the advantages of living on my street. When
everything was weighed, we opted for the private school ($16K a year
starting from K-8 for the first child – btw, they do offer needs-based
scholarships for those with low 6 figure incomes - let me know if the
foster parenting thing works out - I sleep close to one of the board
members). The essence of what we boiled down was that the amount of
time we would have to spend on private tutoring and lessons would
outstrip the benefit of saving a few sheckles. The reward is that we
pay a fee to assure our quality time is free of the stresses that cloud
some peoples judgements. Our worry, is as always, the parents of highly
driven children and the true motivations for their childrens best
interests. I am sure you can relate like logics to your time spent
calculating the benefits and risks of  table scraps, dry or
canned, and the scoopable consequences for your loved ones.

[quote=Mojo]



Homesbn, take my advice and get to know both places…keep asking questions and evaluating answers.



[/quote]



Let me make a note of this.  Mojo is suggesting that somebody
considering a job should get to know both places and ask questions.



That’s so insightful that perhaps it should be embroidered onto pillows–I’ll bet that Homesbn never thought of it.



Let’s say it again, "Get to know both places and ask questions"



We are lucky to have been here today to learn that.

[quote=Put Trader] What draws my point of view is often the ridiculous nature of another's point of view.[/quote]

Incorrect. You're just a very disagreeable person. You prefer conflict. This is why you hever have been, and never will be a Top Gun Producer. You may be a dinosaur in age, but you're a rank amateur in experience, because you've repeated your freshman year of failure, over and over, Dilbert.[quote=Put Trader] Mojo and Roger are NOT in the securities industry--they're in the insurance industry. They came from that ridiculous site--all they know about AG Edwards and/or Smith Barney is that they are brokerage houses where they might have been able to go to work had they not dropped out of school.[/quote]

Incorrect. I've been in the securities business a long time.

And I didn't come from any site. I was posting on this forum before you learned how to use your lobotomy box, chiam yankel.

The drop out drivel is pure neurotic projection. This happens to people who smoke too much crack.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=Put Trader] What draws my point of view is often the ridiculous nature of another’s point of view.[/quote]

Incorrect. You're just a very disagreeable person. You prefer conflict. This is why you hever have been, and never will be a Top Gun Producer. You may be a dinosaur in age, but you're a rank amateur in experience, because you've repeated your freshman year of failure, over and over, Dilbert.

[/quote]

Ah, a "Top Gun Producer."  Are you a Sergent or a Captain?  If you were brighter, or if you had actually sat in college level classrooms, you would understand that cliche driven attempts at motivation are ridiculous.

[quote=Roger]

[quote=Put Trader] Mojo and Roger are NOT in the securities industry--they're in the insurance industry.  They came from that ridiculous "Top Gun Producer" site--all they know about AG Edwards and/or Smith Barney is that they are brokerage houses where they might have been able to go to work had they not dropped out of school.[/quote]

Incorrect. I've been in the securities business a long time.

And I didn't come from any site. I was posting on this forum before you learned how to use your lobotomy box, chiam yankel.

[quote=Put Trader] Ah, a "Top Gun Producer."  Are you a Sergent or a Captain?  If you were brighter, or if you had actually sat in college level classrooms, you would understand that cliche driven attempts at motivation are ridiculous.[/quote]

If I were any brigher, the sun would have competition, crack boy.

Sitting in college level class rooms has grown boring. I prefer to stand up at the front of the class, interacting with students as an experienced veteran-turned-teacher should. Afterall, I was invited.

The best should give back, in this way. Lifelong members of academia can't speak from experience, but I can.

[quote=Put Trader] How long is a long time?  I have no doubt that you passed your Series 6 and 63 exams after several attempts--but that's not really the "securities business" it's the life insurance business with a side fund.[/quote]

Series 6, 7, 8, 24, 26, 63, 65....all passed on the first try with scores in the high 90s. I actually studied for the Series 6, because I didn't know any better. I studed for the 7 for two hours. Never studied for the 65.

[quote=Put Trader] Been posting on this forum since before I knew how to use......  That's curious since the date next to your name is a week or so ago.[/quote]

You have absolutely no imagination whatsoever. I've been on this forum before, but with different aliases. Those who know me, they know the names.

[quote=Put Trader] That crack will make time go by sooooooo slowly--but you really have not been posting on this forum very long at all.[/quote]

Compared to you? I'm a veteran. You're just cannon fodder.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

Series 6, 7, 8, 24, 26, 63, 65…all
passed on the first try with scores in the high 90s. I actually studied
for the Series 6, because I didn’t know any better. I studed for the 7
for two hours. Never studied for the 65.

[quote=Put Trader] Merrill Lynch had 157 people take Series 65 before somebody finally passed--and you didn't study for it, yet scored in the high 90s?[/quote]

Let me guess, you were test taker number 156?

The test was very easy. All of them were, to me. I'm a test taker. I read a book once, and can take a test years later, and do well. It's one of my gifts that allows me to be super productive during the day, without having to work as many hours as others do.

I'm the guy that showed up the first day of class for the syllabus, then showed up for the mid-terms and final, and got an A.

Roger,

Seriously.  I think Put Trader sucks just as much as most others do on this forum, but honestly...your statements are ridiculous, and EVEN IF the were true, which they cannot be, you should be aware of how non-credible they make you sound. 

You passed the 65 w/o studying.  How'd you even know what was on it?  You are letting Put's drivel get into your head, and it's making you look like a liar and a idiot.  Chill out. 

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

The test was very easy. All of them were,
to me. I’m a test taker. I read a book once, and can take a test years
later, and do well. It’s one of my gifts that allows me to be super
productive during the day, without having to work as many hours as
others do.

I'm the guy that showed up the first day of class for the syllabus, then showed up for the mid-terms and final, and got an A.

[quote=BankFC]

Roger,

Seriously.  I think Put Trader sucks just as much as most others do on this forum, but honestly...your statements are ridiculous, and EVEN IF the were true, which they cannot be, you should be aware of how non-credible they make you sound. 

You passed the 65 w/o studying.  How'd you even know what was on it?  You are letting Put's drivel get into your head, and it's making you look like a liar and a idiot.  Chill out.  [/quote]

I took the 7 on a Monday, the 24 on a Tuesday. I didn't study for the 24, either. I really didn't have time. They all just blur together, after a while. The material is similar.

The 65 is not a tough exam. They've tried to make it tougher, back in 2000, if memory serves, but it's still not a real barrier to entry.

Just because you have a tough time with exams doesn't mean that others share your problem.

[quote=Put Trader] Do you have no pride, as in zero pride?  [/quote]

That's a very poorly written sentence. This is par for the course, in your case, but this one stands out like a turd in the porta pottie.

[quote=Put Trader] There is not a single soul reading this who believes anything you're saying--and it's never good to stand in public screaming, "I'm lying here!" [/quote]

So now you speak for everyone. Hold on while I laugh. *cough*

Do you think that everyone believes you? I don't. Given the lengthy, and growing, thread that is just about what people think of you, I don't need to speak for others.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

I took the 7 on a Monday, the 24 on a
Tuesday. I didn’t study for the 24, either. I really didn’t have time.
They all just blur together, after a while. The material
is similar.

The 65 is not a tough exam. They've tried to make it tougher, back in 2000, if memory serves, but it's still not a real barrier to entry.

Just because you have a tough time with exams doesn't mean that others share your problem.

[quote=Put Trader] Only a guy with zero formal education would think that being a good test taker meant you didn't have to study anything at all.[/quote]

Who said I never had to study? Not I. I said I didn't study for the 24, or the 65. I didn't need to. I know the material. I studied for the 7 for a whopping 2 whole hours. I did study for the 6 and 63, because I didn't know any better, plus my employer had us sit in classes once a week for like 12 weeks.

[quote=Put Trader] Roger, what those of us who are good test takers mean is we can prepare fairly easily--it does not mean that we can walk into exams cold.[/quote]

I walked in cold. Passed. BFD

Reading what you write, I can tell that you struggled and probably had to sit more than once.

[quote=Put Trader] Go back and read what you've written.  You have told people who have taken the exams--many barely passing--that you scored in the high 90s without studying.[/quote]

Unlike you, I don't have to read things twice.

I scored in the high 90s on every license exam I've taken.

[quote=Put Trader] I asked earlier why you have a Series 8--please let us know why you needed to take the eight.[/quote]

To make a point.

[quote=Put Trader] I'd also be interested--and I'm sure Joedabrkr would be too--in what you found to be overlap between Series 7 and Series 24.  I always thought there was very specific vocabulary used in Series 24.[/quote]

You actually had a thought? Wow.

The 24 was the easiest exam I've taken. It was almost the same material as the 26.

I know Joe has no doubts about anything I write.

[quote=Put Trader] Am I wrong, is it just an easy test of everyday topics?  You know, Act of '33 and '34 stuff?[/quote]

You're wrong on a regular basis, so I expect this.

The '40 Act is a much more common subject in my office, although sometimes we mention one from 1911.

Do you know what the theory was behind the '33 Act?

I studied for the 7 for a whopping 2 whole hours.<<<Roger



A college dropout studied for the Series 7 in two hours and scored in the high 90s–like 96%.  Is that what you’re saying?



What did you study for those two hours–which of the 1,000 pages of
text and the 1,000 pages of sample questions did you complete?

[quote=Roger Thornhill][quote=Put Trader] I asked earlier why you have
a Series 8–please let us know why you needed to take the
eight.[/quote]

To make a point.

[/quote]

Is that right?  What kind of a point were you trying to make?  What firm sponsored you for it?  Does a firm who is sponsoring somebody for exams at the Series 8 level assure the regulators that the individual being tested is in fact in their management structure?  What is Series 8 1/2 (eight and one half)?

[quote=Prevaricating Roger] [quote=Put Trader] I'd also be interested--and I'm sure Joedabrkr would be too--in what you found to be overlap between Series 7 and Series 24.  I always thought there was very specific vocabulary used in Series 24.[/quote]

The 24 was the easiest exam I've taken. It was almost the same material as the 26.

I know Joe has no doubts about anything I write.

[/quote]

Is that right, Series 24 is almost the same as Series 26?  Why would somebody sitting for the Series 26 need to know how to be excused from OATS and what happens if you withdraw without permission?

You're wrong on a regular basis, so I expect this.

The '40 Act is a much more common subject in my office, although sometimes we mention one from 1911.

Do you know what the theory was behind the '33 Act?

[quote=Roger Thornhill] [quote=Put Trader] Been posting on this forum
since before I knew how to use…  That’s curious since the
date next to your name is a week or so ago.[/quote]

You have absolutely no imagination whatsoever. I've been on this forum before, but with different aliases. Those who know me, they know the names.

[quote=Put Trader]Is that right? [/quote]

Yep.

[quote=Put Trader]What kind of a point were you trying to make?[/quote]

One you clearly would not understand, but it has offices around the nation laughing at you now. How does that bait taste? ROFLMAO

[quote=Put Trader] What firm sponsored you for it? [/quote]

My B/D, silly boy. *chuckle*

[quote=Put Trader]Does a firm who is sponsoring somebody for exams at the Series 8 level assure the regulators that the individual being tested is in fact in their management structure? [/quote]

I find being in management insufficiently challenging. Management is easier than being a rainmaker. Fortunately, I've avoided running an adult day care center, like where you are today. That would be boring watching you do google searches all day trying to catch up with me.

[quote=Put Trader]What is Series 8 1/2 (eight and one half)?[/quote]

That's what you dream of taking, catcher.
[quote=Put Trader]Is that right, Series 24 is almost the same as Series 26? Why would somebody sitting for the Series 26 need to know how to be excused from OATS and what happens if you withdraw without permission?[/quote]

I found the exams to be very similar. Apprently, you've never taken both.

[quote=Put Trader]Is that right, your firm follows Securities Acts dating back to 1911? What does it provide for--or prohibit. You know, what's the Act of 1911 all about?[/quote]

The best in any field tend to know a few things about history. Your lack of knowledge tells everyone that you're not the best in your field (and the only field one can surmise that you are in is that of a flaming troll).

The fact that you don't know when the first blue sky law was written speaks volumes about how truly ignorant you are, crack boy.[quote=Put Trader]Aside to the boys and girls. Does anybody but me think that Roger has gone 'round the bend? The stress of having me and Stan mock him may have pushed him too far--or maybe he's been smoking crack?

Whatever, it's a remarkable meltdown don't you think? [/quote]

More neurotic projection from put the crack addict.

Are you still doing google and yahoo searches looking for the answer?

Let me ask you again: Do you know what the theory was behind the '33 Act?

I know the answer. I've known it for many years. It's a very simple question to answer. A one or two sentence summary is all that is necessary. Anyone with a Series 6 should know this, but you're still looking. That tells me all I need to know about crack boy putty.

Wait, before you go.



You failed to respond to the following:



1.  What was the point you were attempting to make by taking the
Series 8?  Do you even know what the Series 8 qualified the
candidate to do?  What is the status of the Series 8 today?



2.  Regarding the Series 24.  I specifically asked why a
person sitting for the Series 26 would need to know how to withdraw
from OATS and what would happen if you didn’t withdraw with sufficient
notice.  You responded, “I found the Series 24 to be similar to
the Series 26” which would appear to a person of below average
intelligence as being unresponsive to the question.



3. You mentioned a Securities Act of 1911–something I have never heard
of.  So I called our compliance department and they have
never  heard of it.  One of them called me back saying they
had checked with the NASD and the NASD was unaware of it.  So as
of this moment you have two wirehouse SVPs and somebody at the NASD
wondering what you’re talking about.  Are you bright enough to
enlighten us?



Finally your Act of '33 question.  In November, 1932 liberal
Democrats swept to power and high on their list of reforms was Wall
Street which they saw as the cause of much of what was happening in the
early 1930s.  You may be aware that there was a depression–it was
called The Great Depression and you would have read about it in school
had you not dropped out.



Anyway, in the “Roaring '20s” there was massive fraud in the sale of
securities–quite literally brokerage firms were lyiing about what they
were bringing to market.



The newly empowered Congress initally passed legislation that required
that corporations file registration statements with a government body
prior to engaging in a public offering.  Said registration
statements were to be condensed into prospectuses and prospectuses were
to be provided to anybody who requested one.



In separate legislation Congress created the Securities Exchange
Commission.  HOWEVER they attached other legislation to that bill
and President Roosevelt used one  of his first vetos to cancel the
creation of the SEC.  So the Act of 1933 was passed but there was
no organization to enforce its rules.



The following year–the second session of the 1933 Congress–the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was passed, and when it was President
Roosevelt appointed the first commission with Joseph P Kennedy (father
of JFK, RFK and the fat drunk) as the first chairman.



Over the years the Act of '33 has become known as the "Paper Act"
because it requires the massive amount of paperwork found in the
biz–while the SEC Act of '34 is called the “People Act” because it is
in the '34 legislation that one finds rules about registering
exchanges, firms, and individuals.



What else would you like to know?

Put this is hilarious. It is obvious that you got this explanation from a text book. The style and facts aren't consistent with your normal wording. Are you too stupid to realize this?

Secondly, if you were truly a SR-VP, you would not waste company management and NASD officials time to argue your point on a internet forum.

If you haven't figured it out by now these guys are playing you for a fool and buddy did you swallow the bait!!  No one can waste as much time as you do arguing over insignificant points and be upper management with any company. The more you post on here, the more you expose yourself as being a fraud.

The only question is why you do it. I suspect that only a competent psychiatrist can tell us that.

[quote=Coag]

Put this is hilarious. It is obvious that you got this
explanation from a text book. The style and facts aren’t consistent
with your normal wording. Are you too stupid to realize this?

Secondly, if you were truly a SR-VP, you would not waste company management and NASD officials time to argue your point on a internet forum.

If you haven't figured it out by now these guys are playing you for a fool and buddy did you swallow the bait!!  No one can waste as much time as you do arguing over insignificant points and be upper management with any company. The more you post on here, the more you expose yourself as being a fraud.

The only question is why you do it. I suspect that only a competent psychiatrist can tell us that.

[quote=Coag]

Put this is hilarious. It is obvious that you got this explanation from a text book. The style and facts aren't consistent with your normal wording. Are you too stupid to realize this?

Secondly, if you were truly a SR-VP, you would not waste company management and NASD officials time to argue your point on a internet forum.

If you haven't figured it out by now these guys are playing you for a fool and buddy did you swallow the bait!!  No one can waste as much time as you do arguing over insignificant points and be upper management with any company. The more you post on here, the more you expose yourself as being a fraud.

The only question is why you do it. I suspect that only a competent psychiatrist can tell us that.

[/quote]

Funny, isn't it? I am the puppetmaster!

Watch putty boy bounce up and down on his wee widdle stage!

[quote=Put Trader]Wait, before you go.[/quote]

You sound so desperate. Are you afraid I'll stop paying attention to you, putty boy?

[quote=Put Trader]You failed to respond to the following:[/quote]

Incorrect. I ignored your silly questions and chose not to respond to them.

[quote=Put Trader]1.  What was the point you were attempting to make by taking the Series 8?  Do you even know what the Series 8 qualified the candidate to do?  What is the status of the Series 8 today?[/quote]

I cannot explain it to you. It is beyond your comprehension. This is why everyone is laughing at you right now.

[quote=Put Trader]2.  Regarding the Series 24.  I specifically asked why a person sitting for the Series 26 would need to know how to withdraw from OATS and what would happen if you didn't withdraw with sufficient notice.  You responded, "I found the Series 24 to be similar to the Series 26" which would appear to a person of below average intelligence as being unresponsive to the question.[/quote]

I found the exams to be similiar, enough so that I did not study for the 24, having passed the 26 already. BFD

Your questions are irrelevant. If you want to know the answers, call your compliance department. They apparently know everything there is to know about this business. *cough, cough*

If you can't see the sarcasm dripping of that last paragraph, you're dumber than a rock with lips.

[quote=Put Trader]3. You mentioned a Securities Act of 1911--something I have never heard of.  [/quote]

Of course you haven't, Mr. Encyclopedia. *snicker*

[quote=Put Trader]So I called our compliance department and they have never  heard of it.  One of them called me back saying they had checked with the NASD and the NASD was unaware of it.  So as of this moment you have two wirehouse SVPs and somebody at the NASD wondering what you're talking about.  Are you bright enough to enlighten us?[/quote]

Wow. Your compliance department doesn't know much about the history of securities regulation. I'm shocked....SHOCKED...to find out that I know something they don't. ROFLMAO

Now, knowing more than you, on the other hand, is to be expected.

[quote=Put Trader]Finally your Act of '33 question.  ***snipped copied and pasted text from another web site*** You may be aware that there was a depression--it was called The Great Depression and you would have read about it in school had you not dropped out.[/quote]

I've never dropped out of any school. You cannot prove otherwise, which is why you keep saying the most inane things. Have you taken your meds today?

[quote=Put Trader]Anyway, in the "Roaring '20s" there was massive fraud in the sale of securities--quite literally brokerage firms were lyiing about what they were bringing to market. [/quote]

Your copied and pasted text makes it sound like the 1920s was when securities fraud began. You really should study the subject before again proving that you're completely out of your depth.

In any event, your answer is incorrect (even nonresponsive, as you like to say).

[quote=Put Trader]What else would you like to know?[/quote]

When you breath, do your eyes stop blinking? I can't see how your brain has the power to do both at the same time.

Okay, for the third time:  Do you know what the theory was behind the '33 Act?

I've highlighted the key word in the question, to make it easier for you this time. You'll have to dig deeper than those online help courses you use to cram with. There's even a big HINT in this post, if you're smart enough to notice. Google may or may not be of much help, because you'd have to know what to look for to find the truth, and so far, you haven't been able to cut the mustard.

[quote=Put Trader] Find the textbook.[/quote]

You are afraid, now. You have been exposed.

[quote=Put Trader] I have encylopedic knowlege of Wall Street, I write questions for the tests, I lecture to rookies, I have written training manuals.  [/quote]

Now I know why the tests were so damn easy:  Putty boy wrote them! ROFLMAOSIP

But you don't know the history of securities regulation. Hmmmmmm. I think you're just lying about what you've done.

[quote=Put Trader] I tend to structure things in a very orderly fashion--taking the reader from point a to point b.[/quote]

Now you're high. Are you still doing google searches for the theory, putty boy?

[quote=Put Trader] I am also older than you.  You are too stupid to string together your thoughts--it's not your fault, society wanted you to be dumb so that you were not so much smarter than some of your fellow travellers.[/quote]

Older, but not wiser. As bitter as you sound, you must be very ugly, too. I picture you with that "bitter beer face" from those television ads, with your mouth all puckered up so that it looks like your browneye.

[quote=Put Trader] I am wasting nobody's time but my own.  My work load does not suffer because I spend an hour or so a day playing around with the Internet--so don't worry.[/quote]

I suspect that you're unemployed. Are you in prison?

[quote=BankFC]

Roger,

Seriously.  I think Put Trader sucks just as much as most others do on this forum, but honestly...your statements are ridiculous, and EVEN IF the were true, which they cannot be, you should be aware of how non-credible they make you sound. 

You passed the 65 w/o studying.  How'd you even know what was on it?  You are letting Put's drivel get into your head, and it's making you look like a liar and a idiot.  Chill out. 

[/quote]

Right. He's said some foolish things (B shares with front loads, SMA's with "tolls") but passing the 65 w/o studying? Be serious....

[quote=Put Trader] I am wasting nobody’s time but my own.  My work
load does not suffer because I spend an hour or so a day playing around
with the Internet–so don’t worry.[/quote]



Maybe your procutivity doesn’t suffer because, like many folks in
"Administration" at the wirehouses, you aren’t really doing anything
useful once you get done scheduling your expense account lunches,
sharpening your pencils, and catching up on memo’s and gossip?

[quote=stanwbrown]Right. He's said some foolish things (B shares with front loads, SMA's with "tolls") but passing the 65 w/o studying? Be serious....[/quote]

I never said a B Share has a front load, that was putty boy.

Moving money from one place to another often has a toll. To deny this means you don't do much business.

My firm bought the Dearborn books for the Series 65. They are in PERFECT condition, too, because I didn't crack them. I was too busy making money.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=stanwbrown]Right. He's said some foolish things (B shares with front loads, SMA's with "tolls") but passing the 65 w/o studying? Be serious....[/quote]

I never said a B Share has a front load, that was putty boy.

Moving money from one place to another often has a toll. To deny this means you don't do much business.

My firm bought the Dearborn books for the Series 65. They are in PERFECT condition, too, because I didn't crack them. I was too busy making money.

[/quote]

You're a joke, Rogertheyutz. Everyone here sees clearly you haven't the slightest idea what you're yapping about. You might be a “big man” in the world of greasy, overweight, fashion-challenged insurance salesmen, but here you’re a piker that’s in way, way over his head. The newest newbie in my office knows there’s no “toll” on SMAs and what 12b-1 fees are. Go back to your “Groundhog Day” role…<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=stanwbrown]You're a joke, Rogertheyutz. Everyone here sees clearly you haven't the slightest idea what you're yapping about. You might be a “big man” in the world of greasy, overweight, fashion-challenged insurance salesmen, but here you’re a piker that’s in way, way over his head. The newest newbie in my office knows there’s no “toll” on SMAs and what 12b-1 fees are. Go back to your “Groundhog Day” role…<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />[/quote]

I just woke up to go for my morning run -- since the weather has been so nice, I'll probably get in 8 miles before breakfast -- and look what I find:  stanwbrowneye is posting at 1:20 AM.

Yeah, that's what pikers do: Sleep all day, post all night.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=stanwbrown]You’re
a joke, Rogertheyutz. Everyone here sees clearly you haven’t the
slightest idea what you’re yapping about. You might be a “big man” in
the world of greasy, overweight, fashion-challenged insurance salesmen,
but here you’re a piker that’s in way, way over his head. The newest
newbie in my office knows there’s no “toll” on SMAs and what 12b-1 fees
are. Go back to your “Groundhog Day” role…<o:p></o:p>[/quote]

I just woke up to go for my morning run -- since the weather has been so nice, I'll probably get in 8 miles before breakfast -- and look what I find:  stanwbrowneye is posting at 1:20 AM.

Yeah, that's what pikers do: Sleep all day, post all night.

[quote=Put Trader]

I signed on about 6 and all I saw was a string of posts by Roger Thornhill, running from 7:45 last night until 4 something this morning--you're not getting up for your morning run, you're coming down from your overdose of something.

The fixation with crack is curious.  I have no idea how it makes one behave--anybody know?  Does a crack addict tend to stay wired all night long, or do they go to sleep?
[/quote]

Hey, putty boy, I noticed that you posted virtually every hour, all day long. There's no way your'e a Top Gun Producer.

Who is paying for your crack? Is it your partner in "crime" stanwbrowneye?

Okay, it's been over 26 hours, and putty crack boy has not answered the following question:

Do you know what the theory was behind the '33 Act?

It is interesting that stanbrowneye hasn't chimed in an answer, either. Afterall, he's been around since the dark ages and thinks he knows everything.

puttyndacrack and stanwbrowneye -- can't answer a question if they can't find the answer using google. Isn't that a riot? 

Interesting...

Roger and Put are now fighting.  The space shuttle launch was delayed.  And there are virgins in Thailand.  I am not sure what all of this means...hmmmmmmmm...

[quote=menotellname]Roger and Put are now fighting.  The space shuttle launch was delayed.  And there are virgins in Thailand.  I am not sure what all of this means...hmmmmmmmm...[/quote]

I bet puttyndacrack wishes he could afford some solo vacations to Bangkok.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

Okay, it’s been over 26 hours, and putty crack boy has not answered the following question:

Do you know what the theory was behind the '33 Act?

It is interesting that stanbrowneye hasn't chimed in an answer, either. Afterall, he's been around since the dark ages and thinks he knows everything.

puttyndacrack and stanwbrowneye -- can't answer a question if they can't find the answer using google. Isn't that a riot? 

[quote=Put Trader]I was ignoring the question because laws don't have theories, they have objectives and purposes.  I figured that as a drop out you just didn't know any better, but since you continually make a fool of yourself by asking questions that involve erroneous thinking I'll try to help you.[/quote]

Incorrect. All laws have a theory behind them. I just read your post outloud in front of my securities attorney (he's a practicing member of the firm), and he just shook his head and said "He doesn't know what he's talking about."

I have to agree. You do not know what you're talking about.

[quote=Put Trader]As I said, laws are written to attempt to regulate behavior, so the Securities Act of 1933 was an attempt to regulate the behavior of those who underwrote securities offerings.[/quote]

Nonreponsive. I asked for the theory behind the act. This is VERY BASIC stuff. Any college graduate should be able to at least TRY to come up with something, but you continue to fail.

[quote=Put Trader]Ostensibly the result would be a prevention of fraud, but just like anti-speeding laws it is relatively ineffective.[/quote]

Nonresponsive, poor segue, poor analogy.

[quote=Put Trader]As it turns out the profit motive trumps morality--as your entire existence demonstrates.[/quote]

Ahhhhh....how does that bait taste, puttyndacrack?

"Jealousy is the tribute mediocrity pays to success." - Joe Gandolfo, CLU, Ph.D.

puttyndacrack reeks with envy.

Let me ask you again:  What was the theory behind the '33 Act?

I stand behind my answer that laws do not have theories, they have objectives.



In that post was a series of questions for you–give them a
whirl.  I know you’re not doing it because every one of them is
based on a lie, and so does everybody who reads this forum.



Why do you do that, Roger?  Why lie at all, but especially why lie
in such a way that even with the lies you appear to be a third rate
loser.



I mean if you’re going to lie at least be a war hero or an All American linebacker.



What you’ve done is paint yourself as such a loser that you think lying
that you’re a college drop out who sells life insurance is something to
be proud of.



Impress me, impress us–tell us about the theory behind the Securities
Act of 1933.  The easiest way to humiliate me is to demonstrate my
ignorance instead of ducking and weaving like a drunk in a bar fight.

[quote=Put Trader]I stand behind my answer that laws do not have theories, they have objectives.

***Snipped Inane Drivel***[/quote]

So you refuse to answer a question because you can't find the answer using Google.

Would you bet your life on your answer? Seriously? If a gun was pointed to your head, would you really want to stand by your BS answer?

Try again:  What's the theory behind the '33 Act?

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=Put Trader]I stand behind my answer that laws do not have theories, they have objectives.

Snipped Inane Drivel[/quote]

So you refuse to answer a question because you can't find the answer using Google.

Would you bet your life on your answer? Seriously? If a gun was pointed to your head, would you really want to stand by your BS answer?

Try again:  What's the theory behind the '33 Act?

[quote=Put Trader] Amaze me with your brillance loser--answer your own question and invite me to pick it apart.

***Snipped More Inane and UNread Drivel***[/quote]

Try again:  What's the theory behind the '33 Act?

[quote=Put Trader]



I was ignoring the question because laws don’t have theories, they have

objectives and purposes. I figured that as a drop out you just

didn’t know any better, but since you continually make a fool of

yourself by asking questions that involve erroneous thinking I’ll try

to help you.





[/quote]





As a law school grad, I must say, you really have no idea what you’re

talking about.

[quote=Visigoth] As a law school grad, I must say, you really have no idea what you're talking about. [/quote]

Don't worry, everyone already knows he's FOS.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=Visigoth] As a law school grad, I must say, you really have no idea what you’re talking about. [/quote]

Don't worry, everyone already knows he's FOS.

[quote=Put Trader] Now comes Visigoth claiming that he is a law school graduate--here in cyberspace we can be anything we want to be.  In any case, if he is a law school graduate he is too dumb to pass the bar or he'd be practicing law--right?[/quote]

I've had an attorney in my practice for 10 years. He's a member of the bar in several states (was appointed securities commissioner in one of them).

You're not a lawyer. That's all that matters here.

[quote=Put Trader] I have said that The Securities Act of 1933 did not have a theory, that instead it had objectives and purposes.[/quote]

So you're admitting that you do not know the answer.

[quote=Put Trader] That is a correct answer unless somebody else comes along and tells me the theory--proving me wrong.[/quote]

Incorrect. Proving you wrong is an easy exercise.

[quote=Put Trader] A daisy chain of morons a mile long does not change the fact that what I have said is correct unless somebody can vocalize why it's not.[/quote]

Vocalize? This is a message board, moron.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=Put Trader] I have said that
The Securities Act of 1933 did not have a theory, that instead it had
objectives and purposes.[/quote]

So you're admitting that you do not know the answer.

[quote=Put Trader]Nah, the answer is that the Securities Act of 1933 had objectives and a purpose but no theory.  It is your ignorance of the language that makes you not understand my response.

If you disagree it is incumbant on you to justify your disagreement.
[/quote]

Let me REPEAT: So you're admitting that you do not know the answer.

Everyone on here knew that you didn't, which is why you waffled and attempted to construct a straw man, and lobbed a red herring or two (all batted away, without any effort).

Here's the answer:

The theory behind the '33 Act is known as "the sunlight theory of regulation."

This theory and the material that supports it is in any law course that covers securities regulation. *cough, cough* Hint, hint.

The '33 Act provides for full disclosure of all material facts. "The sunlight theory of regulation" is based on the presumption that if investors are given all of the necessary facts they will make wise investment decisions, or at least better ones that they would, absent all material facts. Lawyers and insiders that comment on such issues have characterized the '33 Act as follows:

"Congress did not take away from the investor his inalienable right to make a fool of himself. It simply attempted to prevent others from making a fool of him."

***What this means to you is that this law is to keep people like puttyndacrack from stealing from you, or your grandmother***

Has this theory proved effective? Most argue it has, because: Those who are forced to undress in public will presumably pay some attention to their figures, both literally and figuratively, no pun intended.

Game, set, match!

Now puttyndacrack can slither back into the hole from whence he came, knowing he's had his arse handed to him (do snakes have an arse? I guess not, so I'm writing figuratively).

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

The theory behind the '33 Act is known as “the sunlight theory of regulation.”

[quote=Put Trader] 



Find the textbook.



I have encylopedic knowlege of Wall Street, I write questions for the
tests, I lecture to rookies, I have written training manuals.  I
tend to structure things in a very orderly fashion–taking the reader
from point a to point b.



I am also older than you.  You are too stupid to string together
your thoughts–it’s not your fault, society wanted you to be dumb so
that you were not so much smarter than some of your fellow travellers.



I am wasting nobody’s time but my own.  My work load does not
suffer because I spend an hour or so a day playing around with the
Internet–so don’t worry.

[/quote]



Oh boy, oh boy, ol’ Put my boy…I wish I would of read this disclaimer
before I blew my horn and stomped my hoof at such a bear-like man.

[quote=Put Trader]

I believe that if you go back to my original discussion of the Act of 1933 you will find that I used the wording "The Act of Full Disclosure."

That you choose to express that as "the sunlight theory" is fine.

***Snipped Irrelevant Drivel***[/quote]

Points of note:

1. puttyndacrack said there's no theory behind the law.

2. I posted said theory, paraphrasing a text from a law class, proving puttyndacrack that he's completely and utterly wrong.

3. puttyndacrack tries to backpeddle, but we all know he's already drowning in the shallow end of the gene pool.

I've kicked your ass, puttyndacrack. Right now, you're flat on your back, covered in your own blood mixed with dirt from repeatedly being beat down to the ground, with my size 11 boot on your larynx, and you're sucking for air like the dying snake you are.

Do you want me to let you up so I can knock you down again?

[quote=Put Trader]

Now comes Visigoth claiming that he is a law school graduate–here in

cyberspace we can be anything we want to be.

[/quote]





Precisely the point about you, projecting your own situation…eh, genius.



[quote=Put Trader]



In any case, if he is a law school graduate he is too dumb to pass the bar

or he’d be practicing law–right?



[/quote]



Why?, I make more money than all but one of my law school classmates

And, unlike you, I freely admit money is one of my big motivators.

[quote=Visigoth]Precisely the point about you, projecting your own situation...eh, genius. [/quote]

I doubt he gets the irony. It's over his head. Like most things.

[quote=Visigoth]And, unlike you, I freely admit money is one of my big motivators.  [/quote]

Widdle ol' puttyndacrack won't admit that he's money motivated because he's never made any. That's a symptom of a failed planner. When they don't, ahem, measure up, using the common yardsticks like money and production, they invent their own.

[quote=Visigoth]


[quote=Put Trader]



In any case, if he is a law school graduate he is too dumb to pass the bar

or he’d be practicing law–right?



[/quote]



Why?, I make more money than all but one of my law school classmates

And, unlike you, I freely admit money is one of my big motivators.

[/quote]



Right, everybody goes through the law school process, moot court,
reading and writing till the wee hours as a way of becoming an
insurance salesman.



Do these fools think that the rest of us live in a vacuum of personal experience?

 [quote=Visigoth]




Why?, I make more money than all but one of my law school classmates

And, unlike you, I freely admit money is one of my big motivators.

[/quote]



The boys and girls are asked to consider this.  Does it sound
credible that an insurance salesman who claims to be a lawyer too would
know how much his law school classmates are pulling down?



I was unaware that our income is part of the public record.



But it sure sounds official–or is it officious–to say, "I make more money than all of my classmates except one."



Which is why we all know that parents are so embarassed when they have
to say, “My son is a lawyer…I certainly wish he was an
insurance salesman.”

[quote=Put Trader] Do these fools think that the rest of us live in a vacuum of personal experience? [/quote]

No, we just think that about you.

[quote=Put Trader] [quote=Visigoth]



Why?, I make more money than all but one of my law school classmates

And, unlike you, I freely admit money is one of my big motivators.

[/quote]



The boys and girls are asked to consider this. Does it sound

credible that an insurance salesman who claims to be a lawyer too would

know how much his law school classmates are pulling down?



I was unaware that our income is part of the public record.



But it sure sounds official–or is it officious–to say, "I make more money

than all of my classmates except one."



Which is why we all know that parents are so embarassed when they have

to say, “My son is a lawyer…I certainly wish he was an

insurance salesman.”

[/quote]





Hey, genius, my father IS an insurance salesman. MDRT, and over 40

years in the BIZ, he managed to make an above average living while

putting three daughters and a son through college and grad school. I

happen to be very proud and thankfull for all his work and support.



Also, I’m not an insurance salesman (though I do hold the license and sell

life insurance in some estate planning cases), I’m not even going to

bother explaining my life or career to you as it truly is none of your

business.



Now, my financial and professional status have, at least, as much

credibility as your claims of genius, experience, and professional

standing.



Finally, your statement:



[quote=Put Trader]



I was ignoring the question because laws don’t have theories, they have

objectives and purposes.



[/quote]



Is pure B.S., keep on talking investments, you seem to have some

knowledge of the field, leave the law (and insurance talk, while I’m at it)

to professionals.



P.S. Unlike others in the forum, I do enjoy your rants, ocassionally you

have made some good points, however your unchecked ego has robbed

you of quite a bit of credibility.

"I do enjoy your rant, ocasionally you have made some good points,
however your unchecked ego has robbed you of quite a bit of
credibility."



Actually I agree with you.  But add to that also that I find his bigotry and sexism to be mighty offensive sometimes too.

Could the 1933 reg be viewed in multiple ways? I mean when two guys talk to the same girl for 30 minutes it is possible they would view her differently.

I think everything the government ever did was based on the objective statement. I know the Air Force has used that since 1950 and suspect everything else established by the governement utilizes this theory. :) Or something like that.

I think during these posts some people dont spend much time writing or reviewing what they write. I am one of those people so often one could view my posts as in depth or just a quick bs statement.

It is late and I hope some of this makes sense?

[quote=joedabrkr]"I do enjoy your rant, ocasionally you have made some good points,
however your unchecked ego has robbed you of quite a bit of
credibility."



Actually I agree with you.  But add to that also that I find his bigotry and sexism to be mighty offensive sometimes too.

[/quote]



Bigotry?  I readily agree that I am biggoted, so are you and every other man and woman you will see on a city street.



The difference is I am not all gobbled up with sensitivity.  As
Limbaugh is fond of saying, "I say what you are too timid to say
yourself."



Only a moron would not wonder if there might not be nothing more, or
less, than genetic differences to explain why Negroes score lower on
any measure of intellect REGARDLESS of where such measures are taken.



I know, I know–they’re not Negroes, they’re African Americans. That,
of course, is nonsense.  A Negro in Germany is not an African
German, or an African American German–he’s a Negro.  I’m a
Caucasian, and the woman four doors down the hall from me is an Asian.



These are perfectly acceptable terms, known as the world’s races.



In this country inner city Negroes score lower on IQ tests than any of
the other inner city races, suburban Negroes score lower than any of
the other suburban race, Negro students at colleges and universties
score lower than students of any other race at those same colleges and
universities…the list is endless.



Why do you suppose that is Joe?  It cannot be environmental 
because the tests are run among people who are from the same
environment.  Diet is the same, homes are the same, parents are
married, parents are educated, parents work at the same
factories–those running the tests go out of their way to standardize
the standardized tests.



It’s also not just in the USA, it’s universal–across the world.  German Caucasians score higher than German Negroes.



I know, I know–the differences are small.  When put on a Bell
Curve all races fall within a range that is not that far apart. 
The problem is that under the bell curve the high range of the Negro
scores is in the same area with the low range of the Asian scores and
the below average range of the Caucasian scores.



Year after year, study after study, in country after country.



Only a fool would not conclude that it’s genetic.  It is possible
to “fix” it with genetic science but in order to embark on the studies
to determine how to go about fixing it one has to come to grips with
the reality that the “cure” is found in the DNA helix.



Science was moving that way in the 1930s, then the world went to war
and there was the discovery of the hideous experiments in the Nazi
camps and the world made a collective agreement to stop any research
that used humans as subjects.



There are some, even to this day.  Things like “Twins raised
apart” studies use humans–but the scientists are not Nazis and the
environment is not a prison camp so it’s acceptable.



Ever looked into the results of Negro twins raised apart?  Yep, as
you would expect the one raised in the inner city was bright as a
stone…and so was their sibling raised in the suburbs.



There is nothing wrong with acknowledging awareness of things around
you.  In fact failure to do so would have to be the sign of a
moron.

[quote=Visigoth]



P.S. Unlike others in the forum, I do enjoy your rants, ocassionally you

have made some good points, however your unchecked ego has robbed

you of quite a bit of credibility.



[/quote]



When somebody has succeeded at everything they ever did–all the way
back to grade school–just telling regular stories comes across as
bragging to those of you who are unaccustomed to success.



When I went to grade school (1-6) it was a big deal to be on the school
patrol.  School patrol boys and girls got to wear a white belt
thing over one shoulder and around the waist-it had a badge and when
the duties were over the belt was rolled up in a special way that was a
secret to the other kids.



It was an honor that was bestowed on fifth and sixth graders based on
your grades and that nebulous thing known as "leadership ability."



Am I ego driven because I tell people that I was chosen as one of the
very few fifth graders?  How about if I layer on that I was the
Captain as a sixth grader?



National Honor Socity?  All district football and baseball? 
President of my fraternity?  Graduated from College?  Top 25%
at OCS?  Made it home alive and in once piece?  Woo’d and wed
a debutant?  Got a Masters?  Both sons have college
degrees?  Chosen to develop regional marketing effort for options
at age 33?  Exceptionally well travelled?  Lucky enough to be
able to afford a great lifestyle in a world class city?  Lower
upper level management with a premier Wall Street firm–hobbled by a
lack of pedigree and degrees from the "right schools."



If somebody has done something, accomplished something, been somewhere
is it wrong to mention that experience out of respect to the listener
who has very little experience?



If somebody says, “I sure wish I could see Red Square” I will respond
"I’ve seen it is–twice in fact, before and after the fall of
Communisim.  I think that the before experience was better–it
might be because the whole place had a spooky image…"



I guess if I were more sensitive I’d simply say, “Me too.”   No doubt that is what a sensitive type like you would do.



As Babe Ruth said, “It ain’t bragging if you do it.”

puttyndacrack is high on crack today.

Anything you say is not true, not credible, according to puttyndacrack, but what he says is true and credible -- as long as you're on crack.

Remember that theory that you didn't know, puttyndacrack? Mr. I_Know_Everything_About_Securities?     

[quote=Put Trader]Lower
upper level management with a premier Wall Street firm–hobbled by a
lack of pedigree and degrees from the “right schools.”[/quote]



Here’s a quick lesson in sales:



Every decision this client makes in his lifetime will be weighted by this short-term sentiment when measuring true motivations.



 This client desires products and services outside his reach- the
brand sensitive nature of this person is most effected by upfront costs
and in retrospect may be haunted by analysis of Life Cycle Costs.
Postioning solutions for this client would demand illustrations that
include calculating the costs associated with cost nodes and the Cost
Breakdown Structure at each time point in a time sequence.



I would lace the geek numbers with a healthy dosing of “his english”,
by wording a peer example of what most like-persons do (don’t kid
yourself…I’d position him in Paul Getty’s shoes) -and why his gene
pool provides enough degrees of seperation to make the best selection.
He would, of course, want the name recognition of the  “Burberry
overcoat” off the rack, the “upfront” economies of scale, but would
quietly scoff at paying a premium for chosing select fabrics and the
premium cost of tailoring associated with handmade garments. Now what
can be certainly proven to the wise investor of overcoats is this --any
Brooks or Burberry factory made garment will yield lower upfront costs
and less transparency then the itemized costs of a premier fitted
product. The large bandwidth of semi-affluent clients drives this “off
the rack” segment of the garment market. The perception of hand
designed runway ready to wear knockoffs keep the retail registers
ringing (187 stores?). There’s the hard to ignore fact that there are
more Puts’ then there are Rockerfeller’s. The Puts’ simply want a chalk
line here and a chalk line there to receive the instant gratification
of a tailored fit. The handmade garment allows for many more
Thanksgiving and Christmas growth adjustments, consequently a lower
lifetime cost or return on investment.



The retail product fails to perform during the future fittings, not
because it lacked the right fabric (pedigree) – it fails because it
lacks sufficient excess fabric. Cost efficiencies wouldn’t allow it in
the retailers paradigm.

[quote=Put Trader]

[quote=Visigoth]



P.S. Unlike others in the forum, I do enjoy your rants, ocassionally you

have made some good points, however your unchecked ego has robbed

you of quite a bit of credibility.



[/quote]



When somebody has succeeded at everything they ever did–all the way
back to grade school–just telling regular stories comes across as
bragging to those of you who are unaccustomed to success.



When I went to grade school (1-6) it was a big deal to be on the school
patrol.  School patrol boys and girls got to wear a white belt
thing over one shoulder and around the waist-it had a badge and when

the duties were over the belt was rolled up in a special way that was a
secret to the other kids.



It was an honor that was bestowed on fifth and sixth graders based on
your grades and that nebulous thing known as "leadership ability."



Am I ego driven because I tell people that I was chosen as one of the
very few fifth graders?  How about if I layer on that I was the
Captain as a sixth grader?



National Honor Socity?  All district football and baseball? 
President of my fraternity?  Graduated from College?  Top 25%
at OCS?  Made it home alive and in once piece?  Woo’d and wed
a debutant?  Got a Masters?  Both sons have college
degrees?  Chosen to develop regional marketing effort for options
at age 33?  Exceptionally well travelled?  Lucky enough to be
able to afford a great lifestyle in a world class city?  Lower
upper level management with a premier Wall Street firm–hobbled by a
lack of pedigree and degrees from the "right schools."



If somebody has done something, accomplished something, been somewhere
is it wrong to mention that experience out of respect to the listener
who has very little experience?



If somebody says, “I sure wish I could see Red Square” I will respond
"I’ve seen it is–twice in fact, before and after the fall of
Communisim.  I think that the before experience was better–it
might be because the whole place had a spooky image…"



I guess if I were more sensitive I’d simply say, “Me too.”   No doubt that is what a sensitive type like you would do.



As Babe Ruth said, “It ain’t bragging if you do it.”

[/quote]



::yawn::

[quote=joedabrkr] ::yawn:: [/quote]

Want some caf to wake you up? Annuity Guy already owes me a Coke.

Put wrote: "Lower upper level management with a premier Wall Street firm--hobbled by a lack of pedigree and degrees from the "right schools.""

This is very telling info on why Put is always calling names, brags ad nauseum, is a bigot, etc.  He's apparently one of those insecure people who blames his personal failures on other than himself.  Poor Put blames his lack of bloodline or right school for hindering his ability to rise higher.  (He even tried to artifically overcome this by marrying a debutant!) He just can't stomach it that maybe his limitations of ability and performance didn't stack up with the many who passed him by, or attained what he did more easily. 

Here's a guy who says he scores so high on his tests, is a Mensa dude, etc., and he just can't "get it" that that doesn't necessarily translate into success.  He hates it that many on these boards are very successful as reps, but were happy to only score in the low 70's on the 7. 

Thanks for sharing, Put.  Very enlightening.  Many others have already commented on your insecurities, but now we have a better idea about how deep they are.

[quote=Duke#1]

Put wrote: “Lower upper level
management with a premier Wall Street firm–hobbled by a lack of
pedigree and degrees from the “right schools.””

This is very telling info on why Put is always calling names, brags ad nauseum, is a bigot, etc.

Put, I know very well what you said.  And, my observation stands, and in fact is reinforced by your new post.

Thank you again for sharing.

[quote=Put Trader]

[quote=Duke#1]

Put wrote: “Lower upper level
management with a premier Wall Street firm–hobbled by a lack of
pedigree and degrees from the “right schools.””

This is very telling info on why Put is always calling names, brags ad nauseum, is a bigot, etc.

BTW, this is why I figured I’d go first - alphabetical order.



Have a nice retirement. You know…if you were to suit up each day, you
could keep the home and bus life going indefinetely…just a thought.

[quote=Roger Thornhill]

[quote=joedabrkr] ::yawn:: [/quote]

Want some caf to wake you up? Annuity Guy already owes me a Coke.