Comments for The Schulzke Brief http://schulzkelaw.com Legal, negotiation and tax counsel for business Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:50:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Is Sharia law now enforceable in the United States? by Spate of "anti-Sharia" bills being introduced in state assemblies in the US - FileFront Gaming Forums http://schulzkelaw.com/is-sharia-law-now-enforceable-in-the-united-states/comment-page-1/#comment-136 Spate of "anti-Sharia" bills being introduced in state assemblies in the US - FileFront Gaming Forums Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:50:02 +0000 http://schulzkelaw.com/?p=184#comment-136 [...] assemblies in the US Maybe they are anticipating this kind of thing happening in the USA? Is Sharia law now enforceable in the United States? ? The Schulzke Brief Sharia law now enforceable in the U.S.? [...] [...] assemblies in the US Maybe they are anticipating this kind of thing happening in the USA? Is Sharia law now enforceable in the United States? ? The Schulzke Brief Sharia law now enforceable in the U.S.? [...]

]]> Comment on Is Sharia law now enforceable in the United States? by Politics: Sharia anybody? http://schulzkelaw.com/is-sharia-law-now-enforceable-in-the-united-states/comment-page-1/#comment-135 Politics: Sharia anybody? Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:29:36 +0000 http://schulzkelaw.com/?p=184#comment-135 [...] does U.K. law. If it’s happening there, it either is already here or will be very soon. Is Sharia law now enforceable in the United States? Reply With Quote + Reply to Thread « Previous Thread | Next [...] [...] does U.K. law. If it’s happening there, it either is already here or will be very soon. Is Sharia law now enforceable in the United States? Reply With Quote + Reply to Thread « Previous Thread | Next [...]

]]> Comment on Is Sharia law now enforceable in the United States? by Ignorance of enemy is risky « Urbanity, by Randall http://schulzkelaw.com/is-sharia-law-now-enforceable-in-the-united-states/comment-page-1/#comment-134 Ignorance of enemy is risky « Urbanity, by Randall Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:32:55 +0000 http://schulzkelaw.com/?p=184#comment-134 [...] Is Sharia law now enforceable in the United States? — The Schulzke Brief [...] [...] Is Sharia law now enforceable in the United States? — The Schulzke Brief [...]

]]> Comment on Dodd-Frank: SEC Whistleblower Facelift by Dodd-Frank & SEC Whistleblowers: What’s in it for you? — Whistleblower Central http://schulzkelaw.com/dodd-frank-sec-whistleblower-facelift/comment-page-1/#comment-132 Dodd-Frank & SEC Whistleblowers: What’s in it for you? — Whistleblower Central Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:42:44 +0000 http://schulzkelaw.com/?p=960#comment-132 [...] *Cross-posted at The Schulzke Brief. [...] [...] *Cross-posted at The Schulzke Brief. [...]

]]> Comment on Dodd-Frank: SEC Whistleblower Facelift by Dodd-Frank bill now before the Senate — Whistleblower Central http://schulzkelaw.com/dodd-frank-sec-whistleblower-facelift/comment-page-1/#comment-131 Dodd-Frank bill now before the Senate — Whistleblower Central Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:47:53 +0000 http://schulzkelaw.com/?p=960#comment-131 [...] and “Consumer Protection” have disappeared from the bill’s title.  My brief analysis of the securities whistleblower provisions, in Act Section 922, tells me that once the bill is [...] [...] and “Consumer Protection” have disappeared from the bill’s title.  My brief analysis of the securities whistleblower provisions, in Act Section 922, tells me that once the bill is [...]

]]> Comment on Dodd-Frank: SEC Whistleblower Facelift by Dodd-Frank H.R. 4173 now before the Senate — The Schulzke Brief http://schulzkelaw.com/dodd-frank-sec-whistleblower-facelift/comment-page-1/#comment-130 Dodd-Frank H.R. 4173 now before the Senate — The Schulzke Brief Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:45:09 +0000 http://schulzkelaw.com/?p=960#comment-130 [...] and “Consumer Protection” have disappeared from the bill’s title.  My brief analysis of the securities whistleblower provisions, in Act Section 922, tells me that once the bill is [...] [...] and “Consumer Protection” have disappeared from the bill’s title.  My brief analysis of the securities whistleblower provisions, in Act Section 922, tells me that once the bill is [...]

]]> Comment on FASB: SocGen’s Kerviel accounting was right? by Floyd Norris http://schulzkelaw.com/fasb-socgens-kerviel-accounting-was-right/comment-page-1/#comment-80 Floyd Norris Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:15:56 +0000 http://schulzkelaw.com/?p=71#comment-80 I have not studied the draft. But by saying a company can put such losses in proforma statements, is not the FASB saying not to put them on the regular statements. Had SocGen done that, I would have had no complaint. By the way, did you notice that SocGen has restated to show that Kerviel made money in some quarters? I have not studied the draft. But by saying a company can put such losses in proforma statements, is not the FASB saying not to put them on the regular statements. Had SocGen done that, I would have had no complaint.
By the way, did you notice that SocGen has restated to show that Kerviel made money in some quarters?

]]> Comment on Lessons from Bear Stearns indictments? Don’t trust anybody or anything. by Old Atlantic http://schulzkelaw.com/lessons-from-bear-stearns-indictments-dont-trust-anybody-or-anything/comment-page-1/#comment-66 Old Atlantic Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:47:05 +0000 http://schulzkelaw.com/?p=64#comment-66 Everyone in this case couldn't pass an exam on what hedged means. When someone says hedged without qualification, it means delta hedged, i.e. against market level. Funds sells call options on SPX and buys SPX so its delta neutral. They say they are hedged. That's standard speak. Are they hedged against volatility? No. You can say its hedged and 5 seconds later says its not hedged against volatility. Its not a contradiction, because when you say its hedged w/o saying specifically against what, it means against market level but doesn't include volatility hedged. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greeks Q: Are you hedged. A: Yes. (only means delta hedged) Q: Are you vega hedged? A: No. Q: Are you delta hedged. A: Yes. Hedged can mean hedged against some variable or parameter indicated by context or by prior discussion or understanding. If someone says hedged to customers, he is not speaking about being vega hedged. How many customers know what vega is? Can these prosecutors pass a test on the Greeks in Black Scholes? They have no idea what the words mean or how they are used in context. They should be given an instant on the spot written exam on different meaning of hedged and their answers posted on the internet. Then the indictment should be dropped. Everyone in this case couldn’t pass an exam on what hedged means. When someone says hedged without qualification, it means delta hedged, i.e. against market level.

Funds sells call options on SPX and buys SPX so its delta neutral. They say they are hedged. That’s standard speak.

Are they hedged against volatility? No. You can say its hedged and 5 seconds later says its not hedged against volatility. Its not a contradiction, because when you say its hedged w/o saying specifically against what, it means against market level but doesn’t include volatility hedged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greeks

Q: Are you hedged.

A: Yes. (only means delta hedged)

Q: Are you vega hedged?

A: No.

Q: Are you delta hedged.

A: Yes.

Hedged can mean hedged against some variable or parameter indicated by context or by prior discussion or understanding. If someone says hedged to customers, he is not speaking about being vega hedged. How many customers know what vega is?

Can these prosecutors pass a test on the Greeks in Black Scholes? They have no idea what the words mean or how they are used in context. They should be given an instant on the spot written exam on different meaning of hedged and their answers posted on the internet. Then the indictment should be dropped.

]]> Comment on SocGen, Kerviel & True and Fair View by Gaute Solheim http://schulzkelaw.com/socgen-kerviel-true-and-fair-view/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Gaute Solheim Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:31:26 +0000 http://schulzkelaw.com/socgen-kerviel-true-and-fair-view/#comment-8 "The gains and losses were all a single product of the rogue behavior of a single trader who was discovered and ushered out of the company very early in 2008." I am not able to follow your logic here. If the rogue behaviour had resulted in record gains in early 2008, and he had been ushered out of the company for trading outside his limits, would it then be more "true and fair" to put all the gains from all the different trades he did in the 2007 result since they were "a single product"? I have a hard time figuring out where in the IFRS a persons intent for "rogue behaviour" is treated as a cause to bundle together independent trades that otherwise would be handled independently. As you understand I am not convinced yet. I do agree with you that IFRS is a step in the right direction, but I still suspect that SG stepped out of line here. Gaute “The gains and losses were all a single product of the rogue behavior of a single trader who was discovered and ushered out of the company very early in 2008.”
I am not able to follow your logic here. If the rogue behaviour had resulted in record gains in early 2008, and he had been ushered out of the company for trading outside his limits, would it then be more “true and fair” to put all the gains from all the different trades he did in the 2007 result since they were “a single product”?
I have a hard time figuring out where in the IFRS a persons intent for “rogue behaviour” is treated as a cause to bundle together independent trades that otherwise would be handled independently. As you understand I am not convinced yet.

I do agree with you that IFRS is a step in the right direction, but I still suspect that SG stepped out of line here.

Gaute

]]>