-1 for trying to gin up more controversy over their Freddie Mac story today by continuously calling their actions "betting." You can use the term once or twice to get the idea across, but to keep using it makes it sound like they went to Vegas and put down money on the tables. Freddie Mac made a business decision, which, risky as it may have been, is not the same as a bet. So stop continuously calling it a "bet"

1/30/2012 9:49:03 AM

that's really digging deep just to get a bump

1/30/2012 10:35:02 AM

if you listened to it on the way in this morning, it really stuck out. they talked about it at least 4 or 5 times in the hour and a half I was listening to it on my commute. They had one in-depth story, one summary, and a few other mentions as "headlines". In every headline they used the word "bet", in the summary, they exclusively used the word "bet", and in the story they predominately used the word "bet" except when they actually described what the "bet" was, namely a business move. very deceptive/sensational word choice, and it can't simply be an accident

1/30/2012 11:33:37 AM

when you start complaining about a word being used to describe a situation in which the use of said word is wholly applicable, you've lost

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:18 PM. Reason : let's all rush to the defense of Freddie]

1/30/2012 2:17:12 PM

it's applicable only in an analogy. But to keep using it like they did loses the element of analogy and makes one think it is literal. Like those fuckers are calling their bookies and saying "put 10million on bob not refinancing!"

1/30/2012 10:00:07 PM

Every trade you make in the market is a bet on a future outcome. The word bet isn't owned by the gambling community.

Even if it were, any "investment" you make is easily considered a gamble because there is no sure investment just as there is no sure bet.


For fucks sake, of all things to get your yellow flag panties in a wad over.

1/30/2012 10:15:30 PM

which is why I wouldn't raise an eyebrow over them using the word sparingly. but to use it exclusively? absurd and sensationalist

2/1/2012 5:13:11 PM

I can't think of any circumstance where the word "bet" is a sensational substitution for another word.

2/1/2012 6:11:32 PM

in this case, it most certainly is. it's literally saying they are sitting down at the tables in Vegas and saying "10million on Bob Smith not refinancing." That's entirely different than what they actually did. They engaged in business transactions that lessened their exposure to losses from foreclosures while still maintaining an income stream. That's not a bet. That's a business transaction. Their subsequent behaviour of making it harder for people to refi is certainly questionable, especially given their position, but that doesn't make the transaction a "bet."

seriously, no one say that someone making a business decision is completely the same as gambling. There are elements that are similar, especially with regards to risk, but the two simply are not identical. We can use the word "bet" to get the point across about some of the aspects of it, but to use it exclusively to describe the actions is dishonest.

[Edited on February 1, 2012 at 6:16 PM. Reason : ]

2/1/2012 6:14:40 PM

This is a fucking waste of time. You do this shit over and over again. Come in to a thread all huffy and puffy over the most inane tripe.

Get fucking over it. No one here has the same opinion you do over this innocuous shit.

I didn't even read that last post you put up here I care so little about this.

Look, just fucking put this shit in google

site:ritholtz.com bet

and see how many times an investment professional refers to a trade as a bet. Your opinion is stupid. You are stupid. Die at you earliest convenience.

[Edited on February 1, 2012 at 6:32 PM. Reason : .]

2/1/2012 6:31:03 PM

ITT, Chance argues that slang in an industry reveals the connotation of words in the common vernacular

2/1/2012 6:34:14 PM

There is no argument about it. You made a stupid fucking comment that at a minimum no one gave a shit about and at most you were just wrong. Shit happens.

2/1/2012 7:32:53 PM

yep. I'm wrong. Freddie Mac really is going to Vegas every day and making bets. yep.

2/1/2012 10:00:53 PM

Only retards like you heard the term 'bet' and literally the motherfuckers were playing MBS roulette.

2/1/2012 10:04:41 PM

if they said it only once, sure. they said it over 10 times in the main report, and used the term almost exclusively in it. then, in their other references to it, they used the term "bet" exclusively, usually two or three times, with no other explanation about how it was a "bet". how would YOU interpret that? I interpreted it, at a bare minimum, to mean that they were using the term to sway opinion on the story in a particular way. and this attempt was pointless, because the story was powerful enough on its own.

[Edited on February 1, 2012 at 10:17 PM. Reason : ]

2/1/2012 10:16:57 PM

Ok chief, which term would you use? Which term, other than the one that AN ENTIRE FUCKING INDUSTRY HAS BEEN USING FOR A LONG TIME, would you use in a story about said industry?

2/2/2012 7:09:11 AM

business deals, investments, whatever. hell, their piece on it this morning was almost exactly how I would ask they do it. They said what happened, they described the deals, and at one point they said "bets, in effect", and they never again used the word "bet." Perfectly acceptable. it gets the point across in the way that an analogy is supposed to. But an analogy fails to be an analogy when you use it exclusively, which is what they were doing earlier in the week.

you also are hung up on "some people in the industry call it a bet all the time". yes, when talking about risk. But when they tell other people what they do, do they call themselves gamblers? No, of course not, because they aren't betting every day at the crap tables. They don't put on their financial reports at the end of the year "made X dollars in bets this year."

2/3/2012 9:04:25 PM

Quote :

"business deals, investments,"

gtfo you intellectual infant

2/3/2012 9:07:48 PM

that's what they fucking are. how the hell can you have a problem with calling a business deal a "business deal"? i mean, shit.

2/3/2012 9:13:52 PM

Quote :

"you also are hung up on "some people in the industry call it a bet all the time". yes, when talking about risk. But when they tell other people what they do, do they call themselves gamblers? No, of course not, because they aren't betting every day at the crap tables. They don't put on their financial reports at the end of the year "made X dollars in bets this year.""

God damnit, I actually went back and read this mind numbing drivel and I wish I wouldn't have.

It's like, everything I have posted here you're reposting the exact same thing I've said but taking ownership of it to support your cause. Only you could do that.

My first post was pointing out how the gambling industry, vegas, etc, doesn't own the god damn word, and what do you post

Quote :

"do they call themselves gamblers? No, of course not"

I just...I don't even...you've restated my fucking argument practically verbatim but you're somehow claiming it as support for what you're trying to post here? Really? You're that out of your element, that lacking for traction here that you're literally just spewing feces onto the keyboard and calling it an argument?

2/3/2012 11:11:14 PM

I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

2/3/2012 11:15:43 PM

And why not...you've failed in everything else in the past 5-10 posts, why not fail in claiming victory as well, right?

2/4/2012 7:36:54 AM

except it wouldn't be failure. You've yet to explain how using a word that doesn't perfectly, 100% describe the actions taking place isn't unusual, yet alone using that word exclusively when there is another word that does describe the action. I;'m sorry that you can't see the writing on the wall. Is it worth launching an investigation? no, of course not. But it is worth calling out when a news organization is playing loose with words in order to push a narrative or try to drum up controversy. I'll do it to Fox, I'll do it to MSNBC, and I'll do it to NPR, and especially NPR.

2/4/2012 5:22:43 PM

Quote :

"100% describe the actions taking place isn't unusual"

What kind of horseshit metric are you trying to conjure here? You flipped your shit over the dumbest of things, no one gave a shit about it other to point out that you're mouth breating about this, and here you are still going on and on.

You're literally the only person in America who gives a fuck that they used the word bet, a word used all up and down the modern day financial sphere. And actually, not that they used the word bet...no, but rather somewhere deep inside that ultra staunch conservative paranoid area most of us call a brain it's that they maybe sorta probably possibly used it just a smidge too much...that they were perhaps kind of nearly sensationalizing things. HOLE EE FUCK. Are you serious?!

2/4/2012 5:42:38 PM

I've flipped nothing. I'm not fuming over here over NPR being a little deceptive. I'm just saying they were being a little deceptive. It's entirely possible to say that they lose a little credibility without being pissed off at them for it. I don't have a dart board in my house with Renee Montagne's and Steve Inskeep's pictures on it. I don't have a punching bag with Bob Edwards' photo on it, either.

2/4/2012 8:08:55 PM

I can't speak of NPR's credibility because every time I attempt to listen to their stations, I can only hear the first portion of each word they say.

2/4/2012 9:31:18 PM

got a little ticked at Garrison Keilor using his show to push a blatantly political message today. not that that is at all surprising. stick to making cute sound effects are arguing with your "mother" on the phone about a practice funeral

2/5/2012 5:34:32 PM

The entire weekend lineup is pretty shitty, but LOL at getting upset by GarriSSSSSSSon Keillor. I didn't know anyone under the age of 60 listened that imitation midwestern bullshit.

NPR has a bias, but it's not what you're thinking.

NPR has a bias towards not upsetting their donors. This is fundamentally different from, say, FOX News, whose only goal is increased viewership for their advertisers. They don't care what their guests say, as long the money keeps rolling in.

NPR plays the same music between stories every day. They ensure that familiar voices are always giving you your news. Their shows are all "classics" and have been on the air for decades. And even on call-in shows, you can always count on the host to give a verbal "tsk tsk" shake of the head to any of the crazies that happen to make it through the call screeners.

As an example, take Noam Chomsky's experience with NPR. They have never put him on the air live. They are terrified of him. He always has to submit his statements in writing for prior approval, then, once effectively censored, record them for later playback. FOX News just says "fuck it, you can do it live."

NPR will always favor the establishment. Personally, I'd rather have the crazies on the air too than listen exclusively to a watered-down, soft-spoken view of the world that won't upset the old folks and thirty somethings that think they've got it all figured out. Garrison Keillor and his magnificently soothing lisp are there to keep you complacent.

[Edited on February 5, 2012 at 7:12 PM. Reason : .]

2/5/2012 6:55:16 PM