A Warm Winter: A Blessing or a Curse?

This past week Lexington, Va. experienced its first real snowfall of the winter season, which got me to wondering what effect has this unseasonably warm winter has had on the economy. 

For many private businesses, particularly in the North and ski country out West, the effect has been detrimental.  According to an article in Time, skier visits at six mountain resort properties have dipped more than 15% year-on year.  The ski industry relies on the cold weather and snow to attract tourists and turn profits.  With a largely seasonal income these resorts have had to suffer through small crowds and continue to hope for a late snow surge to recover some profits.

Other industries have also felt the pain of a warm winter.  Cold-weather clothing sales are down, as are sales for shovels, snow blowers and salt.  In the North these account for a significant part of the winter seasonal income for retail and hardware stores.

One of the most interesting industries to look at in terms of the warm winter is the plowing industry.  There is a large contingent of people in the North that earn a living in the winter plowing driveways and commercial parking lots.  Without snow, they have been put out of work.  Landscapers, who use plowing in the winter to supplement their summer businesses, are now abandoning hope for their winter income and hope an early spring will lead to an increase in their warm weather profits in 2012. 

But for some, including most cities across the North, the warm winter has been a blessing.  According to an article in The Guardian, Buffalo, NY has saved more than $300,000 on salt and public works overtime is down by 25%.  In North Dakota snow removal costs have fallen by nearly half.  For many cities strapped for cash in this poor economy, the warm winter has been welcomed with open arms as the money can now be spent elsewhere.  

So as the seasons begin to change and spring rolls in, this winter has left many businesses disappointed with profits and city governments ecstatic with budget surpluses.  But if I know anything about Mother Nature, it's only a matter of time until she evens the score. 

-Tyler J. Tokarczyk

Fannie and Freddie: Mind the Debt

U.S. taxpayers were reminded on Tuesday that our long national Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nightmare is far from over.

During the 2008 financial crisis, President Bush and the Democratic congress approved the formation of the FHFA or Federal Housing Finance Agency.  The organization would manage the GSE’s Fannie and Freddie.

The head of the organization Edward Demarco issued Congress a note Tuesday on how to fix their ailing investment.  The plan calls for building a secondary mortgage marketplace infrastructure with the goal of getting more private involvement in the industry, to slowly contract the GSE presence in the market and help prevent foreclosures and maintain credit availability for new mortgages.   

The total Treasury bailout of Fannie Mae stands now at $180 billion, with only $14.7 billion being returned in the form of dividends. This is more than twice as much as the bailout for the automakers (which totaled some $60 billion) and is by far the largest outstanding bailout debt still owed to taxpayers. Together, the two mortgage giants owe more to taxpayers from their bailout than all other industries combined, and the bill is still growing.

This is a problem that can’t be ignored.  Fannie and Freddie continue to dominate household mortgage holdings in the U.S., with over 90 percent of all U.S. mortgages owned or guaranteed by them. Together they control nearly 31 millions home loans with a total value in excess of $5 trillion. 

-Bryan Kloster

Margin Call and the Lack of Informed decisions

When I watched the movie, Margin Call, I was pretty disturbed by the lack of informed decisions made by the bankers. One of the bankers stated that in banking there is "never a choice". This idea that things are decided automatically, without any discussion or thought was very scary to me and  made the whole banking process seem unnecessarily risky. Similarly, going  off of this idea that the banking process is just an automatic response, one banker said, "we just react and there's always a winner and a loser." This makes it seem like the bankers aren't in control of the situation and were never in control. It's a scary thought that at any moment the economy will either make us "winners" or "losers". It's even scarier when the bankers who are suppose to be monitoring everything are simply just reactors to the situation and not actively in control. And then this isn't even the worst part. The movie went on to suggest that some of the bankers don't even care about the assets that they monitor. As one banker says, "it's just money; it's made up". This type of ignorant attitude is the last quality I would want my banker to possess. It goes along with the theme that the bankers aren't really involved or in control of the situation, they are just by-standers who react automatically and without thought.
-Laura Simmons

Margin Call and Digging Ditches

In Margin Call, writer/director J.C. Chandor often compares the jobs that exist on Wall Street to other professions that produce more tangible results, such as construction or engineering. Peter Sullivan, the young but exceedingly bright analyst that discovers the crisis that the bank he works for is in, often questions the worth and morality of his job. Admittedly, he himself was drawn to Wall Street for the attractive pay and the fact that the job only requires that he "move numbers around." However, as he learns what his bosses are getting paid, Sullivan is shocked. He knows the little knowledge that those above him have, and does not believe anyone in any profession deserves that much money.

Sullivan is not the only one who perceives his job to be of little value though. In one scene, Sullivan is trying to explain to board members the crisis their bank is facing. The members, who would rather ignore bad news than address it and fix it, immediately begin to question Sullivan's background. As they find out that Sullivan is essentially a rocket scientist, with degrees from UPenn and MIT, they all retreat from their interrogation, fully aware that although he is simply an analyst, he is clearly the smartest person in the room.

Near the conclusion of the film, Sam Rodgers, a senior executive at the firm, also questions the worth and morality of his job. As his boss tells him, "come on, you could be digging ditches right now," Rodgers points out that at least if he was digging ditches, there would be evidence of his work in the soil of the earth.

Through these muses on worth and morality, Candor emphasizes the little value that Wall Street adds to society. I personally cannot comment on that, because I still don't really understand how Wall Street works. When I talk to my friends, all of whom are pursuing careers in finance and investment banking, I always find myself completely lost, and usually tell them, "you guys are just making terms, numbers, and money up." It was refreshing to me when watching Margin Call that someone else agrees with me.

- Bryan Stuke

Margin Call: Analyzing the Roots of a Crisis

J.C. Candor's Margin Call has been praised by critics for its portrayal of the moral and economic complexity surrounding the financial crisis of 2008. While Wall Street has been publicly demonized as a morally bankrupt institution, the film successfully analyzes the crisis as more than a mere story of good and evil. 

One constant theme throughout the film is a lack of accountability. In place of morality, decisions were guided by complex financial models and most importantly by a constantly changing set of assumptions. It becomes abundantly clear that no proper controls were in place within or outside of the firm, and that perilous decisions were instead left to the discretion of executives such as John Tuld and Jared Cohen.

Prior to the slowdown in housing prices in 2007 and the ensuing crash in 2008, decisions at investment banks had been made according to largely the same set of unchanging assumptions. These included but were not limited to easy monetary policy, loose credit standards, steadily increasing housing prices, and constantly growing demand for complex fixed income instruments such as MBS and CDOs. Even renowned economists such as Alan Greenspan had declared a new age of American prosperity instead of recognizing that these conditions were likely to change at some point. This allowed executives such as John Tuld, played by Jeremy Irons, to irresponsibly leverage their banks to the point where any notable increase in volatility or change in assumptions would lead to disaster. The market collapse that ensued was the result of executives ignoring the risks that were inherent to the instruments that they were selling, and instead counting on their willing counterparties to be steady buyers.

Mike Ott

Margin Call Paints Ominous Picture of Chaos

Margin Call has something very scary to say.

Through the dark and dreary chaos that unfolds throughout the night at Jeremy Irons' investment bank, an unsettling realization comes rising to the surface. Put simply, the movie makes us blatantly aware that the country's financial system is too complicated for just about any man or woman to navigate while claiming to possess a true understanding of what he or she is doing. What a harrowing thought.

To see that moral and compassionate men, such as Kevin Spacey's character, and greedy, ruthless men like the one Irons plays, can be equally powerless to fend off disaster when the going gets tough is frightening. It literally took a rocket scientist (played by Zachary Quinto) to put all the pieces together and sound the alarm; alas, it was already about two weeks too late. And the man (Stanley Tucci) whose work set him on the course to the big discovery? He was terminated while some of his younger coworkers got to stick around to count their bonuses. What a tragic mess.

More than for any other reason, this movie plays out as a thriller because nobody is ever fully in charge. Irons' John Tuld might sit in the chair at the head of the dreary board room table, but he's just as desperate and unsure of himself as the sheep he's been naively leading to slaughter. Really makes you worry about the country's biggest real life corporations. Have some of our banks gotten so big that they've become impossible to manage?

-Brian Seliber

"It wasn't brains that got me here"

The movie “Margin Call” directed by J.C. Chandor gives a troubling view of the financial world and especially those who run it.  

Each time a new level of management is brought in, they need a simpler explanation of what is happening from Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto).

 “Speak to me as you might to a young child, or a golden retriever. It wasn’t brains that got me here, I can assure you of that” says John Fuld (Jeremy Irons) to Sullivan who seems to be the only one who understands what is happening.

I don’t expect top executives to understand all of the complex risk equations, but they should be able to talk to their employees and understand the financial lingo.  It is troubling that the people making decisions for influential banks that affect the entire world’s economy need things to be explained to them as if a child.   

In the end, the final decision comes down to Fuld who openly admits, “I don’t get any of this stuff.”  He therefore makes his decision to sell off all of the toxic assets with nothing but his own interests in mind, despite the disapproval from Sam Rogers (Kevin Spacey).  If you admittedly know very little about something, it is usually a good idea to listen to someone who does.  Fuld chooses to ignore Rogers’ advice and to instead minimize the damage done to the firm at the cost of his employee’s careers and the bank’s relationship with its competitors.

Unfortunately I do believe this to be a realistic account of Wall Street and the financial world.  The ethics practiced in the financial world are not a strong suit by any means.  In order for banks to be successful they must keep the focus on the bottom line and this sometimes leads to acting unethically.  This exemplifies how guys such as Fuld rise to the top and others such Rogers get passed up for promotions (another common theme throughout the movie).  Rogers hesitates and thinks about the repercussions of his actions while Fuld looks to simply save the firm as much as possible at any and all costs.   

-Tyler J. Tokarczyk

Margain Call

Margin Call takes place within twenty-four hours inside a powerful investment bank, just before the financial crisis of 2008. As people who had been working there for 15 years got laid off, young, inexperienced men were given their work. A young analyst is able to fix a formula created by his ex-boss that forecasts the demise of the firm. While the information is passed up the corporate ladder, the corruption within the hierarchy itself becomes evident.

 A 2011 film directed by JC Chandler, Margain Call constantly uses lines such as “just speak to me in plain English” and “it’s just money” to show how ill-equipped the heads of the bank were. It amazed me how the executives in the firm did not fully understand what was happening and jumped to quick conclusions, which saved only themselves.

While many investors would be left without anything, the head of the bank made the decision to protect only the bank, selling everything before the Fed got involved. The lack of care about long time clients proves that the financial system is untrustworthy.

Meade Brewster

Don't Hate the Player, Hate the Game

Washington and Lee's 2012 Republican Mock Convention came to a close this weekend after the school selected Mitt Romney as the republican nominee for the 2012 presidential election. Political pundits James Carville and Ann Coulter kicked off the convention with the first ever Mock Con political debate.

In the debate Coulter criticized President Obama for his inability to transcend above “Washington politics.” Carville responded, "Are we supposed to blame Obama for not doing what no one else has been able to do?" Debate moderator Mike Allen then asserted that outlook “removes all responsibility” from everyone in Washington and assumes they have “no control” over what occurs.

In the 2011 film Margin Call, Jeremy Irons’ character shared a similar sentiment by saying “there will always be winners and losers” in the financial sector. In essence, arguing there was nothing he could do to stop the coming financial crisis.

As an economics major, I agree that there will always be winners and losers in a free market. Economic principles rely on a number of assumptions, many of which we economists know do not accurately reflect the world we live in. As a result, scarce resources (like money) are not always allocated efficiently.

One key economic assumption is that there is perfect information in a free market. As shown in Margin Call, the firm decided to sell all of their troubled assets once they learned about the likely value of those assets. That highly valuable information was not available to all the other financial firms.

As Irons’ character asserted, his company sold those assets at “fair market value” in a “fair market place.” Irons and his company acted in their best interest under the constraints of the market, which is precisely what everyone does in a capitalist society. Many would argue that Irons’ company should not have sold those troublesome assets, but I do not believe Irons acted dishonorably by doing so. If someone would classify Irons as immoral, the same would have to be said about every person who willingly participates in our capitalist society.

I am not sure whether I would classify “Washington politics” as moral or immoral. However, I believe that question can be answered by looking at the constraints of our political system and the behavior that is incentivized under our system. Again, if the behavior is seen as immoral I would argue the system that incentives and awards that behavior should be seen as much more immoral.

- Jarrett W. Smith

Margin Call on Wall Street’s Moral Standards

Margin Call portrays the unethical character of employees of an unnamed Wall Street firm when a decision is made by the firm’s leaders to reduce the firm’s loss exposure to an imminent financial crisis by selling the firm’s toxic assets to its clients. The movie raises the following ethical question: would Wall Street employees compromise their moral standards and reputation for a huge pile of cash? 

The low-level traders are thrown into the moral dilemma mix at 6:30 AM when they are told by their boss Sam Rogers (Kevin Spacey) that the “party’s over as of this morning.” In order to induce the traders to destroy their reputations and careers by helping the company sell out its clients, the traders are offered a one-time $2.7 million payoff. When promised this bribe, the employees pick up their account folders without hesitation and begin to sell. 

CEO John Tuld’s (Jeremy Irons) career mantra for making a living in business is “be first, be smarter or cheat.” When he learns about the looming financial meltdown, he commands his employees to sell the firm’s worthless assets. Even though, Tuld knows that his orders will cause huge losses for the clients who buy these assets, at the end of the day, Tuld calmly has dinner in the firm dining room, showing no remorse for the lives he is ruining. 

From the occupants of the small cubicles to executives in the corner offices, questionable and even objectionable actions have been made in order to transfer the anticipated financial losses from the firm to its clients. Within the financial world, moral boundaries are nonexistent. At the request of the firm, individuals willingly discard their personal values in exchange for the firm’s payment of millions of dollars.

- Harlyn Croland

Margin Call

Margin Call is a film by J.C. Chandor that shows a 24-hour period at an investment firm that has realized that the financial market is about to collapse. We see the views from a trader and higher up executives in the firm as everyone tries to decide what their best plan of action is.

            As journalism student and not an econ student, I found the movie Margin Call to break down the financial crisis into a very interesting story. I was very surprised at how the investment firm made the decision to try and dump their toxic assets off before the general public knew they were useless.           

            One thing in that the firm continued to do after they realized their mistakes was keep-throwing money at people to try and fix it. The fact that the executives were willing to throw $1.3 million at any trader who was able to move 93 percent of their assets for the day was amazing. That seems to be the only way to convince people to destroy the business they have put their life into.

            Kevin Spacey’s character seemed to be the only high up employee who was disgusted with the actions taken by John Tuld. We saw him have a large moral dilemma with what they were forcing their employees to do. You could tell that J.C. Chandor had somewhat of a bias towards executive at firms such as this because he portrayed them as selfish idiots. I have a feeling they don’t need something to be broken down to them as if being told to a “golden retriever”.

Billy Crosby

Margin Call; A Trader's Dillemma

The 2011 thriller Margin Call is already being called one of the greatest Wall Street movies of all time.   The movie shows how one investment firm (rumored to be modeled off of a combination of now bankrupt Lehman Brothers/ Merrill Lynch) decided to preemptively dump its toxic assets at the onset of financial collapse, effectively kick starting an industry wide sell-off and subsequent crisis.

One of the most dramatic scenes in the film is when Sam Rogers, the firm’s veteran trading floor director played by Kevin Spacey, informs his traders that their only option is to sell as many of their toxic MBS products as they can during that day’s trading session; an insignificant short term solution with lasting long-term consequences.

If I was working on Roger’s trading floor that day, I surely would have been faced with one the most challenging decisions of my life.  On one hand, knowingly selling the worthless assets will ruin any client relationship I’ve built up during my career.  On the other hand, if I dump 93% of our MBS assets, I can look at $1.3 million bonus, for the day. 

In answering the question, is there an honorable response to such a request, the short response is absolutely not.  If I sell, yes I make my bonus for the day, but I’m only spreading around these toxic assets to other firms, multiplying the stress/ risk of financial collapse across the industry as a whole.  However, if I don’t sell, my firm is going underwater and my job won’t exist by the afternoon.

If I came down to it, I probably would have left the firm after being told to dump the troubled assets.  Even if I pulled off the fire-sale, the firm would most likely not survive the ordeal (as seen with Lehman and Merrill Lynch in the ’08 collapse) and I would probably be getting laid off anyways.  At that point, I’m thinking that it’s easier to get a job on Wall Street when you haven’t consciously sold your interviewer hundreds of millions of dollars in troubled assets.  Yes, forgoing the $130,000/ hour paycheck would be difficult, but the future value of a career combined with the morality of the decision would lead me pack up and start looking for a new job.
-Harper Coulson

Margin Call: The CEO for Dummies Guide

Margin Call, a 2011 film by J.C. Chandor, follows key individuals at an investment bank, over one day, during the early stages of the financial crisis of the late 2000s. The director and film paint the upper-level executives of the firm as rather uninformed on multiple fronts. The level of risk associated with ramping up their leverage, as well as the level of risk inherent in the mortgage-backed securities and their repackaged form, CDOs, apparently went unnoticed. However, I think that the film crucifies the executives a bit unrealistically.

            Wall Street is constantly innovating, creating new and complex products, in order to meet customer needs and stay ahead of regulators. While CEOs, CFOs, and other executives may not be on trading or syndicate floors, most of them have had experience in one way or another; most executives work their way up in the world of finance. While MBS and CDO are extremely complex, to think that the heads of the banks didn’t understand the way they worked seems unlikely.

In my opinion, the director was incredibly vague in his presentation of the products. For him to paint the executives of the firm as clueless would be like the pot calling the kettle black. The root of the financial crisis is tied to risky positions and a bubble economy. Many of the investment banks and insurance companies were on the wrong side of the bet. While the CEO doesn’t physically construct the MBS or CDO, and thus cannot know every detail of the instrument, I feel confident that upper level executives were more knowledgeable than Margin Call lets on. 

-Reid Coopersmith

The Value of a Dollar vs. the Value of a Hole: Margin Call's Opinions about Rewards

The movie Margin Call criticized the economy and strategies of high-profile businesses. The film depicted a 24-hour critical period at a large investment bank where the company had to choose whether to be honest with its clients and risk failure, or to deceive clients and make off with the profits. Margin Call was set in 2008 during the financial crisis.

One of the assertions the movie made was that financial work did not have any truly beneficial outcomes for society. At one point in the film, CEO John Tuld (Jeremy Irons) told Floor Head Sam Rogers (Kevin Spacey) that money was made up. Tuld was making the point that dollars were no more than pieces of paper and only had value because people gave them value.

On the other hand, Margin Call portrayed physical labor as being rewarding and serving society well. The movie mentioned two specific examples of physical labor with tangible outcomes: engineering and ditch digging. Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci), risk management head for the floor, told Will Emerson (Paul Bettany), trading desk head, that he used to be an engineer. Dale described a bridge he once helped make that saved commuters copious miles of driving over the years. I interpreted this as meaning that engineering was rewarding because it saved people something real: time. When Rogers was frustrated with the way the company was handling the situation, he exclaimed that he might as well be digging ditches because then he would at least have something to show for his work. The film ends with Rogers digging a hole where he can bury his dead dog. I thought this exemplified how Rogers was finally able to do something meaningful with his time that produced tangible results.


- Olivia Davis

Margin Call on Ethics

J.C. Chandler’s 2011 film Margin Call examines the actions of an investment firm’s key decision makers during the earliest stages of the most recent financial crisis.  One theme of the film centers on business ethics and whether personal interest should trump customer/employee investment.  Clearly, the decision made by John Tuld, played by Jeremy Irons, and senior management demonstrates that it’s a dog eat dog world.  Personal investors are at the mercy of the individuals and the firms they invest with. 

The ease with which Tuld makes his decisions is scary to any business ethical viewer.  With resounding statements such as, “Its just money” and “So (the firm) may survive” the audience begins to understand that the financial system can be an unfair game.  Moral ethics are thrown out the window in order to salvage a firm that has taken on too much risk in order to increase profits and inflate employee earnings. 

            

Management is willing to do whatever it takes to save themselves and protect their personal assets.  This includes liquidating entire departments, and ruining the integrity of their own employee’s careers in the process.  However, senior management justifies their unethical actions by providing millions in payoffs to each employee. 

              

This film is a powerful reminder that business and moral ethics can easily be lost in the shuffle when billions of dollars and entire companies are at stake.  Tuld is willing to “kill the market” to protect his interests, without concern for the company’s investors or even the strength of the global economy.  When money is no longer an issue and you consider money, “made up” like Tuld, you lose all concern for the individuals who do not hold the same viewpoint.

Morgan-Reese V. Hale        

Chrysler, Clint Eastwood and the Enduring American Spirit

Leave it to Dirty Harry to pick up where President Obama left off.

Early in his State of the Union address on January 24, Obama discussed the current health of the manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy, saying his blueprint for success moving forward centered on it. He talked specifically about the domestic auto industry, first pointing to the dire straits American automakers found themselves in at the height of the recession.

"On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse," he said. "Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen."


Then he went on to highlight the triumphant turnarounds that many car companies have experienced the past few years. Our auto industry is back, he told us, pointing to the nearly 160,000 jobs it added this year as evidence. Chrysler in particular got a shout out for establishing itself as the number one automaker in the world.


In keeping with the President's tune, Chrysler wanted to make some more noise for both itself and its country. To do so, it got Clint Eastwood to do a two minute spot that was aired during the Super Bowl. You can't get more American than that.

What we got for a final product was an extended commercial that was equal parts tough, thoughtful and inspiring, which is pretty much how we think of Detroit being as a city. It showed images of laborers hard at work as the sun rose with a new day. It told our country's story of unemployment issues and economic despair, and then rallied around the hope that companies like Chrysler are instilling to end on an upbeat, glorious note.


"This country can't be knocked out with one punch," Eastwood breathed as the commercial wrapped. "We get right back up again- and when we do, the world is going to hear the roar of our engines."

For those who missed the spot on Sunday, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PE5V4Uzobc

-Brian Seliber

Executive Salaries in "Margin Call"

"There are three ways to make a living in this business: be first, be smarter, or cheat" 

 Given that large financial corporations are currently doling out bonuses to their exec.'s for 2011, the movie, "Margin Call's" examination of greed and corporate pay is extremely relevant.  As the quote above references, much of Wall Street is a dog eat dog world, the goal being to get ahead no matter what.  As movements like 'Occupy Wall Street' continue to protest "Too Much Pig," the film accurately presents the origins of the financial crisis and how individual avarice is well documented at it's roots.  The overarching question that emerges as a result asks, "In the face of financial calamity, do financial gains justify the means through which they are achieved?"

There is obviously nothing wrong with the first two tenets of actor Jeremy Irons’s quote.  Triage through better information is how money gets made in a capitalistic economy.  While many debate the veracity with which the firm handles the worthless securities on their books, especially how they manipulate their business peers to do so, I can think of no alternative the firm could have come up with in their own best interests.  I do believe that the bonuses they offer their employees for colluding with the firm are where the plot turns sour. Rewarding a few traders with millions to cheat their peers, who will lose heavily on the transactions, is unethical and should not be tolerated as the movie suggests, those employees will most likely be unemployed in the highly contentious job market that would emerge through the crisis.  

-Bryan Kloster

Facebook’s IPO: Changing the Game

Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg has always done things a little bit differently. He is often called “cocky,” but he was named Time’s person of the year at age 26. The billionaire has been considering taking his social media company public for sometime, but Facebook is finally expected to file for an IPO as early as today.

With Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs as the leads on the initial public offering, you’d think Facebook’s filing would be standard bulge bracket procedure. However, the company that prides itself on personal connections is pursuing a few unique, if not peculiar, angles when their stock hits the publicly traded exchange.

Like other companies such as Google and Groupon, young technology firms are seeking to add a more personal, quirky touch to their customers via stock offerings. Facebook, with a CEO who has a controversial past and is known for spurning a $15 billion offer from Microsoft, is planning to offer stock to all 800 million users of Facebook from day one.

Generally speaking, with very attractive IPOs, about 90 percent of shares go to institutional investors and about 10 percent of shares are sold to everyday investors. Insurance companies and other large-scale investors are usually investment banks biggest clients. While Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have deep, long lasting, and extremely lucrative relationships with large insurance and investment companies like MetLife, Prudential, and Fidelity Investments, they may be forced to pick between the 800 million Facebook users or the investment banks’ chummy, institutional customers.

Wow, that is a tough call. Appease the 1%? Appease the 99%? With sweeping changes and new laws coming to the banking sector, we may see more pressure put on investment banks to alter the way they are most comfortable doing business. 

More transparency, more accountability, a less proprietary nature; the future of the banking sector is in limbo. Accessibility by the common man may help improve relations between the 1% and the 99%. Regardless of intention, Facebook is helping push the relationship in the right direction.

Read more details of Facebook’s unique IPO:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/facebook-deliver-ipo-surprise-214857803.html

Reid Coopersmith