Goldman situation offers lessons on use of e-mail

After reading the Just Thinking column “Let’s agree to disagree respectfully” (June 21), it occurred to me that…

After reading the Just Thinking column “Let’s agree to disagree respectfully” (June 21), it occurred to me that there may be a finer point here worth highlighting.

I immediately wondered if the “crude e-mail from a not-insignificant executive in the securities industry” had been written on corporate stationery with his signature at the bottom, whether it would have made its way to your inbox. Giving the writer the benefit of the doubt, I will allow myself to imagine that a sense of prudence and restraint would have prevailed.

Putting aside for the moment the merits of a position that was counter to your Just Thinking column, “SEC must stand ground on Goldman Sachs case” (June 7), I think we can all agree to the benefits of civility and professionalism.

E-mail as a communication medium has a perilous way of lulling all of us into a sense of comfort. It can be impulsive versus considered, informal versus proper, unofficial versus … wait a minute.

Herein lies the point.

It is official. It does count.

It is a matter of record.

The great irony of this exchange is that it is the very looseness of the e-mails internal to The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. that may yet be the “official” gotcha of the incident.

Perhaps your reader should pay attention to the lesson to be learned from Goldman.

With regard to your June 7 column, all too often, the truth of these cases is obscured by settlements.

If the Securities and Exchange Commission really has a case for fraud that will stand the test of the truth, then it should pursue it. However, many in the industry think that the SEC is simply attempting to extract the maximum in settlement negotiations relying on the pragmatism of Goldman.

I wonder if the independent financial-fraud investigator Harry Markopolos had it right when he described the “overlawyering at the SEC.” The truth may be elusive, but isn’t that the role that a good journalist should play?

Mark Goldberg

President

Carey Financial LLC

New York

Column about crude letter was fair and appropriate

I was glad to read the Just Thinking column “Let’s agree to disagree respectfully” (June 21) about the crude letter written by someone who apparently is on shaky ground.

I am glad you entertained it for what it is, but request that we adhere to respectful behavior.

I think the column was very fair in its writing and positioning.

Keep up the good work.

George H. Cisneros

Planner/broker

Veritespial

Blue Bell, Pa.

Marlton, N.J.

No organization is too big to have a rotten apple

The article “What if your rainmaker is drowning your firm’s morale?” (June 14) was fantastic.

As an office of supervisory jurisdiction, too often, we “overlook” a bad hire because of the production he or she brings to the table. These people, however, are literally toxic to an organization.

Specifically, they decrease production, lower the bar for what is “acceptable” behavior and adversely affect your ability to recruit. If it is no secret inside the organization, rest assured, it is no secret on the outside.

In my case, a hiring mistake cost me two good advisers and one staff person, all of whom left.

Since the problem employee departed, our firm has literally tripled our production, and our assets are up fivefold.

I know that horrible feeling in your stomach.

As chief executive, I avoided going by the employee’s office, because I didn’t want to deal with him. Imagine what it was like for the other employees.

No organization is too big to have a rotten apple.

Jeb Bashaw

Chairman and chief executive

James E. Bashaw & Co.

Houston

Profanity shouldn’t have appeared in print

I read your newspaper each week and very much enjoy the news, commentary and statistics.

I respect Jim Pavia but take issue with his Just Thinking column “Let’s agree to disagree respectfully” (June 21).

In the column, he requests that people not be crude by using profanity in letters to him. I totally agree with that part.

But then, why in the world would you then print the profanity for all of us to see? I have certainly heard it before but am offended that your editorial ethics wouldn’t have stopped InvestmentNews from printing the profanity.

Please step it up a notch.

Bob Tucker

President and founder

Reston Wealth Management

Reston, Va.

Details on options study needed to evaluate results

Regarding the article “10 investments to help your client retire on time” (June 21), the information for No. 5 on the list, options, lacks clarity.

The article compared collared and non-collared investments using the PowerShares QQQ. You cited “a study” that claims more than 9% returns with far less risk than just going long.

Why wasn’t the study clearly stated? The reader doesn’t know which options were used, how far out of the money they went, whether they were rolled every month or three months, and how much the fees and commissions were.

Without clarification, this seems more like a sales pitch than a well-written article.

Where is the value provided if details are left out? And if it is such a simple strategy, why not elaborate?

I would very much like to see this study with all the pertinent details of strike prices, time frames, etc. If this isn’t available, then it shouldn’t be cited as legitimate.

Please provide the source of the study, the date published and details of where it can be located so that responsible financial advisers can evaluate it thoroughly.

Kevin Brucher

President

Silver Leaf Financial Inc.

Lockport, Ill.

Editor’s note: The report referenced in the article was originally produced by The Options Industry Council last August and updated in September. The full 46-page study can be found at optionseducation.org/institutional/research/ pdfs/qqq_collar_study.pdf.

Agents aren’t qualified to give investment advice

The biggest problem with indexed annuities’ being sold by insurance agents versus registered representatives is that the agents often review equities and advise people that indexed annuities are better because of guarantees.

They aren’t qualified or properly licensed to give any investment advice or analysis of securities.

I personally experienced an insurance agent investing 100% of an elderly widow’s assets, more than $1.5 million, in indexed annuities over five to seven years. The widow was in a nursing home because of dementia and died at 92.

My client, her daughter, inherited this mess. Some of the indexed annuities had 15-year surrender charges.

Try to settle that estate.

Michael D. Mitchell Sr.

Principal

MW Wealth Management

Shelby, N.C.

Honey better than vitriol in terms of getting results

I have just finished reading the Just Thinking column “Let’s agree to disagree respectfully” (June 21), and I couldn’t agree more.

I am the kind of guy who has written to many an author, sometimes on the angry side of the argument, and I have never used profanity, because as my mom used to say, you get a better response with honey than with vitriol.

As for that writer’s comments, the people who purchased those products from The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. weren’t all sophisticated.

When salespeople say that the underlying securities are all triple-A, the buyer assumes that they are telling the truth and that the selling firm has done its homework.

Steve Hagendorf

Retired registered representative

New City, N.Y.

ADD YOUR VOICE to the mix. Readers: Keep letter brief. Include your name, title, company, address and a telephone number for verification purposes. E-mail Jim Pavia at [email protected]. All mail may be edited.