Dirty Money Series on Netflix

ironman32's picture
ironman32 - Certified Professional
Rank: King Kong | banana points 1,989

If anyone has some spare time I would suggest watching the "Dirty Money" series on Netflix.

Each episode is a separate 1 hour documentary about a separate topic. I watched two of them, one on how the short sellers figured our valeant pharm. and the other about the Trump empire.

If you're into stocks, or equity research I would highly suggest the valeant one, goes into good detail about the research involved and how the short sellers were able to connect the dots to the scam.

The Trump one shed some good light on the life of Trump and his business; specifically linking how "The Apprentice" basically led to the presidency.

Hi Anonymous Monkey, upload your resume and land a job

Members that upload a resume get 2.3x the number of interview invites through the Talent Oasis. Learn more.

Comments (66)

Feb 20, 2018

American Greed remake

heister:

Look at all these wannabe richies hating on an expensive salad.

    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Feb 20, 2018

These are way better than American Greed. They are fleshed out and give actual detail/background information. The VRX one gain good insight on how to correctly do research for a short.

American Greed is more of a drama produced for elderly people as a cautionary tale. It also has some what of diminishing returns.

    • 2
Mar 4, 2018

The valeant shorts got a bit lucky. And they never really touched on why valeant stock price really crashed.

Truth is the payout/payee relationship changed in pharma and that is really why it crashed. The issues the shorts bring up wasn't even 10% of valeant revenue.

They played a lot of the same games Shkreli did. And that business model got crushed. They were highly leveraged so stock crashed.

Truth is every specialty pharma stock has crashed. All to some extent played similar games which are not illegal. You had consolidation on the payor side and they fought the price increases etc. teva myland etc etc.

Ackman does have some interesting morals. He had no problem investing in a company that hiked a drug price from dollars to 260k a year but thought Herbalife was the devil incarnate.

Array
    • 1
Mar 4, 2018
traderlife:

The valeant shorts got a bit lucky. And they never really touched on why valeant stock price really crashed.

Truth is the payout/payee relationship changed in pharma and that is really why it crashed. The issues the shorts bring up wasn't even 10% of valeant revenue.

They played a lot of the same games Shkreli did. And that business model got crushed. They were highly leveraged so stock crashed.

Truth is every specialty pharma stock has crashed. All to some extent played similar games which are not illegal. You had consolidation on the payor side and they fought the price increases etc. teva myland etc etc.

Ackman does have some interesting morals. He had no problem investing in a company that hiked a drug price from dollars to 260k a year but thought Herbalife was the devil incarnate.

This is completely on point. Consolidation of wholesalers, horizontal integration with PBMs, heightened scrutiny on pricing strategies and increased generic competition (with expedited reviews) have a lot more to do with it than anything else. Of course, "change in industry dynamics" doesn't make for a great show.

    • 2
Mar 5, 2018

Pearson though was a bad operations guy. He just depended on buying up product and hiking prices. And I think ackman ruined him a little bit by making him go after more and more deals. Some of his early deals were extremely good. But then he decided to turbo charge things once he teamed up with ackman.

The 250 price was probably built on some fraud (philidor) but the fall from something like 100-150 was a change in industry dynamics.

I like valeant now. They have some very solid businesses remaining in Bausch and lomb, salix, and a ton of psoriasis products entering the market next 18 months.

Array
    • 1
Mar 5, 2018

Yeah, Valeant's a good business and they'll do well. They're ramping up hiring now and are actually looking for some corp dev people, in case others are interested. It's the generic side of the business that's getting crushed. The generics industry is tanking, precisely because prices are crashing.

Mar 5, 2018
traderlife:

The valeant shorts got a bit lucky. And they never really touched on why valeant stock price really crashed.

A lot of times shorts get hinge on a bit of luck. For example, when Ackman shorted MBIA, yes he eventually made money, but it also helped he ran into a recession about ~6 years into the trade (at that point any stock would have worked as a short).

On the flip, Ackman shorting Herbalife was a bit unlucky. Did Ackman do the work, yes, but between the government not cooperating with him, Herbalife able to restructure and Icahn holding up the stock, he was unlucky (not saying it was a correct short or not).

    • 1
Mar 5, 2018

Personally think he was an idiot on Herbalife. I think his thesis was just wrong. Herbalife provides real value to there customers and he just didn't understand that.

Valeant though I think the shorts were half right/half lucky.

It's good to not be structurally short names to an extent. Have a dossier on every company - if situation x occurs company y is in serious trouble. In valeant case it was 90% a change in the payor relationship which crushed every leveraged mid cap pharma platform.

Array
Mar 5, 2018

Completely agree. As much as I wanted Icahn to 'win,' it's not like it was a head-to-head from the beginning match. Icahn came in late on a whim and left early. I do enjoy watching Ackman lose money.

Feb 20, 2018

I watched it, great show. Would def recommend for anyone interested in finance.

Feb 22, 2018

Really? I saw the trailer and thought it would be a Corporate America is evil show, not something I would want to watch in my spare time.

    • 1
Feb 22, 2018

That's basically what it is, but they do have interesting information. Just watch it through an "agenda-filter" like I did.

    • 1
Feb 22, 2018

Exactly. I am enjoying the series, but they are obviously pushing an agenda.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

Mar 5, 2018
TNA:

Exactly. I am enjoying the series, but they are obviously pushing an agenda.

Eh they're pushing an agenda like Boardwalk Empire is pro-mafia....not really.

    • 2
Feb 22, 2018

I don't know, maybe I am different. But I'd rather watch and learn how people manipulated their way to wealth as opposed to watching some drama tv show.

Feb 22, 2018

I agree with that. I for one don't watch any form of TV unless its sport. I watched the series after this comment and I actually found it insightful.

Feb 21, 2018

The one on HSBC was really shocking. They were banking cartels that kill thousands of people a year and not a single person went to jail for helping to facilitate money laundering.

    • 1
Feb 22, 2018

I mean, too big to jail.

Andddd, how are people suppose to get big pay days when they leave office if they are throwing everyone in jail.

Feb 22, 2018

Or how do you have a criminal trial with all the evidence requirements when the argument is effectively "they should have known better".

Like the branch manager could be arrested. The wire person who changed the OFAC names could be arrested, but at some point it's just vengeance.

If I sell drugs at work do they arrest my boss? I mean it's not like these bank leaders just focus on money laundering. Furthermore, while everyone is demonizing these banks, let's not forget the real cause of all these deaths - US consumers and US government failed drug policy.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Feb 21, 2018

Sounds interesting, will take a look. Thx

Best Response
Feb 21, 2018

Clinton cash gonna be an episode ?

    • 9
    • 6
Feb 21, 2018

Not to get political, just on the facts:

Are you talking about the $1,000 turned into $100K in ten months cattles future trade?

or

The ~$250mn after both being in politics for their career?

    • 1
Feb 21, 2018

Neither one of those, although interesting, there have been several politicians who traded on inside info. More along the lines of lavish contracts in interesting countries for shady people for her time in the state dept and corresponding donation to the CC fund. Always concerning when you hear the net worth of (Republications and Democrats) politicians on a gov. salary.

    • 2
    • 1
Feb 22, 2018

It costs so much to run for office, to obtain the funds the candidates usually have to cut deals.

Problem is, but sides are cutting deals with the same people. Last presidential election, I think it was something like the out of the top 20 donations, 15 came from the same source for each side.

    • 1
Mar 5, 2018

Interesting. Do you have details on the sources and their political interests?

Mar 6, 2018

I had always thought that too, turns out that's not the case: https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php?c...
For PACs, it is, but they give less money (or at least less at the top):
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toppacs.php?c...

Feb 22, 2018

I watched the Trump one. Politics aside he isn't anything special in a business sense

    • 2
    • 1
Feb 22, 2018

That was the first one I watched. I agree it was definitely eye opening to learn about his business deals.

Per the title of his episode, "The Confidence Man", I guess the special thing about him is his ability to promote himself.

Feb 22, 2018

Very true. I'm glad they sticked away from the politics. After watching that I think Trump should be worth $10B+, Trump did some shady deals with weird guys. I can see where the Russia stuff is coming from now though.

Feb 23, 2018

Wait? That's what you took away? My main take away is that he was never a billionaire, but always made sure that his connections at the gossip rags always referred to him as one. Maybe he is now a billionaire since becoming President has brought world wide recognition to his brand, which is just his name.

Overall pretty eye opening episode that I wish I could show to those who claimed he would be a good leader because of "business reasons" but ultimately they would just view this show as left-ist fake news. Sad. Very sad!

    • 1
    • 2
Feb 23, 2018

I think the craziest part is that none of this information came to light while he was running for President. I know that people have always disputed his net worth, but this gave more hard facts, and also explained his licensing deals.

Essentially, the media had two years to vet this guy, and the best thing they could come up with was "grab'em by the pussy". I guess everyone was asleep at the wheel, and just thought Hilary would win.

Instead of spending $1.6mn on the house next to her for the secret service before she became president, Hilary should have used that cash to dig this up. Cart before the horse I guess.

    • 1
    • 1
Mar 5, 2018

He's a legit billionaire now and not from being potus. I don't know if he made a billion dollar fortune off of real estate development.

But he made a billion off of licensing and the apprentice. Same way Oprah made her money.

And alll these things were well known before the election. The he could have made more buying an index fund was out a year before the election (not sure if its true as he also spends a ton of money and I don't think they subtracted that from returns). He was spending $5 million a year when the banks put him on an allowance.

Array
    • 2
Feb 22, 2018

Alright I watched the Maple Syrup Federation one last night. It's no wonder they elected someone like Trudeau, they are soft.

    • 2
    • 3
Feb 22, 2018

The episode about HSBC and drug cartels was choice. Also did anyone laugh about the maple syrup one in Canada?

"Work ethic, work ethic" - Vince Vaughn
Feb 26, 2018

The Canada one fit the Canadian stereotype so well.

Like, everyone in America is worried about getting bombed by foreign countries or shot in schools, and Canada's big worry is Maple Syrup.

Mar 1, 2018

Careful those maple syrup chugging Frenchies don't like when you make fun of them. 2 of them MS me for laughing at the Maple Syrup Mafia eh.

Feb 26, 2018

Great series. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. The Trump episode is depressing...

Feb 26, 2018

The Trump made me think about a lot of things, but one thing I related it to was Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers". In the book he talks about how Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were able to take advantage of the computer race because they had access to computers at early ages and developed a mastery in them before they became such a commercial business.

Trump was effectively developing a mastery in self-promotion, and was able to take advantage of it during the infancy of self-promotion.

    • 2
Feb 26, 2018

Yeah, I didn't realize his last successful real estate deal was in the early 80s and he basically spent the last 35 years as a TV personality with a lot of highly questionable side businesses. For about a decade prior to The Apprentice he pretty much was just doing cameos on TV shows and starring in fast food commercials...

Feb 26, 2018

Will start watching some of this, seems interesting.

Mar 1, 2018

I thought the Valeant one was excellent

    • 1
Mar 1, 2018

The Valeant episode was fantastic. Honestly learned a lot.

I was pretty disgusted with the one about Tucker/Pay Day loans. It's a sleazy business, but I came away with the impression they made an example out of him, not that his business was illegal... I am from Oklahoma, and I can tell you that this is not the only thing running through the tribes there.

Maybe I like corporate America too much to see why they came after him. His whole business preyed on the stupidity of the population. They signed contracts without reading them. Would I be in this business? No, but I don't think he should have been crucified like that.

    • 5
Mar 1, 2018
trustmeimanengineer:

I was pretty disgusted with the one about Tucker/Pay Day loans. It's a sleazy business, but I came away with the impression they made an example out of him, not that his business was illegal

I felt the same way about his specific case. Even if the whole "SWAT team breach" story was an exaggeration, I really got the feeling he was being made an example of rather than getting to some real justice.

It really contrasts with the way the HSBC-Cartel Banking relationship was handled.

Not "too big to fail"..well, we're coming after your everything you got then

    • 1
Mar 1, 2018
trustmeimanengineer:

The Valeant episode was fantastic. Honestly learned a lot.

I was pretty disgusted with the one about Tucker/Pay Day loans. It's a sleazy business, but I came away with the impression they made an example out of him, not that his business was illegal... I am from Oklahoma, and I can tell you that this is not the only thing running through the tribes there.

Maybe I like corporate America too much to see why they came after him. His whole business preyed on the stupidity of the population. They signed contracts without reading them. Would I be in this business? No, but I don't think he should have been crucified like that.

I agree with some of your points: From the episode, it's clear the contracts people signed laid out the exorbitant effective interest rates, fee schedules etc. I can't feel bad for these truckers, single moms etc that take out loans but can't afford them.

The shady/sleazy part is the way this business was effectively "hiding" through so many shell corporations, through Indian tribes, etc. Dodging regulations is sketch and should be punished.

    • 3
Mar 1, 2018

I agree with this as well.

I think both sides are to blame. Tucker should definitely not have been charging the high rates, he knew what he was doing, and he knew the more lending he does to people who can't handle their own finances, the more money he will make. It's similar to credit cards, they need the undisciplined people to keep the money coming in. Duping the clients and the government about where he was operating was also a poor choice.

However, though those are all bad, he never forced anyone into signing the document, and it's not his problem to educate someone about how rates, payback works, or how to correctly their statement. The initial document was definitely sleazy written, but the people did sign it.

Which leads to my other point; I understand there are definitely, DEFINITELY, people who can't make ends meet and need these loans. However, I think this is a small percentage and most people just live beyond their means. The truck driver gentlemen they presented appeared to be smart, but I felt he made enough money to save in good times for the bad times (again I don't know that for a fact).

My point is, it's hard to point the finger; Tucker knew what he was doing; people need to be better with their finance and I think Tucker should have been punished, but he got the wrong shake of the stick.

    • 3
Mar 5, 2018
ironman32:

I agree with this as well.

I think both sides are to blame. Tucker should definitely not have been charging the high rates, he knew what he was doing, and he knew the more lending he does to people who can't handle their own finances, the more money he will make. It's similar to credit cards, they need the undisciplined people to keep the money coming in. Duping the clients and the government about where he was operating was also a poor choice.

However, though those are all bad, he never forced anyone into signing the document, and it's not his problem to educate someone about how rates, payback works, or how to correctly their statement. The initial document was definitely sleazy written, but the people did sign it.

Which leads to my other point; I understand there are definitely, DEFINITELY, people who can't make ends meet and need these loans. However, I think this is a small percentage and most people just live beyond their means. The truck driver gentlemen they presented appeared to be smart, but I felt he made enough money to save in good times for the bad times (again I don't know that for a fact).

My point is, it's hard to point the finger; Tucker knew what he was doing; people need to be better with their finance and I think Tucker should have been punished, but he got the wrong shake of the stick.

I don't know, some part of me wants to agree with you guys and say that these people "should have known better," but it's pretty clear that the contracts were specifically written in such a way that made it so the average consumer would have no idea how the interest would work. It wasn't as simple as "your interest rate is 40%".

    • 2
Mar 5, 2018

I agree that you can't simply say "people should have known better" and close the door.

I also agree that these contracts were written extremely technically and are hard for a non-lawyer lay person to understand.

However, I feel that the excuse "I didn't undertand/know" never absolves someone from a contract or breaking the law, because that would be the excuse every time. The truck driver guy (hate calling him "truck driver guy" repeatly but I forget the gentlemen's name) appeared to have a good understanding of how the loan should work, borrow $500, pay back $650. The $90 fee he was charged each month as a carry over didn't hit the loan and wasn't clearly stated. So I get he was duped.

However, from my point above, I believe that some people will live to the extremes of their means, whether it be from salary or borrowing money. For example, in the documentary, they showed actual calls into the call center. One caller complained they could not pay their loan and their car payment for the month. In my opinion, these people should not have a car they are making payments on if they need to take out a payday loan. In this situation, I have less sympathy.

    • 2
Mar 7, 2018

I understand individual ignorance shouldn't be an excuse, however I think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. This isn't a discussion about each borrowers legitimacy or need, it is a discussion about systemic predatory behavior by the business. It is irrelevant if the client should have known better. If the business has cause to believe the consumer didn't correctly understand their obligations, and if the business used this position to take advantage of this lack of understanding, that is a significant ethical breach. I'm not familiar with American consumer or financial services laws, so I won't speculate the implications at a legal level, but in my home country this would be a very serious regulatory breach. I think there is clear evidence from the design of the business that they knew consumers were unaware of their obligations.

The company structure was more a circumstantial proof of the wrongdoings rather than a primary issue. If a business is accused of operating in an illegal or unethical manner, and if that same business has taken considerable and unusual steps to structure itself in way that would protect themselves in the fallout of those wrongdoings, it is reasonable to believe the accused behavior was pre-determined and orchestrated. In particular, it shows that the behavior runs to the executive level (as opposed to a rogue sales team, acting outside their scope).

I do feel however the magnitude of gaol time was excessive, and that the regulators should have more oversight on the manner through regular review, rather than on receipt of complaint (that wasn't explained very well in the episode though, so I might be finger-pointing prematurely). If they had, this would lessen the need to make an example of this behavior.

Mar 12, 2018

I agree in "theory" this shouldn't happen, but in America (I'm assuming other countries) this is a the way a lot of businesses operate (not saying it's correct).

For example, credit card companies only make money by charging people interest, they don't make money if people use the card and then pay the whole thing off. The whole basis of their business model is lending money to people who they know won't pay it back. (If you ever get a chance, watch the documentary "Maxed Out", they discuss this aspect).

If you think about it, a lot of businesses are ethical breaches; do casinos give fair odds? why make a car that can go "way" faster than the speed limit? how many less drunk driving accidents would we have if bars had to close at 6?

    • 1
Mar 12, 2018

I think you're misunderstanding my point, as those examples aren't quite comparable.

I'm assuming you've used the casino and credit card examples, because like payday loans, they are a trap for weak minds and wallets. I have no ethical complaint against any of these products, as they serve a need, and people are participating with an understanding of the arrangement.

The key word here is "understanding". If Tucker's business was clear and transparent with how the loan works, there wouldn't be a problem, and you could chalk the complaints up to people not taking responsibility for their own finance.

Was he transparent with how the loan works? The series gave the conclusion that he wasn't.

Using your casino example, Tucker's business was like a casino where the bets are listed in a foreign currency, but you are only told of this in the fine print.

Mar 12, 2018

My point (and I agree I didn't really lay this out correctly in my above remarks) is that the way these businesses make money is because people don't have an "understanding" of how their contract works or the odds of winning.

Take casinos or credit cards, people believe they have a higher chance of winning because the advertising for their companies only present the winners or free airline miles. (I think Dan Ariely talked about this in his book "Predictably Irrational"). Casino's don't make money unless people lose money playing. Credit cards don't make money unless they lend people money and they don't pay it back so they can charge them interest and fees. The percentage of people who actually "understand" is actually pretty small.

Second point, I also agree that Tucker and his business was WAY more underhand in how they charged clients and fees ($90 to carry over a loan that didn't hit principle or interest).

    • 1
Mar 12, 2018

I appreciate what you're saying. I suppose the nuance from my position is that with credit cards and casinos, people do understand how they work at a mechanical level. Borrowers on credit cards understand they will be charged interest, and people at the casino know the odds are against them. There might be a very small minority on both products that don't, however I don't think either industry is intentionally profiteering on this gap in knowledge. Tucker's business, in contrast, did.

Where the gap does exist with casinos and credit cards appears to be more at the decision making end. Perhaps people fail to see how much of a debt trap a credit card could be, or that the more spins they have on the slot machine, the closer their return will approach the (negative) expected return. Both of these represent a lack of understanding the exceeds the scope of what is "mechanical", and looks at the consequence of the product beyond a single transaction. If we set the onus on the business to include this further knowledge, at it's extreme, it becomes a situation where the business responsibility is voiding personal liberty. That is, we can view a spectrum between cowboys and totalitarianism, and we must identify the appropriate point on the line that reflects the values of our community. This begs the questions, what is the onus on the business in educating their consumer? Do these products actually serve a purpose? i.e. Would anyone choose them if they did understand the implications. Does the benefit of that purpose sufficiently outweigh the harm caused to those not served by its benefit?

I believe that the answer to the above three questions are highly subjective, and will be driven by ones political, philosophical, and ethical positions. My point is, on balance, these activities don't appear to have sufficient support to be considered unanimously unethical, or even unethical by the majority. If the law is to reflect the values of the community it serves, any imposition on these activities would fail this test. In contrast, I think the community generally expects the mechanical information of a product (and a credit product in particular) to be fairly conveyed, in a manner which makes consumer understanding reasonable to the point that the business can operate on the assumption it exists.

I think we are in agreeance though, so the above is just to articulate it further, not to refute what you said.

Mar 5, 2018

useful info, thanks

Mar 5, 2018

Watched the episode on Trump, didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Politics (and policy) aside, he represents some of the worst character traits a person can have. Impulsive, callous (the conversation surrounding the helicopter crash where he (allegedly) lied about almost being on the flight/ tries to blame the dead for his failure in atlantic city made me sick) , vengeful, arrogant, oblivious. Wrap all that up into a dad complex (he so much wants to be self-made like his father that he's convinced himself he wasn't born on home plate but instead hit a home run) and you have the Donald.

Also watched the HSBC episode, pathetic ending. HSBC should not be allowed to do business in legitimate countries and executives should've seen jail time. I can understand a mistake but apparently this was just one in a pattern of not giving a fk about money laundering.

    • 1
    • 3
Mar 5, 2018

I watched the one on VW. Didn't really enjoy it but I guess I just wasn't ever interested in that saga--also hated how they kept trying to draw parallels to Nazi Germany.

Thought I'd give it another try and watched the Valeant one. Very well done and interesting and the girl Fahmi is hot imho.

Mar 6, 2018

The VW one is the worst one, not very dynamic and they didn't develop the characters too well. It was more historic, just here's what happened, here's why. No one showed any real emotion.

Mar 6, 2018

Before watching this (only saw the Valeant episode) I said I would give the person I watched it with $10k in cash if they mentioned "toxoplasmosis encephalitis" once during the part where they had Shkreli lol, wonder if that big lobbying group phRma helped finance it and made them scapegoat Shkreli more

Obviously they didn't and got a lot of the stuff about the VRX short itself wrong (or just didn't cover it)

Just seems like a show for ideologues who want to justify their agenda with false information and bad research, I'm scared to even watch the Drumpf episode they will say "he's not a real billionaire xD" or "he's so mean and bad xD" lol

Mar 6, 2018

I've watched 4 episodes- Valenat, Payday lending, HSBC, and Trump.

HSBC is the best and the Trump one is clearly the worst. It doesn't even belong in this series imo. Half of the episode is about a failed casino in Atlantic City; the other half is pundits clutching their pearls about stuff Trump said/did in the media in the 90s and 00s. It was like watching a YouTube video of bad things Trump said as a media personality.

It's mostly editorial and exaggeration- for instance, one of Trump's former business associates claims he's lying about being offered a seat in a helicopter that crashed. The guy doesn't offer any evidence of why this might be a lie, he just says it is, so this felt really out of place compared to the rest of the show's episodes which typically sourced claims with evidence.

They also don't really provide evidence of any criminal activity, unlike the rest of the episodes, and just try to tie Trump to being "shady". Are we supposed to be shocked that a real estate developer took a lot of risk and burned bond holders? Come on.

HSBC is very good on the other hand as it sources claims and has interviews from US attorneys and provides documentation from court cases, depositions, etc.

    • 1
    • 1
Mar 6, 2018

1.) Of course they included the one on Trump, it'll be the most watched of the series.
2.) Pundits like who? There wasn't a single person that I would consider a pundit that was interviewed.
3.) Trump University was some pretty illegal shit. They defrauded people.
4.) Why would his former business associate lie? How could he possibly provide evidence? From what you know of Trump, are his business associate's allegations not very plausible?

Telling the story of Trump the huckster is important, America believes he is Stephen Ross when he's closer to Don King. I think you're letting your bias show here (and I might be too).

    • 1
    • 1
Mar 6, 2018
  1. Don't confuse popularity with quality
  2. Timothy O'brien is literally a pundit. He is on the editorial board at Bloomberg. No need to exaggerate your point about "not one person". The fact that you like his journalism doesn't mean he's not a pundit.
  3. You'd do well to delineate between civil violations and criminal ones. The other three episodes I watched detailed criminal activity or potential criminal activity (Valeant is the only potential criminal activity, two others were proven in court). Trump U may be what you and I consider a "scam", but not a single criminal indictment or arrest has been made involving Trump U. There are numerous lawsuits that have been adjudicated. Interesting but not in comparison to what was mentioned in other episodes.
  4. I am not claiming he lied. I am making the point that the claim is unverified and made with no evidence. I require evidence to believe something. You should hold the same standard no matter your own opinions. If there is no way to verify a claim then that doesn't make it more credible.

Summary: watered down episode that is relying almost solely on the "omg Drumpf" factor that we've seen on John Oliver, YouTube, etc. for the last 24 months. People defending it simply show their bias.

Mar 6, 2018

I thought it was interesting for sure, but the whole series is biased. The payday loan guy gets more time that murders and when you take away these loans it just makes it harder for broke people to get financing.

The Valient one had an obvious agenda. That woman with the rare disease should just fly to India and buy a crate of the shit. And it goes to show that people don't care about the price as long as insurance is paying for shit.

The Trump thing was endless bias. The second the pulled out the "he should have just invested in the market" I realized it was idiotic.

And the HSBC one. Who is going to go to jail besides the branch manager who looked the other way or the wire person who deliberately tried going around OFAC.

And the organization that should be punished the most for the ills south of the border are Americans and the US Government. Both create the demand, provide the weapons and currency and look the other way as long as those in power help US policy.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 1
    • 1
Mar 12, 2018

Why is it a bad argument to say that under-performing the market is evidence against someone being an incredible business person?

EDIT: I'm not sure what the MS is for.

    • 1
Mar 12, 2018
Mar 7, 2018
Mar 11, 2018
Mar 11, 2018