|
|
|
|
|
by dvt
1436 days ago
|
|
> and it sounds rhetorical It's rhetorical: the answer is, given how much money he made, a lot. > But junk bonds aren't inherently useless or defective This seems a bit disingenuous, as they have, by definition, a very high risk of defaulting. He also manipulated stocks[1], which, again, is technically a victimless crime (but is it really?). [1] https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-09/s70809-4614.pdf |
|
I'm aware junk bonds have a relatively high expected risk of default and I'm not being disingenuous.
Please assume that I'm sincere, as it's required by the HN guidelines, and also, I am.
I didn't say anything is a victimless crime or say victimless crimes are ok (or acts that have victims are always wrong). So let's not go on that tangent for now. Or talk about details about Milken, which are beyond the scope of my previous comment.
So: I infer you think high risk loans are bad, like poisoned milk. I don't have a problem with that concept, really. But there must be a threshold, right? And I have never heard of anyone seriously putting that threshold precisely at the word "junk". As far as I know, "junk" is a term of art, that is opposed to "investment grade".