A Quote by Marc Randolph

My father was an investment banker, a stock broker. — © Marc Randolph
My father was an investment banker, a stock broker.
Once the brokerage house, rather than the bank, became the locus for American savings, that money would find its way into the stock market, because the broker was someone with a much higher tolerance for risk than the banker.
A broker who discovers an undervalued stock does not advertise it until he has bought a large enough quantity without letting the price go up. When the brokers' connection with a stock becomes public knowledge, it is usually a sure sign of manipulation and that the broker is seeking to drive up the price.
I don't have any particular expertise-I've never been a banker or an investment banker. But I did see an evolution in the system that I thought was problematic.
My rather puritanical view is that any investment manager, whether operating as broker, investment counselor of a trust department, investment company, etc., should be willing to state unequivocally what he is going to attempt to accomplish and how he proposes to measure the extent to which he gets the job done.
I just made a killing in the stock market -- I shot my broker.
If your broker or investment advisor is not familiar with the concept of standard deviation of returns, get a new one.
If I own stock in your company and you move offshore for tax reasons I'm selling your stock. There are enough investment choices here.
A Microsoft-Yahoo merger is a deal only an investment banker could love.
Rather, risk is a perception in each investor's mind that results from analysis of the probability and amount of potential loss from an investment. If an exploratory oil well proves to be a dry hole, it is called risky. If a bond defaults or a stock plunges in price, they are called risky. But if the well is a gusher, the bond matures on schedule, and the stock rallies strongly, can we say they weren't risky when the investment after it is concluded than was known when it was made.
As an investment banker, I'm in the cross-flow of information and the changes that are taking place in capital markets.
I presumably lost $150,000 in the depression of 1937—on my one stock investment—because I did everything Lehman Brothers told me. I said, well, this is a fool’s procedure . . . buying stock in other people’s businesses.
It is a tenet of my investment style that, on the subject of common stock investment, maximizing the upside means first and foremost minimizing the downside. The deleterious effect of permanent capital loss on portfolio returns cannot be overstated.
Unlike return, however, risk is no more quantifiable at the end of an investment that it was at its beginning. Risk simply cannot be described by a single number. Intuitively we understand that risk varies from investment to investment: a government bond is not as risky as the stock of a high-technology company. But investments do not provide information about their risks the way food packages provide nutritional data.
Methinks, that a broker, however good and savvy, will only speak about the stock that interest him after he has bought enough of shares already and is now in the process of booking profits.
Intelligent investment is more a matter of mental approach than it is of technique. A sound mental approach toward stock fluctuations is the touchstone of all successful investment under present-day conditions.
The other dynamic keeping the stock market up - both for technology stocks and others - is that companies are using a lot of their income for stock buybacks and to pay out higher dividends, not make new investment,. So to the extent that companies use financial engineering rather than industrial engineering to increase the price of their stock you're going to have a bubble. But it's not considered a bubble, because the government is behind it, and it hasn't burst yet.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!