There appears to be a trend playing around with the disclaimer in federal ads. This one is almost comparative with the long explanation for why exactly Kirk approves this message.
Seems to me if they’re going to spend so many seconds on Kirk saying nice things about himself they could just cut a standard comparative.
8/10. If you don’t know anything about the candidates, this is very effective. Kirk better hope nobody can remember his 10 years in Congress, an orgy of spending and bigger government with no oversight that led us right into the financial system collapse.
And is he more tan than I remember or is he using Boehner’s make-up person?
wumpus: i’ve seen alexi’s record, and i’m proud to support him! he reformed the treasurer’s office, brought it into the 21st century, professionalized the office and is now rated one of the best in the country.
mark kirk? well, he went to congress and started lying to the rest of the members from the start. even republicans are weary of what he says (although everyone agrees that he’s great at what they’d expect from their staff). anybody who has ever talked to him realizes what a shallow, weak mind he has. i’m looking for someone who can be another barack obama or dick durbin — a leader in the senate — not someone who aspires to be the next carol mosley brown, roland burris or peter fitzgerald (i know, i know, this is illinois. who cares what happens in the *U.S.* senate?)…
I’m thinking you might as well just give up on people rating ads for the remainder of the season. We’re down to partisans trying to score with drive-by comments, rather than any meaningful assessment of the ads.
Time Out: i pretty sure that democrats are not the only people who don’t like being lied to. i can tell you for fact that republicans on the hill didn’t like it (i know, i know, illinois is different and who cares what republicans on the hill think)…
A serial collection of cheap shots with a complete non-sequitor as the punchline. Spend less, tax less and borrow less — whatever else you can call it — is not a remotely workable combination in this economy, never mind the fact that it would have precisely the opposite effect to putting anyone back to work. You can have two of the three in combination. Not all of them. Take your pick, and in doing so, consider how it will be cash-flowed now, and in ten years’ time.
Giannoulias/Brady for my statewide votes? It’s a possible combination, believe it or not. Walter Mitty never was going to get my vote for Senate, but the rolling Quinn trainwreck and its incoherent interactions with the ossified placeholders of state government is a whole other story.
The losses were more than originally stated in bright start.
Last time I checked he is in favor of a tax increase.
Last time I checked the bank did fail and it did cost the FDIC a lot of money.
bored now — I would be a little more sympathetic if my kids had not lost money in a ’safe’ bond fund.
OMG OneMan! you mean that wall street perpetrated a fraud on you and you expect the government to have protected you? and you think the answer to that is to elect mark kirk? who’s for, well, LESS PROTECTION???
i know my head is spinning. i can’t imagine how you square the two…
Well it’s easy, the Bright Start issue was a serious sign that he was not up to the job.
If there is a contract (contract law if different that securities law) between me and my investment firm in terms of a prospectus that states that they are only going to invest in a certain type of security with a certain rating I expect those guidelines to be followed.
Since the middleman is also taking a cut and is the one who is responsible for the bigger package (in this case the various age x-y funds that Bright Start put money in) I would expect them to at least manage the fund to make sure none of the investment managers has gone off the reservation.
That is basic risk management, entities that manage investments in any way shape or form should be doing it.
Depending on the investment it isn’t even that hard, find your position at the end of the day and do some math to find how much risk you are running (are you long or short) are you seeing returns on anything outside of a normal range (big upsides should also be warnings, a good risk manager would have told you Madoff’s returns made no sense long term) as well as look at what is in the portfolio to see if it matches parameters. Do you have holdings outside or near the limits of the parameters of your fund?
The state was not an end consumer so it should have been able to get the complete daily position of all of the funds that it’s manager was putting it’s money into.
Then if it turns out that basic risk management has failed, I kind of would like that money manager to be able to ascertain the impact of that correctly the first time not come back with a much higher number later.
That is a sign of a really bad manager.
The goal of the manager is to prevent the termites from doing any damage, not taking credit for noticing the damage after a door falls off it’s hinges and being proud for doing that.
Finally I would expect that if that were the case, the manager would work diligently to recover all of the losses that came from the investments that occurred outside of the parameters. Not recover 50% and call it a good day.
So if you tell me my picks are someone who is in favor of less regulation or someone who is in favor of more regulation and monitoring but didn’t do a very good job of it when he had chance, I will take the former.
Also to be blunt two more things.
Considering the complete mess this state is in, I do not feel any statewide elected deserves an upgrade.
Also I have never been that impressed with guys who get where they are in the business world because of who their dad was. It was one of my many issue with Andy McKenna and the same is true with Alexi. If he had worked someplace else besides for a basetball team, his family and the state I would be a bit more impressed.
Finally why is it OK for Millionaire Alexi not have paid taxes but it is a huge hit on Millionaire Bill Brady?
I much prefer these substance hits over the “mob banker” meme. Smooth transitions, solid hits, and good production. I give it a B+, maybe a A- for tying Alexi to the Chicago machine. If they had quoted some independent sources–like American Crossroads’ ad–I would bump it up into the “A” range.
ah, OneMan, wall street is a mystery? that’s ok. that’s why we so desperately needed reform.
my first job out of college was to work for first boston at 26 broadway. ok, the location wasn’t *quite* wall street, but the investment bank was. my job, what i was hired to do, was to connect variables, write equations and then code so that our computers could recognize even seconds of opportunity to make money. when i left, first boston had 300 “opportunities” where computers could act and make them money. as i consulted with them through the 80s, it grew to 6,000. i can’t imagine how much more complex it is now.
but that’s not the only thing that gives wall street an enormous advantage. because bernie madoff wasn’t alone. he wasn’t even one of a handful. no, more like hundreds of people out there were commiting fraud (that we know of). and the reason that they could commit fraud was because people had this really bizarre sense of trust in the street and in the people working there. just like you. you didn’t trust the state, you trusted the investment firm. you believed the prospectus meant something. the state wasn’t supposed to invest your money (alexi’s office MADE MONEY for the state), and you didn’t expect the state to protect your money. what you expected — and what you got — was very loose oversight of the firm/manager by the state. that’s what you got.
until, of course, you lost it.
and then you did what everyone does. blame the government for not protecting them from these mean old baddies. (actually, they’re greedy bastards, not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
so i find your explanation bizarre. it sounds good in theory, but it’s just unrealistic (to me).
first of all, your conclusion that bright start “was a serious sign that he was not up to the job” seriously places doubt on your reasoning skills. alexi giannoullias, well, his office, was the FIRST one to notice the discrepency. we weren’t the last of the states who got defrauded to notice, but the first. that’s a sign that not only was he up to the job, but he was damn good at it.
and when oppenheimer (iirc) would refund all the money, alexi handed a pretty good case over to the attorney general. which is all he could do under the current economic conditions.
but what you really wanted was a bailout — not that there’s anything wrong with that.
we’ll skip all the bizarre stuff that shows that you don’t understand what fraud is, or at least what the fraud was in this case. i suppose i don’t understand people who start with a conclusion (eg, i don’t like alexi) and then looks for excuses to help them justify it. i’m one of those people who takes facts and derives conclusions from them.
but, having said that, this is america, and you are free to vote for whoever you want. i merely noticed the circular reasoning implied in your comment. you’re normal, most people want the government to protect them from fraud. and it really sucks that there is so much fraud in the investment system — and that will continue as long as so much money is involved and wall street is viewed as untouchable (which people on wall street do think of themselves that way). so your preference for less regulation and less government oversight is why fraud could be committed on someone like you. it was, after all, *your* preference.
i won’t quibble with your feelings about how screwed up illinois is. if i thought bill brady was a fiscal conservative like chris christie instead of a social conservative like christine o’donnell, i might be voting for him myself. we’re in deep doodoo. but given what brady’s already done (and voted), we know this guy is just going to steal from us — and end up in a federal prison. you don’t line your pockets as a legislator and then be a good guy when you’ve got a big pot of money to play with.
this is illinois! we seem to prefer crooks here.
and i think alexi’s failure to pay taxes was a rookie mistake. he hasn’t been a politician for 15 years and he’s never run for re-election before. alexi has good judgment about some things, but he doesn’t have the most innate political sense. fortunately, that is something you acquire by experience. four years isn’t much political experience. but he’ll make a great senator!
I used to work in equity research on the data side of the shop for a equity research firm in Chicago so I have some familiarity with the industry as well.
I enjoy how you are reading my mind here.
you didn’t expect the state to protect your money. what you expected — and what you got — was very loose oversight of the firm/manager by the state. that’s what you got.
until, of course, you lost it.
No, that’s not what I expected. I expected the overall fund manager (the state) to live up to what they told me was in the darn fund. That a component was in ’safe’ bonds.
I don’t mind if I lose money because you said you were betting on football and the bears in fact won. I do mind if I lose money because you decide to bet on the ponies.
If this had been for example a different firm, I would hold them to the same standard, this isn’t a government thing. These are the guys who sold me and should have been managing the fund more carefully. In this case it happened to be the state of Illinois, it could have been Thrivent and I would expect the same level of service.
If this had been a private entity instead of the state then the class action bar would have stepped in and I suspect would have done better in terms of a settlement.
No, being the first guy to notice the house is on fire is not good frakin management. The effective manager prevents the problem, being the first guy to notice the problem isn’t management.
and when oppenheimer (iirc) would refund all the money, alexi handed a pretty good case over to the attorney general. which is all he could do under the current economic conditions.
I can tell you don’t have money in that fund, because it was a 50% recovery, not 100%
Also any firm worth it’s salt can do nightly risk management regardless of how many different trading algorithms and everything else they have going on. Heck your clearing firms basically require it and do their own version of it for you basically constantly.
- The Captain - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 6:49 pm:
Trust? They should have called it Kitchen Sink.
- Old Viking - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 6:53 pm:
Hard to believe they fit all those hits into 30 seconds. If ever there was a candidate perfect for a 60 second attack ad, it’s Alexi Giannoulias.
- Dirt Digger - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 7:00 pm:
There appears to be a trend playing around with the disclaimer in federal ads. This one is almost comparative with the long explanation for why exactly Kirk approves this message.
Seems to me if they’re going to spend so many seconds on Kirk saying nice things about himself they could just cut a standard comparative.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 7:14 pm:
The spot would have been perfect if it had ended, “I’m Mark Kirk and I endorse this message. Trust me, I’m a doctor….
..A brain surgeon, actually, yeah, that’s the ticket, when I was with the Rough Riders….
- Brenda - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 7:15 pm:
I liked it and give it five stars. But only because there’s so much Alexi time! He’s easy on the eyes, as they say.
- shore - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 7:17 pm:
I’ll take more please.
- Louis Howe - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 7:40 pm:
C- Convoluted message, too much material, not enough back ground supporting documentation…
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 7:52 pm:
8/10. If you don’t know anything about the candidates, this is very effective. Kirk better hope nobody can remember his 10 years in Congress, an orgy of spending and bigger government with no oversight that led us right into the financial system collapse.
And is he more tan than I remember or is he using Boehner’s make-up person?
- Wumpus - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 7:56 pm:
red, have you seen Alexi’s record?
- bored now - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 8:01 pm:
just more lies from kirk. he’s true to form. he should have let the nrsc do this ad, at least they’d be credible…
- bored now - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 8:05 pm:
wumpus: i’ve seen alexi’s record, and i’m proud to support him! he reformed the treasurer’s office, brought it into the 21st century, professionalized the office and is now rated one of the best in the country.
mark kirk? well, he went to congress and started lying to the rest of the members from the start. even republicans are weary of what he says (although everyone agrees that he’s great at what they’d expect from their staff). anybody who has ever talked to him realizes what a shallow, weak mind he has. i’m looking for someone who can be another barack obama or dick durbin — a leader in the senate — not someone who aspires to be the next carol mosley brown, roland burris or peter fitzgerald (i know, i know, this is illinois. who cares what happens in the *U.S.* senate?)…
- Time Out - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 8:19 pm:
I’m thinking you might as well just give up on people rating ads for the remainder of the season. We’re down to partisans trying to score with drive-by comments, rather than any meaningful assessment of the ads.
- Responsa - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 8:24 pm:
B+
Solid marketing. A nice companion/reinforcement ad to the demon driver Alexi ad. Plus bonus points for the higher income tax dig.
- ourMagician - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 8:27 pm:
B+-highlighting the bank issue without using “mob banker”-harder to try and defend. The bank was closed by the FDIC-no doubting that fact.
- bored now - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 8:37 pm:
Time Out: i pretty sure that democrats are not the only people who don’t like being lied to. i can tell you for fact that republicans on the hill didn’t like it (i know, i know, illinois is different and who cares what republicans on the hill think)…
- plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 8:59 pm:
good ad, i like how it plays through.
The house of cards is beginning to fall in
Illinois for the Democrats……..
- MrJM - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 9:04 pm:
Trust?
Mark Kirk? About what?
His military record?
Or his “conservative credentials”?
Or his record as a “moderate”?
Or his position on legislation?
Can someone point to a single aspect of Mark Kirk’s public life where he has been trustworthy?
– MrJM
- Angry Chicagoan - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 9:17 pm:
A serial collection of cheap shots with a complete non-sequitor as the punchline. Spend less, tax less and borrow less — whatever else you can call it — is not a remotely workable combination in this economy, never mind the fact that it would have precisely the opposite effect to putting anyone back to work. You can have two of the three in combination. Not all of them. Take your pick, and in doing so, consider how it will be cash-flowed now, and in ten years’ time.
Giannoulias/Brady for my statewide votes? It’s a possible combination, believe it or not. Walter Mitty never was going to get my vote for Senate, but the rolling Quinn trainwreck and its incoherent interactions with the ossified placeholders of state government is a whole other story.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 9:26 pm:
Ummm where are the lies in this…
The losses were more than originally stated in bright start.
Last time I checked he is in favor of a tax increase.
Last time I checked the bank did fail and it did cost the FDIC a lot of money.
bored now — I would be a little more sympathetic if my kids had not lost money in a ’safe’ bond fund.
- bored now - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 9:30 pm:
OMG OneMan! you mean that wall street perpetrated a fraud on you and you expect the government to have protected you? and you think the answer to that is to elect mark kirk? who’s for, well, LESS PROTECTION???
i know my head is spinning. i can’t imagine how you square the two…
- OneMan - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 10:04 pm:
Well it’s easy, the Bright Start issue was a serious sign that he was not up to the job.
If there is a contract (contract law if different that securities law) between me and my investment firm in terms of a prospectus that states that they are only going to invest in a certain type of security with a certain rating I expect those guidelines to be followed.
Since the middleman is also taking a cut and is the one who is responsible for the bigger package (in this case the various age x-y funds that Bright Start put money in) I would expect them to at least manage the fund to make sure none of the investment managers has gone off the reservation.
That is basic risk management, entities that manage investments in any way shape or form should be doing it.
Depending on the investment it isn’t even that hard, find your position at the end of the day and do some math to find how much risk you are running (are you long or short) are you seeing returns on anything outside of a normal range (big upsides should also be warnings, a good risk manager would have told you Madoff’s returns made no sense long term) as well as look at what is in the portfolio to see if it matches parameters. Do you have holdings outside or near the limits of the parameters of your fund?
The state was not an end consumer so it should have been able to get the complete daily position of all of the funds that it’s manager was putting it’s money into.
Then if it turns out that basic risk management has failed, I kind of would like that money manager to be able to ascertain the impact of that correctly the first time not come back with a much higher number later.
That is a sign of a really bad manager.
The goal of the manager is to prevent the termites from doing any damage, not taking credit for noticing the damage after a door falls off it’s hinges and being proud for doing that.
Finally I would expect that if that were the case, the manager would work diligently to recover all of the losses that came from the investments that occurred outside of the parameters. Not recover 50% and call it a good day.
So if you tell me my picks are someone who is in favor of less regulation or someone who is in favor of more regulation and monitoring but didn’t do a very good job of it when he had chance, I will take the former.
Also to be blunt two more things.
Considering the complete mess this state is in, I do not feel any statewide elected deserves an upgrade.
Also I have never been that impressed with guys who get where they are in the business world because of who their dad was. It was one of my many issue with Andy McKenna and the same is true with Alexi. If he had worked someplace else besides for a basetball team, his family and the state I would be a bit more impressed.
Finally why is it OK for Millionaire Alexi not have paid taxes but it is a huge hit on Millionaire Bill Brady?
- Amalia - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 10:38 pm:
it’s the happy Kirk elf version of the ditch driver commercial!
he’s just a tad too happy at the end for my tastes.
- Far Northsider - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 11:00 pm:
And the question of course is HOW will Mr. Kirk tax less, spend less, borrow less and put Illinois back to work?
- mia - Tuesday, Sep 21, 10 @ 11:39 pm:
not a bad ad…. darn it…
- Liandro - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 1:00 am:
I much prefer these substance hits over the “mob banker” meme. Smooth transitions, solid hits, and good production. I give it a B+, maybe a A- for tying Alexi to the Chicago machine. If they had quoted some independent sources–like American Crossroads’ ad–I would bump it up into the “A” range.
- Moving to Oklahoma - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 6:18 am:
It’s a good ad, and I don’t like that. Alexi better go up again soon with more “Mark Kirk lied about his military record” spots.
- bored now - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 7:02 am:
ah, OneMan, wall street is a mystery? that’s ok. that’s why we so desperately needed reform.
my first job out of college was to work for first boston at 26 broadway. ok, the location wasn’t *quite* wall street, but the investment bank was. my job, what i was hired to do, was to connect variables, write equations and then code so that our computers could recognize even seconds of opportunity to make money. when i left, first boston had 300 “opportunities” where computers could act and make them money. as i consulted with them through the 80s, it grew to 6,000. i can’t imagine how much more complex it is now.
but that’s not the only thing that gives wall street an enormous advantage. because bernie madoff wasn’t alone. he wasn’t even one of a handful. no, more like hundreds of people out there were commiting fraud (that we know of). and the reason that they could commit fraud was because people had this really bizarre sense of trust in the street and in the people working there. just like you. you didn’t trust the state, you trusted the investment firm. you believed the prospectus meant something. the state wasn’t supposed to invest your money (alexi’s office MADE MONEY for the state), and you didn’t expect the state to protect your money. what you expected — and what you got — was very loose oversight of the firm/manager by the state. that’s what you got.
until, of course, you lost it.
and then you did what everyone does. blame the government for not protecting them from these mean old baddies. (actually, they’re greedy bastards, not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
so i find your explanation bizarre. it sounds good in theory, but it’s just unrealistic (to me).
first of all, your conclusion that bright start “was a serious sign that he was not up to the job” seriously places doubt on your reasoning skills. alexi giannoullias, well, his office, was the FIRST one to notice the discrepency. we weren’t the last of the states who got defrauded to notice, but the first. that’s a sign that not only was he up to the job, but he was damn good at it.
and when oppenheimer (iirc) would refund all the money, alexi handed a pretty good case over to the attorney general. which is all he could do under the current economic conditions.
but what you really wanted was a bailout — not that there’s anything wrong with that.
we’ll skip all the bizarre stuff that shows that you don’t understand what fraud is, or at least what the fraud was in this case. i suppose i don’t understand people who start with a conclusion (eg, i don’t like alexi) and then looks for excuses to help them justify it. i’m one of those people who takes facts and derives conclusions from them.
but, having said that, this is america, and you are free to vote for whoever you want. i merely noticed the circular reasoning implied in your comment. you’re normal, most people want the government to protect them from fraud. and it really sucks that there is so much fraud in the investment system — and that will continue as long as so much money is involved and wall street is viewed as untouchable (which people on wall street do think of themselves that way). so your preference for less regulation and less government oversight is why fraud could be committed on someone like you. it was, after all, *your* preference.
i won’t quibble with your feelings about how screwed up illinois is. if i thought bill brady was a fiscal conservative like chris christie instead of a social conservative like christine o’donnell, i might be voting for him myself. we’re in deep doodoo. but given what brady’s already done (and voted), we know this guy is just going to steal from us — and end up in a federal prison. you don’t line your pockets as a legislator and then be a good guy when you’ve got a big pot of money to play with.
this is illinois! we seem to prefer crooks here.
and i think alexi’s failure to pay taxes was a rookie mistake. he hasn’t been a politician for 15 years and he’s never run for re-election before. alexi has good judgment about some things, but he doesn’t have the most innate political sense. fortunately, that is something you acquire by experience. four years isn’t much political experience. but he’ll make a great senator!
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 8:18 am:
Hola Senor Kirk
BASTA!
- OneMan - Wednesday, Sep 22, 10 @ 12:15 pm:
I used to work in equity research on the data side of the shop for a equity research firm in Chicago so I have some familiarity with the industry as well.
I enjoy how you are reading my mind here.
No, that’s not what I expected. I expected the overall fund manager (the state) to live up to what they told me was in the darn fund. That a component was in ’safe’ bonds.
I don’t mind if I lose money because you said you were betting on football and the bears in fact won. I do mind if I lose money because you decide to bet on the ponies.
If this had been for example a different firm, I would hold them to the same standard, this isn’t a government thing. These are the guys who sold me and should have been managing the fund more carefully. In this case it happened to be the state of Illinois, it could have been Thrivent and I would expect the same level of service.
If this had been a private entity instead of the state then the class action bar would have stepped in and I suspect would have done better in terms of a settlement.
No, being the first guy to notice the house is on fire is not good frakin management. The effective manager prevents the problem, being the first guy to notice the problem isn’t management.
and when oppenheimer (iirc) would refund all the money, alexi handed a pretty good case over to the attorney general. which is all he could do under the current economic conditions.
I can tell you don’t have money in that fund, because it was a 50% recovery, not 100%
Also any firm worth it’s salt can do nightly risk management regardless of how many different trading algorithms and everything else they have going on. Heck your clearing firms basically require it and do their own version of it for you basically constantly.