Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.invest
Subject: E F Hutton
Message-ID: <11185@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 11:02:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11185
Posted: Fri May 31 11:02:13 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 13:19:50 EDT
Reply-To: wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP
Distribution: net
Organization: USAMC ALMSA
Lines: 25
Summary: What was so bad?

What was so bad about what E. F. Hutton did? As far as I have seen, from the 
limited news coverage of the incident or practice that I have seen, they did
nothing more than sensibly manage their assets, by controlling their use of 
float. What I have heard is that no one or no organization was actually
*harmed* by their actions; just that certain banks MADE LESS INTEREST than
they would have had, if THEY had done the controlling, like they do to all
of us, instead of being under the control of this other entity (Hutton).

What could possibly be wrong with that? It seems "turnabout is fair play",
to me. Maybe I know too little about just what was done, but it certainly
hasn't been made clear that, if I owned Hutton, I would have disapproved
of what the people did -- it seems like they did what they SHOULD, to 
maximize return to the company by handling their money with knowledge
and skill.

I'd appreciate seeing postings explaining what was WRONG with what Hutton did.
(NOT just what was "illegal" -- illegality has nothing to do with 
"rightness" or "wrongness" any more, especially in laws relating to 
financial or business practices, which are totally artificial constructs
with no grounding in morality.)

Regards,
Will Martin

USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin     or   ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA