Supposedly the market is down

[byu71]

because the Senate has delayed the Bernanke vote and Obama's bad mouthing of the banking sector.

I am pretty conservative and basically a republican, but I support Obama here. I have been in this business for 28 years and the people that have continually bugged me the most are these folks who come up with new fangled financial instruments. The one thing that is pretty common with these instruments is high risk. The oft used phrase for allowing this "bull shit", pardon the french, is that it provides liquidity for the market place.

Now liquidity is good and needed, however too much of it causes booms and busts. You have so much liquidity you have kids fresh out of Harvard and Stanford managing millions and millions of dollars. Honestly folks, these guys don't know shit, french again. Too many dollars chasing an asset causes the price to go up. It doesn't mean the value is going up.

I am willing to take a hit to my portfolio right now if they will do what I have wanted done for a long, long, long time. Quit giving tons of money to kids straight out of college to throw around.

[Hallelujah]

because the Senate has delayed the Bernanke vote and Obama's bad mouthing of the banking sector.

I am pretty conservative and basically a republican, but I support Obama here. I have been in this business for 28 years and the people that have continually bugged me the most are these folks who come up with new fangled financial instruments. The one thing that is pretty common with these instruments is high risk. The oft used phrase for allowing this "bull shit", pardon the french, is that it provides liquidity for the market place.

Now liquidity is good and needed, however too much of it causes booms and busts. You have so much liquidity you have kids fresh out of Harvard and Stanford managing millions and millions of dollars. Honestly folks, these guys don't know shit, french again. Too many dollars chasing an asset causes the price to go up. It doesn't mean the value is going up.

I am willing to take a hit to my portfolio right now if they will do what I have wanted done for a long, long, long time. Quit giving tons of money to kids straight out of college to throw around.

Hey, what's wrong with giving kids money out of college? Is it only reserved for geezers?

[byu71]

Hey, what's wrong with giving kids money out of college? Is it only reserved for geezers?

Give them all you want, just don't let them manage it.

We would have all been a lot better off if the big banks, investment banks, brokerages, et.al. had paid them not to invest the money they managed.


Note: You give old geezers tons of money, then leverage that money over and over and then tell them to manage it, they will cause the same boom bust scenario the young kids do. The thing that bugs me is the idiots at the "big" places get bailed out while the smaller guys like those at say Barnes bank don't.

[Moliere]

The oft used phrase for allowing this "bull shit", pardon the french, is that it provides liquidity for the market place.

The correct french word is "merde"

[Moliere]

because the Senate has delayed the Bernanke vote and Obama's bad mouthing of the banking sector.

I am pretty conservative and basically a republican, but I support Obama here. I have been in this business for 28 years and the people that have continually bugged me the most are these folks who come up with new fangled financial instruments. The one thing that is pretty common with these instruments is high risk. The oft used phrase for allowing this "bull shit", pardon the french, is that it provides liquidity for the market place.

Now liquidity is good and needed, however too much of it causes booms and busts. You have so much liquidity you have kids fresh out of Harvard and Stanford managing millions and millions of dollars. Honestly folks, these guys don't know shit, french again. Too many dollars chasing an asset causes the price to go up. It doesn't mean the value is going up.

I am willing to take a hit to my portfolio right now if they will do what I have wanted done for a long, long, long time. Quit giving tons of money to kids straight out of college to throw around.

I agree on this too, which is odd because basically everything Obama does within the US seems absurd. But this new proposal doesn't seem too far fetched and actually might do more good than harm.

I don't like Obama crying foul over their profits. When you offer them TARP money, less than 1% interest on loans, and $1 for a security that is worth 20% of that what do you expect them to do, walk away? The previous administrations were a conduit for the large bank profits and bonuses we are now seeing. The new legislation seems to be what is needed to prevent this catastrophe (including the government's response) from happening again.

[byu71]

I don't like Obama crying foul over their profits. When you offer them TARP money, less than 1% interest on loans, and $1 for a security that is worth 20% of that what do you expect them to do, walk away? The previous administrations were a conduit for the large bank profits and bonuses we are now seeing. The new legislation seems to be what is needed to prevent this catastrophe (including the government's response) from happening again.

I agree with you here too. Look, the government set up the game and now they are going to ball because of how it turned out. They (banks) are paying back the money with interest. I hear the government is even making money on their stock options. Too much bitching about what is. Deal with it.

Now what they need to do is put an agenda in place to help prevent it in the future. They spend too much time doing politics and not enough time fixing things.

[Goatnapper'96]

because the Senate has delayed the Bernanke vote and Obama's bad mouthing of the banking sector.

I am pretty conservative and basically a republican, but I support Obama here. I have been in this business for 28 years and the people that have continually bugged me the most are these folks who come up with new fangled financial instruments. The one thing that is pretty common with these instruments is high risk. The oft used phrase for allowing this "bull shit", pardon the french, is that it provides liquidity for the market place.

Now liquidity is good and needed, however too much of it causes booms and busts. You have so much liquidity you have kids fresh out of Harvard and Stanford managing millions and millions of dollars. Honestly folks, these guys don't know shit, french again. Too many dollars chasing an asset causes the price to go up. It doesn't mean the value is going up.

I am willing to take a hit to my portfolio right now if they will do what I have wanted done for a long, long, long time. Quit giving tons of money to kids straight out of college to throw around.

I am not a finance guy so I spent some time trying to understand the issue. I doubt I will ever grasp the issue enough, but the general gist is that Obama is trying to prevent regulated banks (FDIC insured) from being able to invest. I gather that this was codified in a New Deal era law called Glass-Steagull but repealed in 1999. The repeal seems to coincide with when the housing market began to boom like never before. Was there any opposition to the repeal with anyone forecasting the dire circumstances brought to fruition in the financial crisis of the past two years?

It seems to me that the USA has put off making the changes to our standard of living neccesary since the end of the Cold War opened so much of the world to the world economy. US manufacturing started declining in the late 90's and the market correction went to the housing market, which was financed by self-creating debt. It lasted about a decade but now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Regardless, from what I can read on the subject it appears that I think President Obama is on the right path as well. It seems instead of beating populist drums of class warfare he is seeking a solution to the cause of huge banker bonuses. The system had bankers with lots of money investing for themselves without any of the risk. They got the bonus if it went well and if it went bad, the taxpayers took care of the risk.

[byu71]

I am not a finance guy so I spent some time trying to understand the issue. I doubt I will ever grasp the issue enough, but the general gist is that Obama is trying to prevent regulated banks (FDIC insured) from being able to invest. I gather that this was codified in a New Deal era law called Glass-Steagull but repealed in 1999. The repeal seems to coincide with when the housing market began to boom like never before. Was there any opposition to the repeal with anyone forecasting the dire circumstances brought to fruition in the financial crisis of the past two years?

It seems to me that the USA has put off making the changes to our standard of living neccesary since the end of the Cold War opened so much of the world to the world economy. US manufacturing started declining in the late 90's and the market correction went to the housing market, which was financed by self-creating debt. It lasted about a decade but now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Regardless, from what I can read on the subject it appears that I think President Obama is on the right path as well. It seems instead of beating populist drums of class warfare he is seeking a solution to the cause of huge banker bonuses. The system had bankers with lots of money investing for themselves without any of the risk. They got the bonus if it went well and if it went bad, the taxpayers took care of the risk.

This is how it kind of works. I say kind of because I have to keep it simple in my mind.

Everyone knows goat invests aggressively. He just gets his hands on money that aggresive investors want to give him. Everyone knows BYU71 is conservative and he gets access to tons of conservative money.

goat and '71 decide to get together to make tons of money. goat has access to 1 billion in investor money and '71 has access to 10 billion in investor money. They merge into an investment bank, take the 11 billion and borrown another 100 billion. Then they go margin and get another 100 billion. Now they have 221 billion to manage and get paid fees on. Of course whaever they decide to chase goes up in price and folks on the sideline decide they want to buy these great investments that are going up.

Problem is at some point we do run out of buyers. No more money. Prices collapse. The only one with enough money to buoy things up is the fed and the US taxpayer.

Goat and '71 by the way came out just fine and with government financing will come out fine again.

Simplistic I know.

[John McClain]

Hey, what's wrong with giving kids money out of college? Is it only reserved for geezers?

As a geezer, I am all in favor of having money given to me. In fact, me and a couple of my Nigerian friends can show you how to make substantial returns on your investment with me.

[Fiyero]

Supposedly the market is down because the Senate has delayed the Bernanke vote and Obama's bad mouthing of the banking sector.

Whether it's those items, or Senator-elect Brown, or the request to raise the deficit ceiling to $14.2 tril, the Dow is now -465 over the past three days. Today was the worst one-day drop since October.

[venkman]

I am not a finance guy so I spent some time trying to understand the issue. I doubt I will ever grasp the issue enough, but the general gist is that Obama is trying to prevent regulated banks (FDIC insured) from being able to invest. I gather that this was codified in a New Deal era law called Glass-Steagull but repealed in 1999. The repeal seems to coincide with when the housing market began to boom like never before. Was there any opposition to the repeal with anyone forecasting the dire circumstances brought to fruition in the financial crisis of the past two years?

It seems to me that the USA has put off making the changes to our standard of living neccesary since the end of the Cold War opened so much of the world to the world economy. US manufacturing started declining in the late 90's and the market correction went to the housing market, which was financed by self-creating debt. It lasted about a decade but now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Regardless, from what I can read on the subject it appears that I think President Obama is on the right path as well. It seems instead of beating populist drums of class warfare he is seeking a solution to the cause of huge banker bonuses. The system had bankers with lots of money investing for themselves without any of the risk. They got the bonus if it went well and if it went bad, the taxpayers took care of the risk.

Yes, he's essentially proposing a return to the spirit of Glass-Steagal. I'm also in favor of it. I do wonder how much good this will do if passed; since Obama has received so much money from Wall Street, my fear is that this is mostly for show and that there will be so many massive loopholes as to not have any real impact.

[byu71]

Whether it's those items, or Senator-elect Brown, or the request to raise the deficit ceiling to $14.2 tril, the Dow is now -465 over the past three days. Today was the worst one-day drop since October.

Bernanke not being confirmed yet, Obama bashing the banks, China talking about slowing their economy and the market had come quite a ways, I still am surprised not that we have come off 4-5%, but that it is in 3 days. That with some decent earnings reports from some companies.

My suspicion is that in the next little while you will hear about a hedge fund screw up. I always say that, but am right only about 70% of the time when I say it.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I am not a finance guy so I spent some time trying to understand the issue. I doubt I will ever grasp the issue enough, but the general gist is that Obama is trying to prevent regulated banks (FDIC insured) from being able to invest. I gather that this was codified in a New Deal era law called Glass-Steagull but repealed in 1999. The repeal seems to coincide with when the housing market began to boom like never before. Was there any opposition to the repeal with anyone forecasting the dire circumstances brought to fruition in the financial crisis of the past two years?
...

I listened to a local interview yesterday of Tom Campbell who is running for the Republican nomination for Boxer's Senate seat (oh please, let him win). He was a Congressman at the time of Glass-Steagall's repeal and he said he was one of only seven GOP reps who voted against it. He's a smart guy (Stanford business professor, among other things) and seems to have foreseen the havoc that the repeal has wrought, although I question whether even he could see how ugly things would get.

I have tended to support the largely conservative, GOP-led fights for deregulation (airlines, telecommunications, etc.) based in part on what is almost an axiom: less government= good; more government = bad. As we've seen, that's not always the case. The hard part is making government better, not necessarily smaller.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I listened to a local interview yesterday of Tom Campbell who is running for the Republican nomination for Boxer's Senate seat (oh please, let him win). He was a Congressman at the time of Glass-Steagall's repeal and he said he was one of only seven GOP reps who voted against it. He's a smart guy (Stanford business professor, among other things) and seems to have foreseen the havoc that the repeal has wrought, although I question whether even he could see how ugly things would get.

I have tended to support the largely conservative, GOP-led fights for deregulation (airlines, telecommunications, etc.) based in part on what is almost an axiom: less government= good; more government = bad. As we've seen, that's not always the case. The hard part is making government better, not necessarily smaller.

Campbell lost to Diane Feinstein by something like 18 points. I think that was back in 2000. But Diane Feinstein has generally been a very popular figure statewide while Boxer has not been. Her dressing down of the officer for calling her "ma'am" was disgraceful. "Ma'am" in the military is the equivalent of sir (like in other contexts) and senior female officer is addressed as "Ma'am." She's also had the luck of running in 92, 98 and 04 which were all very good years for Democrats in California. I'm not sure if 94, 00, 02 or even 96 would have been as kind (06 and 08 were even better years for Democrats than 92, 98 and 04).

[venkman]

Campbell lost to Diane Feinstein by something like 18 points. I think that was back in 2000. But Diane Feinstein has generally been a very popular figure statewide while Boxer has not been. Her dressing down of the officer for calling her "ma'am" was disgraceful. "Ma'am" in the military is the equivalent of sir (like in other contexts) and senior female officer is addressed as "Ma'am." She's also had the luck of running in 92, 98 and 04 which were all very good years for Democrats in California. I'm not sure if 94, 00, 02 or even 96 would have been as kind (06 and 08 were even better years for Democrats than 92, 98 and 04).

She is a straight up you-know-what. Please, people of California, quit embarrassing yourselves and vote this "lady" out of office.