Breaking them up seems like a very difficult thing to do to such powerful institutions. Seems like the best bite at that apple that we had was to simply let them go under in the first place. Can anyone explain to me why we bailed out those assholes in the first place? Couldn't we have done better just lowering interest rates to zero and spending half of what we spent on the bailout on a much bigger stimulus package instead?
Part of the reason I was gone was the busiest summer of my life- culminating in my 20th high school reunion, which I helped organize. What does this have to do with the Sunday funnies, and economics? Because I learned a micro economic lesson when I was there: In hobbies lie the basis of a bottom up re-creation of American Manufacturing.
In this case, Beer. The Onion story may not be that far off. Some old friends of mine, who ended up marrying into each other's families, found themselves all unemployed four year ago. With seven daughters between them and either marriages or college to pay for in the future, unemployment now was a bit of a problem. Luckily, one of them was into homebrewing beer- and another was into marketing. My hometown now has Seven Brides brewery- a small microbrewery, that actually manufactures enough to raise the girls the beers are named for, plus a little extra that goes into each girl's college/marriage fund.
I've heard a similar story about JK Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series- that without a layoff and unemployment period, The Philosopher's Stone, later retitled for the American Market, would never have been written.
So maybe there is something to the old economic theory that unemployment frees up resources for other uses. I just don't think they will be high tech ones- or ones for export, or even in the case of Seven Brides which has yet to market in bottles instead of kegs and to retail outlets instead of bars, the general public.
they are performing their function of finding the best deal possible for their investors so I would expect to be punked by them. The problem is that the gov't, in my opinion, has an obligation to not allow or limit the punking not facilitate it.
Should be producing something, not gambling in the stock market to begin with. So yes, I do believe the intent of this is to remove people from day trading jobs and place them back into the factories.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
Who are you to say that their religion of socializing costs and privatizing gains is wrong? Isn't it just their exercise of free will?
But oddly enough, GK Chesterton had the answer to this a long time ago: The one thing capitalism most suffers from is a lack of capitalists. You're absolutely right- break them up. Keep the banks small. Same with every other industry- small factories mean more jobs for more people- due to the loss of economy of scale.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
How could you possibly blame anyone in the Obama Administration?
Certainly you're not blaming Rahm Emanuel (Wasserstein Perella)? Nor could you possibly blame Diana Farrell (McKinsey Global Institute, Goldman Sachs)? Not even Laura Tyson (Morgan Stanley)?
I can't fathom how you could possibly blame Richard Holbrooke (Perseus LLC) and certainly not Robert Hormats (Goldman Sachs)? Tell me you're not blaming Roger Altman (Blackstone Group)? And God forbid you should blame Larry Summers or Timothy Geithner (every stinking slime on Wall $treet)?
Just because President Obama met with the director of UBS, and got their official seal of approval prior to the election, don't tell me you think a Swiss banker could possibly have anything to do with it?
Well I hope you like volatility, and I mean a lot of it. Why? Because market makers and day traders will have to move stocks into even wider bid/ask spreads to make up that difference. Say you need to get out of a stock at a certain price? Good luck, even with a limit order fullfilling that even with a fill-or-kill order
Not sure I get this. I never heard of "day traders" until the 90's. I remember my dad doing a lot of stock market investing back in the 70's and I don't remember any crazy volatility that went away when day trading became a big thing. What am I missing here?
As for stock trading moving overseas where we have no control but it still affects our economy, that is a worrisome prospect indeed. (Thanks for your answer to my previous question on that.) Perhaps a return to some Bretton Woods type deal that restricts international capital flow is in order.
What would you think of a transaction tax in a hypothetical world where stock trading moving overseas is out of the picture? Would you be more amenable to it if it only applies to trades larger than a certain size or if it is a smaller rate, say 0.01% rather than 0.1%?
Aside from a transaction tax, I would like to see capital gains taxed progressively like income tax is. Why don't we do that? As Warren Buffet likes to point out, he pays lower tax rates than his secretary.
talked about the Tobin tax in the context of having financial institutions and financial sector that was too big. Now, those who absolutely dread the Tobin tax are saying we should have "macro-prudential" policies that monitor the entire system for risk and make capital requirements of individual banks a function of their size.
I say bullshit. Any new capital requirements will have loopholes or the financial conglomerates will find ways around the capital requirements.
The solution: BREAK THEM UP! Either through anti-trust laws or the re-establishment of some form of Glass-Steagall. This would require upsetting the financial oligarchy.
These loss share agreements have been part of almost all of FDIC's sales. Buyers of IndyMac got a huge one. This is a huge reason why private equity firms want in on this deal.
In the late 90s through early 2000s (or is it 00s?), there was actually a race of sorts between the major US and British and EU and Singapore exchanges over listings. When Sarbaines Oxley passed, the LSE's Alternative Investment Market (AIM) made some headway, same with Euronext. And really, as far as I can tell, there is no rule that says you MUST float your shares on a US-based bourse.
Many foreign exchanges do offer things that one cannot trade or do here in the US. Mainly this is due to regulations. For example, there are specific commodity ETFs that probably won't see the light of day here. Another example are single-stock futures, yes they started trading here, but they are nothing like their European or Asian counterparts (ironically enough the largest open interest are in futures on US stocks). And at times, American exchanges were not the largest, for a few years the Kofex or Korean Futures Exchange (now just called the Korean Exchange) main derivatives (i.e. futures and options) on the KOSPI (their "Dow") had more contracts traded than say the S&P pits on the Merc.
IBM could as easily be traded, if not HQ'd, in Europe as it could in Asia or even Toronto. Same with Microsoft, or Goldman Sachs. Remember, with stocks, its just paper, it doesn't matter. Secondly, most exchanges are electronic, so you really wouldn't notice much.
offshore and also, for example, oil futures are traded around the globe, so they could go to another country to do their trades.
I'm not sure if other exchanges trade all U.S. equities, or some or not, I know they can have foreign subsidies etc. traded on other exchanges...like SNE, you can buy that here but is it SNE corporate, i.e. a Japanese stock or is that the FCDC only stock. I'm pretty sure it's the entire Sony corporation when trading it here.
Kind of like corporations moving their headquarters to the Cayman Islands, even though they get U.S. contracts and basically operate in the U.S.
Watch how all those "banksters" move offshore, and many will denounce their citizenship to escape taxes, and still make mint moving American equities.
How would they escape a transaction tax by moving offshore? U.S. equities are still listed on US stock markets right? [I am not familiar with foreign stock markets so I concede that I may be confused on this point.]
which is why I poked fun at the flat taxers...
they will argue all day long for that, claiming it will capture an underground economy, but hit the hedge funds, the major speculators, they will have a hissy fit! i.e. sure it's fine to regressive tax the middle class poor, but them? No way!
you can write up your own Instapopulist, blog post too.
Derivatives are a mile deep topic, takes a lot of research, citations to track on where the interests/money is on them.
i.e. EP is a group effort here and I'm personally trying to get something for work out the door. I'm missing so many yet "amazing facts" to "astound you" type of writings at the moment.
Some additional commentary (which I was just notified of, thanks) which will add to both this excellent blog, and my posted comments.
From Paul Amery's seekingalpha.com article ("Derivatives Probe Raises Pricing Issues for Investors" - dated 7/21/09):
There are very significant interests at stake. Trading in credit instruments continues to contribute a significant portion of the income of many banks – three quarters of JP Morgan’s (JPM) 2008 profits according to one observer, and a large part of Goldman Sachs’s (GS) recent record quarterly revenues. And individual investments linked to Markit’s credit derivatives indices have also been record breakers. Goldman’s proprietary traders reportedly made over US$4 billion in 2007 from short positions in the ABX index as the US sub-prime market imploded, while hedge funds run by New York’s Paulson and Co. earned over 600% in the same year from similar trades.
because it will buy them more time having someone completely inexperienced in their realm, at their helm, while they continue to dissemble and obfuscate on that "misplaced bookkeeping" regarding those paid-out trillions which Bloomberg filed the FOIA on, and the judge agreed to, and the NY Fed is asking for a delay on.
Breaking them up seems like a very difficult thing to do to such powerful institutions. Seems like the best bite at that apple that we had was to simply let them go under in the first place. Can anyone explain to me why we bailed out those assholes in the first place? Couldn't we have done better just lowering interest rates to zero and spending half of what we spent on the bailout on a much bigger stimulus package instead?
miasmo.com
Part of the reason I was gone was the busiest summer of my life- culminating in my 20th high school reunion, which I helped organize. What does this have to do with the Sunday funnies, and economics? Because I learned a micro economic lesson when I was there: In hobbies lie the basis of a bottom up re-creation of American Manufacturing.
In this case, Beer. The Onion story may not be that far off. Some old friends of mine, who ended up marrying into each other's families, found themselves all unemployed four year ago. With seven daughters between them and either marriages or college to pay for in the future, unemployment now was a bit of a problem. Luckily, one of them was into homebrewing beer- and another was into marketing. My hometown now has Seven Brides brewery- a small microbrewery, that actually manufactures enough to raise the girls the beers are named for, plus a little extra that goes into each girl's college/marriage fund.
I've heard a similar story about JK Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series- that without a layoff and unemployment period, The Philosopher's Stone, later retitled for the American Market, would never have been written.
So maybe there is something to the old economic theory that unemployment frees up resources for other uses. I just don't think they will be high tech ones- or ones for export, or even in the case of Seven Brides which has yet to market in bottles instead of kegs and to retail outlets instead of bars, the general public.
Bush's third term.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
they are performing their function of finding the best deal possible for their investors so I would expect to be punked by them. The problem is that the gov't, in my opinion, has an obligation to not allow or limit the punking not facilitate it.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Should be producing something, not gambling in the stock market to begin with. So yes, I do believe the intent of this is to remove people from day trading jobs and place them back into the factories.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
Is simple- just enact a federal 25% sales tax on wire transfers.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
Who are you to say that their religion of socializing costs and privatizing gains is wrong? Isn't it just their exercise of free will?
But oddly enough, GK Chesterton had the answer to this a long time ago: The one thing capitalism most suffers from is a lack of capitalists. You're absolutely right- break them up. Keep the banks small. Same with every other industry- small factories mean more jobs for more people- due to the loss of economy of scale.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
How could you possibly blame anyone in the Obama Administration?
Certainly you're not blaming Rahm Emanuel (Wasserstein Perella)? Nor could you possibly blame Diana Farrell (McKinsey Global Institute, Goldman Sachs)? Not even Laura Tyson (Morgan Stanley)?
I can't fathom how you could possibly blame Richard Holbrooke (Perseus LLC) and certainly not Robert Hormats (Goldman Sachs)? Tell me you're not blaming Roger Altman (Blackstone Group)? And God forbid you should blame Larry Summers or Timothy Geithner (every stinking slime on Wall $treet)?
Just because President Obama met with the director of UBS, and got their official seal of approval prior to the election, don't tell me you think a Swiss banker could possibly have anything to do with it?
Not sure I get this. I never heard of "day traders" until the 90's. I remember my dad doing a lot of stock market investing back in the 70's and I don't remember any crazy volatility that went away when day trading became a big thing. What am I missing here?
As for stock trading moving overseas where we have no control but it still affects our economy, that is a worrisome prospect indeed. (Thanks for your answer to my previous question on that.) Perhaps a return to some Bretton Woods type deal that restricts international capital flow is in order.
What would you think of a transaction tax in a hypothetical world where stock trading moving overseas is out of the picture? Would you be more amenable to it if it only applies to trades larger than a certain size or if it is a smaller rate, say 0.01% rather than 0.1%?
Aside from a transaction tax, I would like to see capital gains taxed progressively like income tax is. Why don't we do that? As Warren Buffet likes to point out, he pays lower tax rates than his secretary.
miasmo.com
talked about the Tobin tax in the context of having financial institutions and financial sector that was too big. Now, those who absolutely dread the Tobin tax are saying we should have "macro-prudential" policies that monitor the entire system for risk and make capital requirements of individual banks a function of their size.
I say bullshit. Any new capital requirements will have loopholes or the financial conglomerates will find ways around the capital requirements.
The solution: BREAK THEM UP! Either through anti-trust laws or the re-establishment of some form of Glass-Steagall. This would require upsetting the financial oligarchy.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
These loss share agreements have been part of almost all of FDIC's sales. Buyers of IndyMac got a huge one. This is a huge reason why private equity firms want in on this deal.
Private Equity Firms to the Rescue?
I doubt that private equity firms would be chomping at the bit if these deals weren't so heavily subsidized.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Below are links of US companies traded on some foreign exchanges.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-news/stocks/inter...
http://www.tse.or.jp/english/listing/foreign/ichiran.pdf
http://www.six-swiss-exchange.com/marketpulse/shares/companies/issuer_li...
--------------------------------------------
www.venomopolis.com
In the late 90s through early 2000s (or is it 00s?), there was actually a race of sorts between the major US and British and EU and Singapore exchanges over listings. When Sarbaines Oxley passed, the LSE's Alternative Investment Market (AIM) made some headway, same with Euronext. And really, as far as I can tell, there is no rule that says you MUST float your shares on a US-based bourse.
Many foreign exchanges do offer things that one cannot trade or do here in the US. Mainly this is due to regulations. For example, there are specific commodity ETFs that probably won't see the light of day here. Another example are single-stock futures, yes they started trading here, but they are nothing like their European or Asian counterparts (ironically enough the largest open interest are in futures on US stocks). And at times, American exchanges were not the largest, for a few years the Kofex or Korean Futures Exchange (now just called the Korean Exchange) main derivatives (i.e. futures and options) on the KOSPI (their "Dow") had more contracts traded than say the S&P pits on the Merc.
IBM could as easily be traded, if not HQ'd, in Europe as it could in Asia or even Toronto. Same with Microsoft, or Goldman Sachs. Remember, with stocks, its just paper, it doesn't matter. Secondly, most exchanges are electronic, so you really wouldn't notice much.
--------------------------------------------
www.venomopolis.com
offshore and also, for example, oil futures are traded around the globe, so they could go to another country to do their trades.
I'm not sure if other exchanges trade all U.S. equities, or some or not, I know they can have foreign subsidies etc. traded on other exchanges...like SNE, you can buy that here but is it SNE corporate, i.e. a Japanese stock or is that the FCDC only stock. I'm pretty sure it's the entire Sony corporation when trading it here.
Kind of like corporations moving their headquarters to the Cayman Islands, even though they get U.S. contracts and basically operate in the U.S.
How would they escape a transaction tax by moving offshore? U.S. equities are still listed on US stock markets right? [I am not familiar with foreign stock markets so I concede that I may be confused on this point.]
miasmo.com
which is why I poked fun at the flat taxers...
they will argue all day long for that, claiming it will capture an underground economy, but hit the hedge funds, the major speculators, they will have a hissy fit! i.e. sure it's fine to regressive tax the middle class poor, but them? No way!
It is "flat" because it is the same rate (0.1%) regardless of the amount, whereas a "progressive" tax would have higher rates for larger trades.
miasmo.com
you can write up your own Instapopulist, blog post too.
Derivatives are a mile deep topic, takes a lot of research, citations to track on where the interests/money is on them.
i.e. EP is a group effort here and I'm personally trying to get something for work out the door. I'm missing so many yet "amazing facts" to "astound you" type of writings at the moment.
Some additional commentary (which I was just notified of, thanks) which will add to both this excellent blog, and my posted comments.
From Paul Amery's seekingalpha.com article ("Derivatives Probe Raises Pricing Issues for Investors" - dated 7/21/09):
There are very significant interests at stake. Trading in credit instruments continues to contribute a significant portion of the income of many banks – three quarters of JP Morgan’s (JPM) 2008 profits according to one observer, and a large part of Goldman Sachs’s (GS) recent record quarterly revenues. And individual investments linked to Markit’s credit derivatives indices have also been record breakers. Goldman’s proprietary traders reportedly made over US$4 billion in 2007 from short positions in the ABX index as the US sub-prime market imploded, while hedge funds run by New York’s Paulson and Co. earned over 600% in the same year from similar trades.
Curiouser and curiouser....
because it will buy them more time having someone completely inexperienced in their realm, at their helm, while they continue to dissemble and obfuscate on that "misplaced bookkeeping" regarding those paid-out trillions which Bloomberg filed the FOIA on, and the judge agreed to, and the NY Fed is asking for a delay on.
Pages