Jump to content

Ho! Ho! Ho!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Sick n tired of being sick n tired of the insatia-bools and the incessant late day fundie buying.

 

Never mind: 4% down, then 1.5% up

 

Newly minted Monday-bears in squeezy territory

 

Friday minted-bears are still comfortably ensconced by the fire puffin a cigar.

 

(Up to Down Volume ratio was almost 7 to 1 today. Third highest so far this month, nothing too spectacular. Yesterday was down vol 25 to 1 in the bears favor.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put it under your mattress and have a good night's sleep. :D

 

I stopped in the local coin shop today. The dealer wanted $115 over spot for an American Eagle you could put in your pocket and walk out of the store with. He said prices have really collapsed on luxury items like old Rolexes. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More lies in the UFB category. :angry:

 

Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Obama Administration lacks the courage to resolve C. Economic policy guru Larry Summers reportedly bought the "systemic risk" argument hook, line and sinker, but the fact remains that with relatively healthy banks like JPM pricing debt at +350 to the curve, the real issue facing financials is not simply capital adequacy as the stress tests suppose, but rather the broader issue of credibility as going concerns. Even were JPM or Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) to actually redeem the preferred capital provided by the Treasury TARP program, none of these banks could survive today without government guarantees for their debt.

One of the reasons that the Obama Administration provides for not taking action on C and other insolvent money center banks is that regulators lack the legal authority to act against a bank holding company (BHC) vs. the federally insured subsidiary banks. But this is not true. Federal regulators do have the power to compel management and board changes within BHCs. And they have two very powerful threats to use against officers and directors who do not take the "suggestion."

IRA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The market moves in 24 hours what it used to in a whole month 30 years ago....

 

 

 

 

Welcome to the internet age :unsure: :ph34r:

 

 

Actually, 20 months ago. The advent of internet trading caused increased liquidity and a trend toward lower volatility that culminated in record low volatility in 2007.

 

The market only became more volatile when the leverage blew up and market makers could no longer make deep markets as their liquidity collapsed. Web based trading has nothing to do with volatility. Markets are always more volatile when liquidity collapses. That's why bear markets have bigger moves in both directions than bull markets do. They are much much thinner as the herd is culled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More lies in the UFB category. :angry:

 

Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Obama Administration lacks the courage to resolve C. Economic policy guru Larry Summers reportedly bought the "systemic risk" argument hook, line and sinker, but the fact remains that with relatively healthy banks like JPM pricing debt at +350 to the curve, the real issue facing financials is not simply capital adequacy as the stress tests suppose, but rather the broader issue of credibility as going concerns. Even were JPM or Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) to actually redeem the preferred capital provided by the Treasury TARP program, none of these banks could survive today without government guarantees for their debt.

One of the reasons that the Obama Administration provides for not taking action on C and other insolvent money center banks is that regulators lack the legal authority to act against a bank holding company (BHC) vs. the federally insured subsidiary banks. But this is not true. Federal regulators do have the power to compel management and board changes within BHCs. And they have two very powerful threats to use against officers and directors who do not take the "suggestion."

IRA

 

From the same article, check the last sentence. :rolleyes:

 

One of the evil side effects of the BHC structure that has been illustrated by the failures of WaMu and Lehman Brothers is the reality that the customers and counterparties of the bank subsidiary are actually senior to the debt holders of the parent BHC. This tension has caused a great deal of delay and confusion in moving forward with a solution to the solvency problems facing the large zombie banks. Foreign bond holders, like the government of China, have reportedly told the Obama Administration that further losses to debt holders of US banks will result in a boycott of US Treasury auctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Stool Pigeons Wire Message Board? Tell a friend!
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • ×
    • Create New...