.Dow Tumbles 450 Points as Economic Woes Mount- APWall Street recoiled again Thursday, sending stocks sharply lower for a second day after Cisco Systems Inc. reported slumping demand and retailers turned in generally weak sales for October. Concerns about widespread economic weakness weighed heavily on the major stock indexes.
...und die CNBCler können nichts G'scheiteres sagen als ...ja die Unsicherheit bis man nicht weiss was Obama....wer wird neuer Secretary of the Treasury.... wie wird Obama.... morgen hat Obama seine Pressekonferenz.... man weiss ja nicht was Obama...he will raise taxes, taxes, Obama will raise taxes.....this will be suicide :dumm
warum sagen sie nicht gleich, dass Obama an allem Schuld ist :mad schliesslich wurde er ja eben gewählt :mad
:kotz Helm auf :grrrr
Charts in the Babson Style for 6 November 2008
The stock market has just suffered its worst two day decline on a percentage basis since October 1987.
The rally we saw ahead of the election on Tuesday was on thin volume and was highly artificial, as has been most of the action this week.
We urge casual traders and investors to stay on the sidelines. This is a dangerous market.
The 'banks' are loaded with liquidity but do not wish to make loans, so they using market speculation as a supplement to income. As they have the biggest pockets, the best access to opaque information, and lax regulations which allows them to move prices to their advantage, it makes little sense to play in such an artificial game.
For more experienced traders, keep your leverage low and your timeframes short, and watch the overtrading of too many positions. Keep your emotions in check, and try to trade the market you have and not the ideology or theory in which you believe. You do not know what will happen. You can only fool yourself to inflate your ego, and empty your wallet.
The next bubbles to break will be the US dollar and the Treasuries. Unless a new Bretton Woods is struck with fixed exchange rates we expect to see the dollar move significantly lower. This may not happen until next year.
For now we are still on alert for a significant snapback rally, but until the trendlines on these charts are broken to the upside the intermediate trend is lower, and lower still.
Posted by Jesse at 4:34 PM :verbeug
mit Charts ---> http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspo...6-november.html
Don’t tell the SEC………..
-> Posted by Ike @ 22:50 pm on November 6, 2008
Short Seller Taken to Court
We have no idea who Giovanni Spagnolo is. We don’t know whether he is a professional trader, a small investor, a fund manager or anything else.
But what we do know is the Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC) has taken him to court for short selling.
To be more precise, for naked short selling.
You see, what Mr Spagnolo did was sell shares that he did not own. Furthermore, he didn’t borrow the stock from anyone in order to deliver it on settlement. That is what makes it a naked short sell.
We don’t know the full details of the case other than what is on the ASIC website:
“ASIC alleges that between 28 May and 24 October 2007, Mr Spagnolo sold shares and options that he did not own, contrary to Section 1020B(2) of the Corporations Act, in a practice known as ’short selling’… Mr Spagnolo applied for shares and options in capital raisings by the companies.
Before they were issued, he agreed to sell them on the stock exchange.
Mr Spagnolo failed to deliver the shares and options on the due date for settlement.”
The problem as we see it is that Mr Spagnolo appears to have done exactly what large institutions do as a matter of course. The main difference is that the institutions are permitted to do so while the private investor is not.
The underwriter of a share issue can short sell stock in advance in order to reduce their exposure if they are left holding stock from a public offering or a placement. Yet it appears that private investors cannot do the same thing.
We wonder if this is the best way to tighten up the rules on short selling.
We don’t think it is.
There is a much simpler solution that could be easily implemented.
ASIC and the ASX should just follow the same system that operates in Hong Kong.
In Hong Kong investors must deliver stock to the exchange on the settlement day otherwise it triggers a ‘buy-in.’
That means if you want to short sell you must borrow the stock and deliver it to the exchange.
If you don’t then the exchange automatically buys the stock back for you, thus closing out the trade.
:mad einige sind eben gleicher :mad
Markets Need Time, Not More Poison
Daily Article by Robert P. Murphy | Posted on 11/6/2008
A recent story from the front page of the Wall Street Journal illustrates the bankruptcy of mainstream macroeconomic thinking. The piece contains so much nonsense that the only appropriate critique is to go through the article step by step:
Shrugging off a flurry of grim economic news, stock investors pushed the Dow Jones Industrial Average up more than 10% as they anticipated new medicine from the Federal Reserve.I realize the WSJ is in the business of selling newspapers, and that calling injections of Fed funny money "medicine" is a catchy opening. But if our present crisis is the result of prior injections of artificial credit, then the medicine is in fact arsenic. What is especially ironic is that this very article later on alludes to the possibility that the housing boom was fueled by Greenspan's low rates. In any event, the most recent Fed cut was largely symbolic, since the actual fed funds rate (as opposed to the official "target" set by the Fed) had already been below 1 percent for some time.....
full story: http://mises.org/story/3191
October 26, 2008
The issue that is set to move to center stage, sometime in the next nine months, has less to do with theoretical inflation, or theoretical deflation. Rather, the question of which ‘flation we experience next year is likely to be determined by the exploding supply of US Treasuries.
Sure, banking systems worldwide are being recapitalized, as governments attempt to replace part of the debt currently being destroyed. And sure, some of that capital or even alot of that capital is not getting into the system, and is being hoarded. And yes, there is deflationary pressure at the margin right now, at least on a directional basis, as the price of most assets continues downward. On the opposite side of the ledger, USD cash and JPY cash strengthen.......
.......First, The FED could be getting close to more unconventional measures, like direct buying of long-dated Treasuries to bring long-rates down. Second, the quantity of new Treasury issuance, both in train and intended, is so gargantuan that it’s not clear how the world would be able to actually take up the supply. There may be structural limitations. Simply put, it’s not clear there’s enough available capital in the world to increase the US debt position further. After all, we have already been sucking up the world’s savings for most of this decade. It strikes me the only method to ensure this new supply is taken up would be that other central banks would eventually have to monetize the USA, in the same way the USA is monetizing its own banking system. So future Treasury issuance may depend either on our own central bank to monetize it, or for foreign central banks to do the same. When either happens, I’m of the opinion it’s Game Over.
-Gregor - full story: http://gregor.us/crisis/debt-ology/
Obama’s Best Trade: Himself
November 4, 2008
There’s been a ton of chatter in the past few months on how to play an Obama Presidency. This blog suggested last month that a Keynesian explosion was on the way. If you’ve been in Oil and Gas, you frankly had to start thinking about a Windfall Profits tax as early as last year. But one trade that’s not been considered is the trade Barack Obama placed. On himself.
Nearly two years ago in early Winter 2007 Barack Obama bought some very cheap LEAP calls on himself, with expiry in January 2009. No one else was buying. Sure, he’d made a splash at the 2004 Democratic convention. And yes, the Clinton’s were irked that he was throwing his hat in the ring. But no one thought he had a shot. (Some of us did, but that’s not the point). He was too young. Too inexperienced. His name was odd. Oh, and he was black. Or was he? While most regarded him as such, some did not regard him as authentically African American. Neither Obama, nor his candidacy, made a lot to sense to many people.
What we know, however, is that Obama himself was more than aware of these hurdles. We also know he was interested in the timing. As every trader knows, the best thesis can go very wrong if the timing’s not right. To this end, Obama took the counsel of a number of wise men in politics. People from Ted Kennedy, to George Will. His thesis was that the timing was perfect, but, that he himself might not be. His question therefore was: could the timing be so perfect, that I simply have to seize it?
The best trades begin with a question. The trade itself is a probe, for the answer. The Obama trade is right up there with those who bought oil at the back end of the curve in 2002, when the curve was still hanging on to its multi-decade backwardation. It’s up there with Paulson and Lahde’s trade, on subprime and mortgages. It was improbable, contrarian, and correct. I regard therefore the Obama trade as one of the greatest trades of the decade. And despite whether you voted for him or not, if you trade, you should too.
How safe are government bonds?
Nov 04, 2008
Government bonds may no longer be risk free
It looks increasingly likely that the endgame in the credit crisis will be a bloody stand-off between investors and governments. Their battlefield will be the market for government bonds, where countries all around the world finance their deficits.
To see how this is likely to come about, it helps to revisit the various stages of the credit crunch. It began in 2007 with the drying-up of liquidity in esoteric, structured-finance securities, linked to riskier types of mortgages. From there it spread to more mainstream mortgage bonds, structured finance in general, and other types of debt issued by financial institutions. By early summer 2008 the crisis was affecting many non-financial corporate names, who found difficulties refinancing loans. By the end of the summer the crisis had spread to sovereign names – a whole host of governments found themselves in trouble. So far the most acute problems have arisen in countries with high current account deficits – Ukraine, Hungary – and in Iceland, where financial sector problems threaten to overwhelm state finances......
......How can investors take cover if concerns over government solvency spread? For the early part of any credit-related decline in bond prices, there are obvious hedges, such as credit default swaps, short Treasury bond futures positions and inverse Treasury ETFs. But ultimately a US debt default would have cataclysmic consequences for the financial economy, bankrupting the entire system. So the ultimate safe haven is in the precious metals, which would rapidly regain monetary status in such a scenario."
full story: http://www.moneyweek.com/investment...onds-13986.aspx
bei DU gesehen :)
sorry for getting political but...............................
07 November 2008
The Recession Started in June at the Latest and is Deepening: Non-farm Payrolls
The most important chart is the 12 month moving average of the changes in US non-farm payrolls directly below.
It should have been apparent to any economist, as it was to us, that the US was falling into recession at the end of 2007. The actual start of the recession is a formality, but no dating for the start past June 2008 seems justifiable, especially when all the other coincident non-jobs indicators are consulted.
The headline or seasonally adjusted payroll number turning negative does not necessarily imply a recession in and of itself. It could be a response to a transitory exogenous shock. However, when one looks at the longer term trend as we show in the chart above, and the many other coincident indication as we have been pointing out this year, the implications of an endogenous recession is obvious.
Much is made of the Birth-Death Model, which the BLS uses to account for the jobs created by small business that are not in its survey. As you can see, every year the pattern repeats with some regularity and revision. The numbers are added to the payroll number from the surveys, to the actual number, which is then seasonally adjusted to create the 'headline number.'
We hope it is obvious that the seasonal adjustment factor is large, and often far more significant than the birth death model. This is why they choose to 'adjust' the birth death model lower during periods of extreme seasonal adjustment. It does seem to be statistically useless at best, and at best a tool for very short term data manipulation at the worst. It can have an effect in months where seasonality is slight.
It should be noted that this are the numbers that the BLS shows in its database today. They have been revised, and sometimes significantly so, from their original introduction to the public in the Wall Street headlines.
The economic luddite will ask, "What good does this do to me now? Of course I know that the US is in recession!"
The answer of course is that this is the same conclusion we presented as early as February, when it was more easily ignored.
The better question now is, how deep will the recession go, and when will the recession end? Questions with answers not so obvious as of yet without some informed insight. Common historic averages are just that: common, average and old.
Posted by Jesse at 11:58 AM :verbeug
Fed's Lockhart: Now Not The Time to Be Tentative
Reuters | 07 Nov 2008 | 02:29 PM ET
Forceful Federal Reserve policy measures will not quickly prevent a U.S. recession from getting worse, a top central banker said Friday, hinting that further bold action may be needed.
"Now is not a time to be tentative," Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart told a business luncheon in prepared remarks.
"The U.S. economy in September and October appeared to weaken dramatically ... Problems are now broad-based," said Lockhart, who will be a voting member of the Fed's interest rate-setting committee next year.
The U.S. economy was already in recession, he said, adding growth in the fourth quarter may notch a steeper decline than the 0.3 percent annualized fall of the previous three months.
"I foresee substantial weakness at least through the first half of 2009. This weakness will exacerbate the employment picture. In my outlook, unemployment will rise some more," he said......
......On the other hand, the Fed does not have to worry much about inflation amid such clear evidence of economic problems...... :rolleyes
full story: http://www.cnbc.com/id/27596707
-> Posted by Ike @ 1:45 am on November 8, 2008
Stratfor Report: “Obama’s Challenge,” by Dr. George Friedman -
Special electoral intelligence guidance header
By George Friedman
Barack Obama has been elected president of the United States by a large majority in the Electoral College. The Democrats have dramatically increased their control of Congress, increasing the number of seats they hold in the House of Representatives and moving close to the point where — with a few Republican defections — they can have filibuster-proof control of the Senate. Given the age of some Supreme Court justices, Obama might well have the opportunity to appoint at least one and possibly two new justices. He will begin as one of the most powerful presidents in a long while.
Truly extraordinary were the celebrations held around the world upon Obama’s victory . They affirm the global expectations Obama has raised — and reveal that the United States must be more important to Europeans than the latter like to admit. (We can’t imagine late-night vigils in the United States over a French election.)
Obama is an extraordinary rhetorician, and as Aristotle pointed out, rhetoric is one of the foundations of political power. Rhetoric has raised him to the presidency, along with the tremendous unpopularity of his predecessor and a financial crisis that took a tied campaign and gave Obama a lead he carefully nurtured to victory. So, as with all politicians, his victory was a matter of rhetoric and, according to Machiavelli, luck. Obama had both, but now the question is whether he has Machiavelli’s virtue in full by possessing the ability to exercise power. This last element is what governing is about, and it is what will determine if his presidency succeeds.
Embedded in his tremendous victory is a single weakness: Obama won the popular vote by a fairly narrow margin, about 52 percent of the vote. That means that almost as many people voted against him as voted for him.
Obama’s Agenda vs. Expanding His Base
U.S. President George W. Bush demonstrated that the inability to understand the uses and limits of power can crush a presidency very quickly . The enormous enthusiasm of Obama’s followers could conceal how he — like Bush — is governing a deeply, and nearly evenly, divided country. Obama’s first test will be simple:
Can he maintain the devotion of his followers while increasing his political base? Or will he believe, as Bush and Cheney did, that he can govern without concern for the other half of the country because he controls the presidency and Congress, as Bush and Cheney did in 2001?
Presidents are elected by electoral votes, but they govern through public support.
Obama and his supporters will say there is no danger of a repeat of Bush — who believed he could carry out his agenda and build his political base at the same time, but couldn’t.
Building a political base requires modifying one’s agenda. But when you start modifying your agenda, when you become pragmatic, you start to lose your supporters. If Obama had won with 60 percent of the popular vote, this would not be as pressing a question. But he barely won by more than Bush in 2004 . Now, we will find out if Obama is as skillful a president as he was a candidate.
Obama will soon face the problem of beginning to disappoint people all over the world , a problem built into his job. The first disappointments will be minor. There are thousands of people hoping for appointments, some to Cabinet positions, others to the White House, others to federal agencies.
Many will get something, but few will get as much as they hoped for. Some will feel betrayed and become bitter. During the transition process, the disappointed office seeker — an institution in American politics — will start leaking on background to whatever reporters are available. This will strike a small, discordant note; creating no serious problems, but serving as a harbinger of things to come.
Later, Obama will be sworn in.
He will give a memorable, perhaps historic speech at his inauguration. There will be great expectations about him in the country and around the world .
He will enjoy the traditional presidential honeymoon, during which all but his bitterest enemies will give him the benefit of the doubt. The press initially will adore him, but will begin writing stories about all the positions he hasn’t filled, the mistakes he made in the vetting process and so on. And then, sometime in March or April, things will get interesting.
Iran and a U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq
Obama has promised to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, where he does not intend to leave any residual force. If he follows that course, he will open the door for the Iranians. Iran’s primary national security interest is containing or dominating Iraq, with which Iran fought a long war. If the United States remains in Iraq, the Iranians will be forced to accept a neutral government in Iraq. A U.S. withdrawal will pave the way for the Iranians to use Iraqi proxies to create, at a minimum, an Iraqi government more heavily influenced by Iran.
Apart from upsetting Sunni and Kurdish allies of the United States in Iraq , the Iranian ascendancy in Iraq will disturb some major American allies — particularly the Saudis, who fear Iranian power. The United States can’t afford a scenario under which Iranian power is projected into the Saudi oil fields. While that might be an unlikely scenario, it carries catastrophic consequences. The Jordanians and possibly the Turks, also American allies, will pressure Obama not simply to withdraw. And, of course, the Israelis will want the United States to remain in place to block Iranian expansion. Resisting a coalition of Saudis and Israelis will not be easy.
This will be the point where Obama’s pledge to talk to the Iranians will become crucial.
If he simply withdraws from Iraq without a solid understanding with Iran , the entire American coalition in the region will come apart. Obama has pledged to build coalitions, something that will be difficult in the Middle East if he withdraws from Iraq without ironclad Iranian guarantees. He therefore will talk to the Iranians.
But what can Obama offer the Iranians that would induce them to forego their primary national security interest?
It is difficult to imagine a U.S.-Iranian deal that is both mutually beneficial and enforceable.
Obama will then be forced to make a decision. He can withdraw from Iraq and suffer the geopolitical consequences while coming under fire from the substantial political right in the United States that he needs at least in part to bring into his coalition. Or, he can retain some force in Iraq, thereby disappointing his supporters. If he is clumsy, he could wind up under attack from the right for negotiating with the Iranians and from his own supporters for not withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq. His skills in foreign policy and domestic politics will be tested on this core question, and he undoubtedly will disappoint many.
The Afghan Dilemma
Obama will need to address Afghanistan next.
He has said that this is the real war, and that he will ask U.S. allies to join him in the effort.
This means he will go to the Europeans and NATO, as he has said he will do.
The Europeans are delighted with Obama’s victory because they feel Obama will consult them and stop making demands of them. But demands are precisely what he will bring the Europeans.
In particular, he will want the Europeans to provide more forces for Afghanistan.
Many European countries will be inclined to provide some support, if for no other reason than to show that they are prepared to work with Obama. But European public opinion is not about to support a major deployment in Afghanistan, and the Europeans don’t have the force to deploy there anyway.
In fact, as the global financial crisis begins to have a more dire impact in Europe than in the United States, many European countries are actively reducing their deployments in Afghanistan to save money. Expanding operations is the last thing on European minds.
Obama’s Afghan solution of building a coalition centered on the Europeans will thus meet a divided Europe with little inclination to send troops and with few troops to send in any event. That will force him into a confrontation with the Europeans in spring 2009, and then into a decision.
The United States and its allies collectively lack the force to stabilize Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. They certainly lack the force to make a significant move into Pakistan — something Obama has floated on several occasions that might be a good idea if force were in fact available.
He will have to make a hard decision on Afghanistan . Obama can continue the war as it is currently being fought, without hope of anything but a long holding action, but this risks defining his presidency around a hopeless war. He can choose to withdraw, in effect reinstating the Taliban, going back on his commitment and drawing heavy fire from the right. Or he can do what we have suggested is the inevitable outcome, namely, negotiate — and reach a political accord — with the Taliban. Unlike Bush, however, withdrawal or negotiation with the Taliban will increase the pressure on Obama from the right. And if this is coupled with a decision to delay withdrawal from Iraq, Obama’s own supporters will become restive. His 52 percent Election Day support could deteriorate with remarkable speed.
The Russian Question
At the same time, Obama will face the Russian question .
The morning after Obama’s election, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev announced that Russia was deploying missiles in its European exclave of Kaliningrad in response to the U.S. deployment of ballistic missile defense systems in Poland. Obama opposed the Russians on their August intervention in Georgia, but he has never enunciated a clear Russia policy. We expect Ukraine will have shifted its political alignment toward Russia, and Moscow will be rapidly moving to create a sphere of influence before Obama can bring his attention — and U.S. power — to bear.
Obama will again turn to the Europeans to create a coalition to resist the Russians. But the Europeans will again be divided. The Germans can’t afford to alienate the Russians because of German energy dependence on Russia and because Germany does not want to fight another Cold War . The British and French may be more inclined to address the question, but certainly not to the point of resurrecting NATO as a major military force. The Russians will be prepared to talk, and will want to talk a great deal, all the while pursuing their own national interest of increasing their power in what they call their “near abroad.”
Obama will have many options on domestic policy given his majorities in Congress. But his Achilles’ heel, as it was for Bush and for many presidents, will be foreign policy. He has made what appear to be three guarantees. First, he will withdraw from Iraq. Second, he will focus on Afghanistan. Third, he will oppose Russian expansionism. To deliver on the first promise, he must deal with the Iranians. To deliver on the second, he must deal with the Taliban. To deliver on the third, he must deal with the Europeans.
Global Finance and the European Problem
The Europeans will pose another critical problem, as they want a second Bretton Woods agreement . Some European states appear to desire a set of international regulations for the financial system. There are three problems with this.
First, unless Obama wants to change course dramatically, the U.S. and European positions differ over the degree to which governments will regulate interbank transactions. The Europeans want much more intrusion than the Americans. They are far less averse to direct government controls than the Americans have been. Obama has the power to shift American policy, but doing that will make it harder to expand his base.
Second, the creation of an international regulatory body that has authority over American banks would create a system where U.S. financial management was subordinated to European financial management.
And third, the Europeans themselves have no common understanding of things. Obama could thus quickly be drawn into complex EU policy issues that could tie his hands in the United States. These could quickly turn into painful negotiations, in which Obama’s allure to the Europeans will evaporate.
One of the foundations of Obama’s foreign policy — and one of the reasons the Europeans have celebrated his election — was the perception that Obama is prepared to work closely with the Europeans. He is in fact prepared to do so, but his problem will be the same one Bush had: The Europeans are in no position to give the things that Obama will need from them — namely, troops, a revived NATO to confront the Russians and a global financial system that doesn’t subordinate American financial authority to an international bureaucracy.
The Hard Road Ahead
Like any politician, Obama will face the challenge of having made a set of promises that are not mutually supportive. Much of his challenge boils down to problems that he needs to solve and that he wants European help on, but the Europeans are not prepared to provide the type and amount of help he needs. This, plus the fact that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq requires an agreement with Iran — something hard to imagine without a continued U.S. presence in Iraq — gives Obama a difficult road to move on.
As with all American presidents (who face midterm elections with astonishing speed), Obama’s foreign policy moves will be framed by his political support. Institutionally, he will be powerful. In terms of popular support, he begins knowing that almost half the country voted against him, and that he must increase his base. He must exploit the honeymoon period, when his support will expand, to bring another 5 percent or 10 percent of the public into his coalition. These people voted against him; now he needs to convince them to support him. But these are precisely the people who would regard talks with the Taliban or Iran with deep distrust. And if negotiations with the Iranians cause him to keep forces in Iraq, he will alienate his base without necessarily winning over his opponents.
And there is always the unknown. There could be a terrorist attack, the Russians could start pressuring the Baltic states, the Mexican situation could deteriorate. The unknown by definition cannot be anticipated. And many foreign leaders know it takes an administration months to settle in, something some will try to take advantage of. On top of that, there is now nearly a three-month window in which the old president is not yet out and the new president not yet in.
Obama must deal with extraordinarily difficult foreign policy issues in the context of an alliance failing not because of rough behavior among friends but because the allies’ interests have diverged. He must deal with this in the context of foreign policy positions difficult to sustain and reconcile, all against the backdrop of almost half an electorate that voted against him versus supporters who have enormous hopes vested in him. Obama knows all of this, of course, as he indicated in his victory speech.
We will now find out if Obama understands the exercise of political power as well as he understands the pursuit of that power. You really can’t know that until after the fact. There is no reason to think he can’t finesse these problems. Doing so will take cunning, trickery and the ability to make his supporters forget the promises he made while keeping their support. It will also require the ability to make some of his opponents embrace him despite the path he will have to take. In other words, he will have to be cunning and ruthless without appearing to be cunning and ruthless. That’s what successful presidents do.
In the meantime, he should enjoy the transition. It’s frequently the best part of a presidency.
This report may be forwarded or republished with attribution to www.stratfor.com
....ob er diesen Berg je abarbeiten kann :rolleyes:schwitz da kann man ihm nur viel Unterstützung wünschen :):gruss
Preisfrage: Was passierte am 15. August 1971?
...interessanter Link ---> http://www.ena.lu/ :supi
(de - es - en - fr - nl)
The moment surfer takes on 41-foot monster wave... and lives to tell the tale
By Wil Longbottom
Last updated at 10:50 AM on 07th November 2008
Kerby Brown took on the monster during a session at a top secret reef, and nearly didn't live to tell the tale.
Moments after these pictures were taken, he suffered a devastating wipeout which nearly killed him.
The big one: Kerby Brown starts his run with his brother Courtney looking on from his jetski as the wave gathers momentum
He said: 'Usually the wave never steps out or goes evil like that one, but it just went dry - the hardest wave I've ever had to surf.
'I went straight over the lip and did about 10 backflips and then pulled a muscle in my shoulder.
Enlarge The daredevil surfer is dwarfed by the giant wave
'It felt like I ripped my arm out of its socket, my leggie snapped and then I felt like I was the deepest I'd ever been.'
The unbelievable pictures have been entered into the prestigious Oakley Surfing Life Big Wave Awards, which rewards the riders of the biggest waves in Australasian waters.
Enlarge Wipeout: The massive wave begins to break and Kerby is seconds away from his biggest ever wipeout which left him with torn shoulder muscles
Sat 8 Nov 2008
The Inventor Of The MBS Gets His Bank Shut Down
Posted by alyx under fail
More from the stories-that-just-write-themselves department: FDIC shut down two banks this weekend, the Security Pacific Bank in Los Angeles and the Franklin Bank Corp (FBTX) in Houston. Who was at the helm of Frankln Bank? Lewis Ranieri. Oh dear:
Lewis Ranieri is credited with inventing mortgage-backed securities two decades ago, but apparently was unable to save his own company from getting ensnared in the home-loan bust.Here’s a BusinessWeek piece from 2004 where Ranieri was praised as everything from “revolutionary” to “alchemist” for creating the MBS, which is sad, because srsly who knew mortgage-backed securities would go from being backed by actual mortgages that someone might have wanted to pay to being backed by option ARMs on wood-and-stucco suburban shacks. Obvs not Lewis. Alas.
Bonus weekend irony coverage: This bank fail wasn’t the only fail to be had this week. Redemptions ahoy! Nobel-Prize winning economist Myron Scholes just had another hedge fund, Platinum Grove, implode. (Um, the first one was a little thing called Long-Term Capital Management.)
:schwitz ...was da wohl noch alles kommt :schwitz und ob wir uns retten können vor der Monster-Wave so wie Kerby Brown :confused:rolleyes
Sun 9 Nov 2008
Wachovia As Counterculture Whipping Boy
Posted by alyx under fail , loller dollar
The answer to the question “Hasn’t Wachovia been through enough?” is unsurprisingly “no” to LOLFed, and, evidently, to everyone else as well. The latest insult to be added to their injury is the Billboard Liberation Front’s revisions of this billboard in San Francisco (whether they chose the location out of convenience or to be all like IN YOUR FACE, WELLS FARGO, I don’t know).
From BLF’s press release (thx to Leslie for sending me this):
This dramatic revaluation of your money has created the opportunity for our team at Wachovia to offer a unique service to our stockholders and clients. “With what promises to be the coldest winter in years now commencing, we’ve instructed our staff in all 21 States that we have offices in to start bundling greenbacks into tight rolls, perfect for small stoves and furnaces,” said Robert K. Steel CEO and President. “We believe this is the soundest application of our clients’ money.”We have to give the new slogan selected by the BLF, “way2fail”, our wholehearted and ringing endorsement.
...man weiss wirklich nicht mehr ob man lachen oder heulen soll :rolleyes:(
70 JAHRE "REICHSKRISTALLNACHT"
Startschuss für den systematischen Terror
Es war der Auftakt des Holocaust: Vor siebzig Jahren überfielen Nazi-Schergen in ganz Deutschland jüdische Geschäfte und Synagogen. Lange stritten die Experten, wer den Gewaltexzess in der "Reichskristallnacht" zu verantworten hatte. Neue Erkenntnisse bringen nun Licht in eines der dunkelsten Kapitel deutscher Geschichte. Von Klaus Wiegrefe mehr...
The Unedited “Forbidden” SNL Economic Bailout Skit
Apparently this skit was pulled from the web because of the potential problems it might have caused NBC. SNL reposted an edited version, however, we have the unedited version here.
Did you know? Things, you didn't know.
November 9, 2008
Goldilox (usagold.com 09November2008; 14:21)
“Wizards of Money” lives For those new to the monetary scene, or wishing a refresher on the global money racket, Smithy’s famous audio lectures have been archived and transcribed at WizardsOfMoney.
The episodes are filed individually, so that the appropriate time can be alloted to study each one. Some segments are even available in additional languages.
How Money is Created
Financial Risk Transfer
Banking on Poverty
Wizards and Warlords
Democratizing the Monetary System
Money Cycle vs. Water Cycle
Trading Nature and Cooking the Books
Jack and the Sweatshop
Back to the 20’s thru the Looking Glass - Steagall
House Leverage at the Derivatives Casino
The Imperial Budget and the Mythical Lock Box
Bankruptcy Bill’s shootout at the Social Safety Net
The Trade Federation and the Intergalactic Banking Clan
Homeland Securitizations and Overseas Vacations
There’s a Generic in my Shark Fin Soup
Caught between a Dock and a Sweatshop
Where Wall St Crosses Auburn Avenue
The Education Sweepstakes
The Battle of the Dragons - Oil vs. Insurance
Playing Russian Roulette in the Carbon Markets
Eco-tainment Gossip . . . Mickey Mouse and Smokey Bear?
G’lox: This series added more to my understanding of “banking” than any other single source.
:schwitzich hab noch nichts gehört - kann also (noch) keine Meinung haben :o
„Mama Afrika“ gestorben - Südafrika
Musikstar Miriam Makeba gestorben :cry
Der letzte Auftritt: Miriam Makeba am Sonntag in Süditalien
10. November 2008 Südafrikas Musikstar Miriam Makeba ist tot. Nach Angaben der italienischen Nachrichtenagentur Ansa vom Montagmorgen starb Makeba in einer Klinik in Süditalien im Alter von 76 Jahren an einem Herzinfarkt.
Makeba sei nach einem Auftritt am Sonntagabend schlecht geworden. Sie sei mit Rettungswagen in eine Klinik in Castel Volturno in Kampanien gebracht worden. Dort sei sie gestorben. Makeba war am 4. März 1932 in Johannesburg zur Welt gekommen.
Die einstige Anti-Apartheid-Aktivistin war mit dem Hit „Pata, Pata“ weltberühmt geworden. Die in ihrer Heimat respektvoll „Mama Afrika“ genannte Künstlerin hatte sich und ihre Lieder stets in den Dienst von Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit und Völkerverständigung gestellt. Ihr Kampf gegen Unrecht und Rassentrennung in ihrer Heimat brachte der Schauspielerin, Autorin und Komponistin Auszeichnungen und Ehrungen aus aller Welt ein.
ganzer Artikel: http://www.faz.net/s/Rub4D7EDEFA6BB3438E85981C05ED63D788/Doc~E35B888AE0BC94EFB803256D502761A73~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
CIA überwacht Bankzahlungen von Schweizern
Amerikas Möglichkeiten, das Bankgeheimnis zu umgehen, sind grösser als angenommen. Auch der Zahlungsverkehr in der Schweiz kann überwacht werden. Mehr...
Von Johannes Köppel*. Aktualisiert um 07:00 Uhr 8 Kommentare
.....und da freuen sich wieder einige User :Prost
8. November 2008, Neue Zürcher Zeitung
China lässt den Dalai Lama abblitzen
Pekinger Gespräche über Tibet ohne erkennbare Fortschritte :(
Auch in den neuesten Gesprächen zwischen Vertretern des Dalai Lama und Funktionären der Kommunistischen Partei hat Peking den Dalai Lama offenbar primär darüber belehrt, dass es eigentlich nichts zu verhandeln gebe. Sowohl Exiltibeter wie ausländische Beobachter fragen sich zunehmend, ob China an einer Versöhnung überhaupt interessiert ist.
pfi. Peking, 7. November
Die noch vor den Olympischen Spielen in Peking vereinbarte achte Gesprächsrunde zwischen Vertretern des Dalai Lama und der kommunistischen Führung Chinas ist Mitte dieser Woche offenbar ohne erkennbare Annäherung zu Ende gegangen. Weder wurde ein gemeinsames Communiqué veröffentlicht, noch hat die chinesische Führung die Gespräche auf eine höhere Ebene verlagert. Die amtliche Nachrichtenagentur Xinhua zitierte erneut in einer am Freitag veröffentlichten Meldung bloss Du Qinglin, einen bedeutenden Funktionär der Kommunistischen Partei Chinas (KPC), welcher die Gesandten des Dalai Lama empfangen hatte. Er forderte den Dalai Lama auf, sich der Realität und den gewandelten Verhältnissen zu stellen und seine politischen Forderungen «grundsätzlich zu ändern».....
ganzer Artikel: http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/inter..._1.1233673.html
…printing presses, helicopter drops and wheelbarrows o’ cash, or as my friend Brie would say, inflation-a-go-go.
Sun 9 Nov 2008
My Forward-Looking Indicator Predicts A Lot Of Hot Air
Posted by alyx under Uncategorized
Rush Limbaugh is obviously rejoicing in Barack Obama’s election - after eight years of a Republican administration, he’s got himself a foil again. And he’s already christened this recession as being a product of the Obama administration:
“The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen,” :dumm Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. “Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression.” :dummOkay, I have enjoyed the Bush dividend and cap-gain tax cuts that will probably not be renewed in 2010, but still - I would love to live in that Limbaugh/Kudlow fantasyland where you could make a model that drops the valuation of the DOW from 14K to 9K strictly over tax-bracket issues, and discount all other factors as negligible, because that would be awesome and simple to understand. But hey, at least Rush knows he can spout off these untestable, linear, crackpot economic theories because he now has job security for the next four years! The staff of the Daily Show, in contrast, is probably a little worried they won’t be able to stay relevant because of Obama’s sacred-cow status to their 18-35 demographic. (And at LOLFed, I am pretty sure that as long as there are banks, I will still have a blog.)
...man glaubt ja kaum wie idiotisch hinterhältig gewisse Leute denken und handeln und suggerieren - und wie viele daran glauben :gomad
Obama ist also verantwortlich für die Bush&Co.Misere :hirn
Socialists: Obama no socialist
"Obama is about as far from being a socialist as Joe The Plumber is from being a rocket scientist," said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "I think it's hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist when George Bush is nationalizing banks."
...aus trader's daily ;)
Originally Posted by AGoldhamster
Wow what a great find.
"It's just in Time" - The Decline and Fall of the United States? The Global Financial System? Or Capitalism?
by Martin A. Armstrong - former Chairman of Princeon Economics Internatioal, Ltd.
77 Seiten :schwitz und noch nix gelesen :o
....und das zum Autor :eek:rolleyes:confused:gruebel
Martin A. Armstrong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Martin Armstrong, former chairman of Princeton Economics International Ltd., and now prisoner #12518-050 at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in lower Manhattan. Known for his analytical models of market timing, Armstrong’s cycles-based models have had some spectacular successes.
Armstrong called the high of the Nikkei in 1989 months ahead of time—the Nikkei peaked the last week of December as he said it would, then crashed, casting off 40 percent of its value in a matter of weeks. More recently, and again months ahead of time, Armstrong predicted the July 20, 1998, high in the U.S. equities market—to the day. After that morsel of prognostication according to James Smith, a former Princeton Economics employee, the CIA called Princeton, wanting to know how the Institute’s proprietary models worked. Needless to say, Armstrong rebuffed them. The court has since then been demanding that Armstrong hand over his proprietary computer code to them. According to Armstrong's daughter Victoria Armstrong, "It took nearly 30 years for my dad to develop this model and his refusing to turn over its source code to the government is a big reason why he has been held in jail for over 7 years without a trial." 
Indeed, he predicted the February 27, 2007 fall off of Global market ahead of time in a 1999 article.
He was indicted in 1999 on criminal securities fraud by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and released on a $5 million bond. He has been accused not of theft, but of misleading clients about financial losses and using new funds to mask those losses. In January 2000, when he failed to hand over corporate files and assets to the court-appointed receiver for his companies, he was charged with civil contempt and incarcerated in the high-rise prison a few blocks from the World Financial Center. He and his two offshore companies, Princeton Economics International and Princeton Global Management Ltd., were also slapped with civil suits filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
On April 27, 2007, Martin Armstrong's contempt of court imprisonment was lifted by the court and he started to serve the 5-year criminal sentence which he received a few weeks earlier. September 2, 2011 will be when he will be theoretically free again 
On October 10th 2008 Armstrong released the following treatise on his research of time cycles that enabled him to make accurate predictions regarding various market events. http://www.contrahour.com/ItsJustTi...inArmstrong.pdf
"Let's Make Money" ist eine hervorragende, weil unpolemische Kapitalismuskritik.
Foto: (Delphi / Allegro Film)
Let's Make Money
Die Finanzkrise ist ein zwangsläufiges Produkt der menschlichen Natur: "Let's Make Money" zeigt, warum das so ist.
V: Delphi, AUT 2008, R: Erwin Wagenhofer - Laufzeit: 110 Min.
Die Absurdität des Geldes
(tsch/cg) Seitdem sich jeder Bürger der westlichen Welt von der physischen Form des Geldes verabschiedet hat und nur noch Plastikkarten mit sich herumträgt, ist Geld zu etwas Abstraktem geworden. Was mit unserem Kapital passiert, wenn es auf der Bank ist, welchen Weg es nimmt und wie damit gearbeitet wird, sind Fragen, auf die oft nur Profis eine Antwort geben können. Das wollte der österreichische Filmemacher Erwin Wagenhofer ändern und drehte die Doku „Let's Make Money“, in der er es schafft, diese komplexen Fragen zu beleuchten und spannend auf die Leinwand zu übertragen. Bereits mit seinem mehrmals ausgezeichneten Dokumentarfilm „We Feed The World“ (2005) bewies der Regisseur, dass aufklärerische Filme nicht trocken und langweilig sein müssen. Dass seine Geld-Doku zeitlich mit der großen Finanzkrise zusammenfiel, beweist eindrucksvoll die These Wagenhofers: In unserer Gesellschaft läuft etwas gewaltig schief.....
Deutscher Trailer - http://www.filmering.at/component/o...ectlink/id,532/
Mon 10 Nov 2008
Pay No Attention To The Hank And Ben Behind The Curtain
Posted by alyx under bernanke , hank paulson
Two very sneaky stories coming out this morning from Washington.
First - alert Scooby and Shaggy and get the Mystery Machine over to the Fed building! We’ve got TWO TRILLION dollars worth of mystery loans with unknown collateral:
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn’t require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.Bloomberg has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out the particulars of the dealings, but come on, I think we all already know the answer. The assets are crap, the recipients of the money are every major bank in the United States (and probably a few that are not in the United States) and the method of valuation used was probably a dartboard.
Also, the reach(around) of the Treasury apparently knows no bounds when it comes to bailing out the banks. Did you know they can also author tax law? In order to subsidize mergers like the Wells Fargo acquisition of Wachovia, they basically rewrote Section 382 of the tax code (thx to LOLFed’s legal counsel LoLo, Esq., for the link):
Section 382 of the tax code was created by Congress in 1986 to end what it considered an abuse of the tax system: companies sheltering their profits from taxation by acquiring shell companies whose only real value was the losses on their books. The firms would then use the acquired company’s losses to offset their gains and avoid paying taxes.Not surprisingly, lobbyists for the banking industry have been trying for YEARS to change 382, and no dice. But right after the bailout, Treasury decided 382 had to go, and cited language within 382 itself as giving Hammerin’ Hank the justification to take it out.
“Did the Treasury Department have the authority to do this? I think almost every tax expert would agree that the answer is no,” said George K. Yin, the former chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional authority on taxes. “They basically repealed a 22-year-old law that Congress passed as a backdoor way of providing aid to banks.”Fundamentally, this is a windfall to every bank that just bought a bank that has losses on its books. The WashPost article estimates it is a $25bn handout to Wells Fargo via the Wachovia merger, $5.1bn handout to PNC (who bought National City) and $2bn to Banco Santander (they picked up Sovereign).
The best part is that everyone says this is illegal, but no one seems inclined to do anything about it.
“It’s just like after September 11. Back then no one wanted to be seen as not patriotic, and now no one wants to be seen as not doing all they can to save the financial system,” said Lee A. Sheppard, a tax attorney who is a contributing editor at the trade publication Tax Analysts. “We’re left now with congressional Democrats that have spines like overcooked spaghetti :rolleyes So who is going to stop the :bad Treasury secretary :bad from doing whatever he wants?” :madHammerin’ Hank. You can’t stop him, you can only hope to contain him.
....man sollte diesem Kerl non-stop in die E*** treten :gomad
Future of Financials
Discussing the future of the financial sector, with Meredith Whitney, executive director of equity research at Oppenheimer & Co.
...bisschen spät - dachte das hätte ich schon ;)
The End of the Economy As We Know It
« on: Today at 08:11:15 AM »
I submitted this to SA this morning:
I am often reminded of Locke's Two Treatises of Government. In it, John Locke first refutes the basis of the then-existing seventeenth-century political order (primogeniture), and then goes on to develop a new basis for a political system. First, however, he asks all the hard questions.
Economics is like that, or it should be. In times of crisis it is appropriate to ask the hard questions. If we examine our lives closely we realize that most of our interactions with other people on this planet are economic in nature. We sell our labor, and buy the things we need and want from other people, even from people we never meet from across the globe. How did the government come to be “in charge” of the economy? How well are they doing? Is our economy “free”? On what should a modern economy be based?
For any “free market” economic system, the single most important underpinning is TRUST. We buy things on trust; trust that the products will perform as promised and not harm us, trust that the food is not toxic, trust that if there is a problem that we can reasonably expect the seller to make good. We also sell things on trust: trust that we will be paid as promised in some useful unit of exchange. When financial arrangements become complicated or long term, performance requirements are spelled out in written contracts. We trust the system to grant us access to valid information that we can use to make an informed choice about the ability of our counterparty to perform. We trust that, if any party fails to perform, those parties can be held to account in a courtroom. We trust that the judicial system will protect us from force and fraud, and that our contracts will be upheld. A functioning and reliable judicial system is central to the existence of a free market economy.
Destroying trust would be fatal.
And yet, that is exactly what the government has done, and what they continue to do, and that is exactly why the economy continues to crumble:
1. By encouraging banks to hide their insolvency, turning them into walking dead. Who would trust a zombie to pay you back?
2. By refusing to reveal recipients of trillions of dollars of loans and largesse, with money extracted from taxpayers under threat of force; by refusing to reveal what these recipients have offered as collateral.
3. By smashing companies, unannounced, with random and inconsistent wipeouts and haircuts for various investor classes.
4. By selectively protecting certain companies through more taxpayer plunder. One can only speculate about the selection process involved.
5. By flooding the system with brand new money, calling it "capital", while everyone intuitively knows it is no such thing at all.
6. By tinkering with market rules in a constant effort to push up the stock market.
7. By threatening to empower and encourage courts to "adjust" en masse the terms of existing contracts, starting with home mortgages.
And now, the hard questions:
In such an environment, who would want to "invest"? Why does the system wonder why there is no appetite for risk? Who would loan money when it might not be paid back, when you cannot adequately determine the financial condition of your counterparty, when banks are encouraged to lie, when regulators look the other way, and when the courts might not uphold your contract anyway?
Who would borrow money when the "value" of that money is being grossly manipulated by its issuer, in concert with foreign governments and foreign central banks?
Who would buy stock when the company could be wiped out by the government at any moment, or when the rules might be changed at any time trapping your investment?
Who knows what their currency will really be worth in a year? Two years? Ten?
Will abrogating home mortgage contracts make it easier to value MBS and the CDOs based on them? How about if this abrogation drags out over many years? Will it restore trust in the institutions that hold them as "assets"?
Will appointing another Wall Street insider as Treasury Secretary restore the trust of the man on the street?
Will coordinated global currency debasement restore trust in currency?
Given the above questions, who in their right mind would borrow real capital, build a factory, buy equipment, hire and train staff, and start making a product?
I will finish with a really easy question:
Did we learn anything at all from the Soviet experiment?
Poor old Queenie. Not having a good day.
-> Posted by Margaret2 @ 15:25 pm on November 10, 2008
Queen baffled at delay in spotting credit crunch
November 6, 2008 - 8:41AM
Queen Elizabeth has been given an academic briefing on the origins of the credit crunch and wound up the “lesson” by asking why nobody had seen the crisis coming.
The 82-year-old monarch had the complexities of the current global financial crisis explained to her during the inauguration of a new building at the renowned London School of Economics (LSE).
The origins and effects of the crisis were explained to her by Professor Luis Garicano, director of research at the LSE’s management department, the Press Association reported.
Prof Garicano said afterwards: “The Queen asked me: ‘If these things were so large, how come everyone missed them? Why did nobody notice it’?”
When Garicano explained that at “every stage, someone was relying on somebody else and everyone thought they were doing the right thing”, she commented: “Awful.”
$600 Trillion in Derivatives
Coming Soon: The $600 Trillion Derivatives Emergency Meeting
by: The Prudent Investor
The Prudent Investor
Here is an update on the size of the derivatives market with the latest official figures (.pdf) from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Hold your breath, as we are not anymore talking paltry billions but TRILLIONS of whichever fiat currency.
Current emergency meetings on banks and markets are still only in the stage where politicians and central bankers are bickering over how to create a few more hundred billions Euros and FRNs. But toxic MBS pale in comparison to the mushrooming growth of the derivatives market. According to figures released in the quarterly review of the BIS (pp A103) in September the total notional amount of outstanding derivatives in all categories rose 15% to a mindboggling $596 TRILLION as of December 2007......$596 000 000 000 000 ---> 596 Trillionen (USA) = 596 Billionen (Europa)
full story: http://blog.ira-401k-realestate.com/rss-2/
merci @Glücksritter :)
Behind Insurer’s Crisis, Blind Eye to a Web of Risk
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: September 27, 2008
......As the group, led by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., pondered the collapse of one of America’s oldest investment banks, Lehman Brothers, a more dangerous threat emerged: American International Group, the world’s largest insurer, was teetering. A.I.G. needed billions of dollars to right itself and had suddenly begged for help.One of the Wall Street chief executives participating in the meeting was Lloyd C. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Mr. Paulson’s former firm. Mr. Blankfein had particular reason for concern.
Although it was not widely known, Goldman, a Wall Street stalwart that had seemed immune to its rivals’ woes, was A.I.G.’s largest trading partner, according to six people close to the insurer who requested anonymity because of confidentiality agreements. A collapse of the insurer threatened to leave a hole of as much as $20 billion in Goldman’s side, several of these people said.
Days later, federal officials, who had let Lehman die and initially balked at tossing a lifeline to A.I.G., ended up bailing out the insurer for $85 billion.
Their message was simple: Lehman was expendable. But if A.I.G. unspooled, so could some of the mightiest enterprises in the world.
A Goldman spokesman said in an interview that the firm was never imperiled by A.I.G.’s troubles and that Mr. Blankfein participated in the Fed discussions to safeguard the entire financial system, not his firm’s own interests........
...ist ein älterer Artikel - aber wenn man sich GS heue anschaut :rolleyes
71.21 6.57 (8.45%)
|Aktuelle Uhrzeit 04:03|
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.