Financial News

[bmags]

at the very least, you just made up this "clue bus" phrase.

[Y2HH]

You've been predicting 100% losses for three years now.

 

Hahahaha, 100% losses.

 

I have some terrible news for such a prediction. If the US market went down to 0 -- which would be a 100% loss -- the entire world would enter a depression that would make the original depression look like good financial times.

[Balta1701]

There appears to be some question out there about why GS didn't inform its shareholders of the pending SEC action against them last year when they were first notified.

But not only did Goldman fail to make any SEC disclosure of the notice, it didn’t even inform Finra, despite industry requirements. Even after the SEC suit came and the importance of transparency in all dealings was abundantly clear, Goldman’s top lawyer Greg Palm refused to say on the firm’s earnings call whether the bank had received any more of these things.

 

It seems to me that there are two possibilities here. Either Wells notices are very rare beasts at Goldman, in which case such an unusual event with such large potential repercussions would seem to clearly mandate disclosure. Or otherwise Goldman receives them quite regularly, and they normally amount to nothing, in which case a steady drip of disclosures at the SEC would soon be discounted by the market as business-as-usual.

[mr_genius]

at the very least, you just made up this "clue bus" phrase.

 

it's a popular board game. a crime has occurred on the bus, and you need to sift through all the evidence and find out whom did it.

 

it's really great.

Edited May 10, 2010 by mr_genius

[Harry Chappas]

it's a popular board game. a crime has occurred on the bus, and you need to sift through all the evidence and find out whom did it.

 

it's really great.

 

Is that like those dinner mysterty murder train rides?

[Rex Kickass]

it's a popular board game. a crime has occurred on the bus, and you need to sift through all the evidence and find out whom did it.

 

it's really great.

 

I believe "Edgar the Homeless Guy" in row 4 did it using a shiv.

[Balta1701]

I believe "Edgar the Homeless Guy" in row 4 did it using a shiv.

Alan Greenspan, in the NY Fed offices, with an adjustable-rate mortgage.

[bmags]

I believe "Edgar the Homeless Guy" in row 4 did it using a shiv.

 

Just Edgar bein Edgar

[jasonxctf]

Go back through this thread and point out three times when you've been right. I can remember once, maybe twice.

 

You've been predicting 100% losses for three years now.

 

Holy s***, you should know better that I'm not a kool aid drinker, but I find that 80-90% of the time you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Then again, maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say, as Strange was trying to point out, I don't know. I just see you saying some pretty wild s*** about tanking markets that I don't see happen very often. That's all I know.

 

See Page 89 of this topic

[southsider2k5]

There appears to be some question out there about why GS didn't inform its shareholders of the pending SEC action against them last year when they were first notified.

 

The funny part is that one regulating body doesn't inform the other regulating body. This is exactly what I am talking about.

[kapkomet]

Hahahaha, 100% losses.

 

I have some terrible news for such a prediction. If the US market went down to 0 -- which would be a 100% loss -- the entire world would enter a depression that would make the original depression look like good financial times.

 

 

Yea, I meant that literally.

[kapkomet]

See Page 89 of this topic

 

 

Yea, that was the one time I remember. But I don't remember anything else.

[Balta1701]

The WSJ today is running a detailed article suggesting that there really may not have been any "Fat finger" error in the collapse last Thursday, but instead, if I'm reading things right, it may have been the natural response to a large bet taken against the markets, amplified by high-frequency trading up to the point that several exchanges started shutting down trades as a defensive mechanism, leaving only the sellers on the market.

 

In other words, not a mistake, but an inherent flaw in the trading systems.

The trade by Universa, a hedge fund advised by Nassim Taleb, author of "Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable," led traders on the other side of the transaction—including Barclays Capital, the brokerage arm of British bank Barclays PLC—to do their own selling to offset some of the risk, according to traders in Chicago.

 

Then, as the market fell, those declines are likely to have forced even more "hedging" sales, creating a tsunami of pressure that spread to nearly all parts of the market.

 

The tidal wave of selling fed into a market already on edge about the economy in Europe. As the selling spread, a blast of orders appears to have jarred the flow of data going into brokerage firms, such as Barclays Capital, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

Exchanges, in turn, were clogged by huge volumes of offers to buy and sell stocks, say traders and exchange executives. Even before some individual stocks collapsed to just a penny a share, data from the NYSE Euronext's electronic Arca exchange started to appear questionable, say traders.

 

In the disarray, some huge superfast-trading hedge funds that now provide much of the liquidity for the stock market pulled to the sidelines. The working theory among traders and others involved in the exchange meltdown is that the "Black Swan"-linked fund may have contributed to a "Black Swan" moment, a rare, unforeseen event that can have devastating consequences.

[southsider2k5]

The WSJ today is running a detailed article suggesting that there really may not have been any "Fat finger" error in the collapse last Thursday, but instead, if I'm reading things right, it may have been the natural response to a large bet taken against the markets, amplified by high-frequency trading up to the point that several exchanges started shutting down trades as a defensive mechanism, leaving only the sellers on the market.

 

In other words, not a mistake, but an inherent flaw in the trading systems.

 

Day 5, and we still don't know what is going on. Excellent.

[Balta1701]

Day 5, and we still don't know what is going on. Excellent.

The free market at work.

[southsider2k5]

The free market at work.

 

I can't believe you are still defending this mess of a system. The problem is the way this system is regulated is 100% wrong. If you can't see this by the regulating bodies flailing blindly, and waiting for another body to figure out what is going on because they only have a small sliver of information, I don't know what is. At the end of the day, it isn't going to be the government that figures out what happened, it is going to be a firm telling the federal government what happened. All of the money that we spend on regulation is a joke. The fact that you think we should be spending more, is unbelievable. The system needs to be blown up and started over. Anything else is make up on a turd.

[Balta1701]

I can't believe you are still defending this mess of a system. The problem is the way this system is regulated is 100% wrong. If you can't see this by the regulating bodies flailing blindly, and waiting for another body to figure out what is going on because they only have a small sliver of information, I don't know what is. At the end of the day, it isn't going to be the government that figures out what happened, it is going to be a firm telling the federal government what happened. All of the money that we spend on regulation is a joke. The fact that you think we should be spending more, is unbelievable. The system needs to be blown up and started over. Anything else is make up on a turd.

The fact that you can't understand that there are people who benefit from this regulatory environment and that they're the ones you're defending with your argument is equally unbelievable to me.

[Y2HH]

The fact that you can't understand that there are people who benefit from this regulatory environment and that they're the ones you're defending with your argument is equally unbelievable to me.

 

I think he understands that there are exploiters out there benefiting from it, but that's besides the point. If it was done right, they wouldn't be.

[southsider2k5]

The fact that you can't understand that there are people who benefit from this regulatory environment and that they're the ones you're defending with your argument is equally unbelievable to me.

 

Sure, all of the government agencies are making out like f***ing bandits for not providing a damned bit of safety to investors.

[Balta1701]

Sure, all of the government agencies are making out like f***ing bandits for not providing a damned bit of safety to investors.

Which is exactly how the people with the best lobbyists want things.

[southsider2k5]

Which is exactly how the people with the best lobbyists want things.

 

And it is exactly how the regulating bodies want it. They have their own budgets, they have their own fiefdoms, and they have their own autonomy. Plus no one seems to care if they do anything anyway.

[Balta1701]

And it is exactly how the regulating bodies want it. They have their own budgets, they have their own fiefdoms, and they have their own autonomy. Plus no one seems to care if they do anything anyway.

But that's exactly how you guys want the regulatory system. Otherwise we'd get rid of the ridiculous "Regulator shopping" that the banks are allowed to do, where they all race to the bottom, find the OTS, and we're left with AIG and Washington Mutual declaring themselves to be "Thrifts".

[southsider2k5]

But that's exactly how you guys want the regulatory system. Otherwise we'd get rid of the ridiculous "Regulator shopping" that the banks are allowed to do, where they all race to the bottom, find the OTS, and we're left with AIG and Washington Mutual declaring themselves to be "Thrifts".

 

Its not how "you guys" want the regulatory system.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Senate Adopts Sanders' 'Audit The Fed' Amendment

 

The Senate today voted overwhelmingly to adopt an amendment, authored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), forcing a comprehensive review of the Federal Reserve's emergency lending activities. The amendment passed by a 96-0 vote.

 

Though the measure was always popular, it faced extraordinary opposition from the White House, Wall Street and the Fed itself. Late last week, in a move that defused the opposition, and may have saved Wall Street reform legislation, Sanders agreed to limit the scope of the audit to emergency lending only, exempting other Fed activities.

 

That preserved the broad intent of the plan, which was always aimed at bringing the Fed's shadowy activities during the financial crisis into the daylight. Under the terms of the proposal, the Fed will also be required to make public which companies received upwards of $2 trillion in aide from the Fed, and under what terms.

 

In December, the House of Representatives adopted a similar provision--authored by Reps. Alan Grayson (D-FL) and Ron Paul (R-TX)--that would have required a comprehensive Fed audit. But though Grayson still supports a full audit, he applauded the steps that the Senate is taking in a statement last week. "There is deep bipartisan support for a full audit of the Federal Reserve, in both the House and the Senate," Grayson said. "The Sanders Amendment takes a significant step in that direction. I will work hard to help Dr. Paul and Senator Sanders to get a full Fed audit in the final bank reform bill. It is time for America to know what happened to our money."

[Texsox]

SS. Serious question, I don't have a dog in this fight, after you "blow up the current system" how would you recreate it? Second question, what flexibility would you add to allow for new technology? This seems like the one area with all the money involved, that the private sector will always outspend the regulators in trying to make a buck.