Market Currents
"When I see Goldman Sachs (GS) pull back risk that much that quickly, I get a little...
-
Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 1:32 PM ET"When I see Goldman Sachs (GS) pull back risk that much that quickly, I get a little anxious about what could be around the corner," says Nomura's Glenn Schorr. Goldman's "value at risk" (VAR) fell to its lowest level since before the financial crisis, it reported yesterday - this despite Q1's rally in risk assets.
Other date
Latest Articles on Financials
This news story has 17 comments:
Goldman adds caution to risk appetite site:ft.com
in Bing or Google (I tried re-pasting the link into the address bar and it still goes to the sign up pop-up, but it will open from the link in Bing)
the article is titled: "Goldman adds caution to risk appetite" - FT.com
23 hours ago
It's all the fault of Washington & the Federal Reserve?
Well they certainly have their share in the blame, but they aren't the only ones out there. It's not the government that does the loan-lending to the average citizen. Nor is responsible for building exotic structured investment vehicles. That was the handywork of private-sector financial and mortgage banking groups (with commercial banks and bond ratings agencies as silent partners) as a semi-coordinated response to a flailing American economy in which the investment climate had been stagnant since early 2002 in the aftermath of the tech bubble.
Put the blame where it should go, not just where you'd like to conveniently apply it because it's favorable to your own political ideology.
Its been a house-of-cards for years with signs on the sides of roads: Buy a house & get $500! So what happens...government sues the banks, after it saves, them the gives the leadership of the GSE's huge bonuses!! And you criticize cszkalak for being cynical?
Blaming the Fair Housing Act is common for senile old white men. There is a racist/elitist undertone to that opinion.
One told me the financial crisis of 07-08 was all Jimmy Carter's fault.
The Fair Housing Act was an attempt to stop discrimination in housing - part of the Civil Rights Act. That financial institutions over speculated has little to do with the Fair Housing Act. Govt was at fault for not regulating.
Was the S&L crisis caused by the Fair Housing Act or was it the deregulation of S&Ls in 1980 which gave S&Ls the same function as banks but without the same regulations, that started the problems?
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated most tax write offs for real estate investors, many of whom were using low income housing more as write offs than as money makers. This helped end the real estate boom and left S&Ls scrambling to cover losses on their books. 747 out of 3,234 S&Ls failed.
I think they did a better job dealing with that fiasco - the S&Ls were eliminated and some of the most dishonest executives actually went to jail. Though that crisis was only a fraction the size of 2007-08's bubble.
BTW - RAP77 has nothing to do with Rap music or hip hop, it's my initials. I have had racist replies (totally misplaced) because of that handle.
BTW - I don't give a damn about your posting name. And your accusation toward me was abusive. If it happens again I will report abuse. I stand by the accuracy of my post, it was certainly not racist in any way. People across the spectrum were hurt by the housing fiasco, & in most social-economic categories & most of the country. And that's my opinion until people like you take over & the rest of us have to hide in the basement.
I did a quick research on the CRA – it was instituted as an attempt to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the needs of local communities in which they were chartered.
Supposedly, it emphasized that an institution’s CRA programs should be done in a safe manner. It does not require those financial firms to make high-risk loans that might bring losses.
The context for the CRA was the terrible conditions in American cities during the 1970s.
One article states: “CRA was passed to discourage ‘redlining,’ a practice originally based on Home Owner’s Loan Corporation ‘residential security maps,’ many of which dated back to the 1930s. It was the government’s attempt to help homeowners avoid foreclosure during the Great Depression.
Redlining was the practice of denying or increasing the cost of services like banking, access to jobs, health care and even supermarkets to residents of certain areas – often racially determined.
So basically, the government was doing what a government is supposed to do, protect citizens from financial domination by private economic powers or interest groups.
It is a long stretch to connect to the recent housing bubble and securitization of mortgages which were handed to any and everyone. It had a bigger effect on the S&L crisis of the 1980s, which I mentioned. To blame the outrageous practices of lenders in the years leading up to the 08 bubble sounds like more scapegoating. And there is a whole racial element to that argument.
I said your comments sounded racist/elitist ("a racist/elitist undertone").
The melt-down could have been avoided if the SEC had done its job. At the time there were many articles written about Christopher Cox asleep at the wheel (he was SEC Chairman under Pres Bush) while the housing bubble and mortgage securitization got totally out of hand, or else looking the other way was their form of deregulation.
I don’t know the details of the WaMu merger deal and the government’s part in its eventual collapse, though it appeared that WaMu went though a big expansion well after 1999. At least they spent a lot of money on advertising in the years leading up to the melt down of 07-08.
The numbers you mentioned for WaMu in 1999 ($150b) don’t come close to those of the 08 bubble. In June 2008 WaMu's assets were listed at $307 billion, so it's hard to see the conditions imposed by the government in 1999 as causing its collapse in 2009.
The 08 investment bubble was tens, and by some accounts, 100s of Trillions tied up in derivatives, mortgage securities and other shaky financial instruments of the 07-08 collapse.
It’s too easy to blame the government for that, because of something that was done decades earlier, though obviously there is some connection.
It is what it is, & I see no change for the future until it becomes much more painful (interest rates) for the government to borrow. We might well be at that point if it were not for the EU financial debacle.
Now what part of that position is raciest?? (rhetorical question, I really don't care what your answer is) Any time libs like you are challenged someone is being "scapegoated" & its always "racial"!!! I really resent it, its despicable, & slanderous! Then you have the audacity to go there again with your comment..."I said your comments sounded raciest/elitist" You say its too easy to blame the government, I say its too easy to simply blame business, & free markets!!
That is a totally ridiculous statement that could be applied to you. I challenged you and you are totally overreacting. Now you're calling me names. Your arguments are weak and you lose control of your emotions.
I rebutted your arguments and all you have left is bluster and insult.
Blaming everything on the government is scapegoating. Blaming low income people for the mess is racist/elitist. I stand by that.
"Free markets.." Conservatives constantly chant that mantra, but tell me when were markets free? What point in history, recent or otherwise were there actually free markets? Can you answer that?
There have been periods when markets were truly free - when were they?
I doubt you'll answer. You can't handle a discussion. You are too weak.
In my opinion the U.S. has not had libertarian markets since 1900. Arguments can be made for other dates. I don't know what this has to do with the housing crisis. Usually you libs argue we need all the current controls, Sar-Ox, Dodd-Frank, etc because before that there were no controls, the market too free.
The abusive names you used in your original email, some you've continuously used, are sophomoric intended to get a rise, well you got one. I understand you libs are used to haughtily stepping on people without being called-out. It must be a shock to your sensitivities!