It was Tim Geithner - always there when banking interests are to take precedence over citizens -...


It was Tim Geithner - always there when banking interests are to take precedence over citizens - who nixed an IMF plan to allow Ireland to impose haircuts on bank bondholders, writes Morgan Kelly, who says the current terms of the "rescue" are sure to lead to a catastrophic bankruptcy. "National survival requires that Ireland walk away from the bailout."

Comments (42)
  • User 353732
    , contributor
    Comments (5158) | Send Message
     
    When the Bosses talk "rescue" whether it is in the US, EU or Japan( and of course in China) they invariably mean the further aggrandizement of Regime insiders, quite often corrupt and derelict banks, real estate and industrial companies with failed business models.

     

    "Rescue" is but another word for rewarding the criminal and the profligate elite at the expense of the lawful and prudent privately employed middle class...Another way to concentrate wealth and power; to grow the parasitic economy at the tangible and catastrophic expense of the productive economy.

     

    "Rescue" is what enables the Regimes of the West turn polities that were once republics or participative democracies into soviets.
    7 May 2011, 10:40 AM Reply Like
  • chodorkovsky
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    Ireland really needs to restructure its debt. Like Argentina a decade ago. The real problem here is eurozone. I think Greece will be the first State to bankrupt in the Eurozone. Of course under ECB guidance. This example will coin new rules within the EU, enabling Ireland to do the same. I think that the whole new finance supervisory instistutions will be created in order to proceed with finance of the member states. This is another step towards federation!
    7 May 2011, 10:58 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (11219) | Send Message
     
    "always there when banking interests are to take precedence over citizens"

     

    Always??? Give me a break...
    7 May 2011, 11:16 AM Reply Like
  • stephenlight
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
     
    It was total lunacy to guarantee 100% of the PRIVATE bank debts with the resources of the Irish Republic. The government and all of its associated partners ought to be repudiating this deal as soon as possible.
    7 May 2011, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Banks function as capital generating machines that drive capital into the marketplace which stimulates overall growth. If the return on capital is taken out of the banking sector through haircuts to bondholders or other means of profit extraction then the industry will pull back and the deflationary impact of this action could be catastrophic. Tim G recognizes that while it is tempting to hammer the banks it is like pounding on your juglar vein. Capital dries up and the economy grinds to a halt. This is also why Ben B is easing which is to make sure the banking industry does not collapse and become fully owned by the government. We came very close to this in 2008. I am not commenting on them personally but I recognize what they are looking at and trying to avoid.

     

    If banks fail and become owned by the government in a democracy that is a direct shift of all their assets and liabilities to the taxpayer. So the taxpayer borrows the money and defaults and the default is shifted to other taxpayers. No free lunch overall.

     

    My understanding of Ireland is that their real estate market fell and this is causing a lot of their problems. Whatever the case they are having a hard time working out of this problem and being a bit player in the EC they don't have a lot of flexibility. I cannot comment any further on their problem as I have not looked at it that deep. The USA is in a unique position that these other countries do not enjoy but we can end up in the same place some day.
    7 May 2011, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16279) | Send Message
     
    TVP:

     

    Superbly stated. And, contrary to all the populist demagoguery, an accurate description of the implications of national bankruptcy --and that's what this is when the country's guarantee is repudiated; it's not the banks that go bankrupt, it's Ireland.

     

    Even if one wished to make a case for risking that fate, it would be inextricably coupled to having Ireland leave the euro. That's because the only way that post-bankruptcy countries can attract new capital is to make their own currency so appealing (i.e., cheap), as a value relative to their neighbors, that money flows there, irrespective of the recent past. This strategy could never work if Ireland were still tied to the euro.

     

    So, the demarcation is stark and simple: work through the debt or bankruptcy and departure from the euro -- A or B.
    7 May 2011, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • fxmaven
    , contributor
    Comments (1469) | Send Message
     
    It's not so clear cut. Banks may be vital to the economy, but they also cannot be allowed to take reckless risks which then simply get passed to the taxpayer as they threaten "system failure".

     

    TBTF should not be allowed to exist, and taxpayers should not have bear the burden of banker's bets gone wrong.

     

    Yes the banks needed to be backstopped to avoid a total breakdown of the system, but afterwards (now) measures should be taken to prevent future breakdowns,

     

    Simply put bankers won't worry about risk if they don't share in the consequences of their actions.

     

    It will take years and years of undue suffering to work off the losses from the financial crisis, and right now the Irish population is bearing an undue burden which is ruining their day to day lives.

     

    Who cares about the Euro and Eurozone ? Like Iceland, Ireland should go off the Euro, devalue, and stimulate its real economy so ordinary people can live their lives.

     

    I'm not a banking expert, but banking should serve the real economy, rather than be allowed to siphon off the entirety of Ireland's national lifeblood.
    7 May 2011, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • thotdoc
    , contributor
    Comments (1963) | Send Message
     
    Your thought process is too either/or.

     

    Nothing terrible will happen if bond holders lose money. They will lick their wounds and come back another day. They will demand more for their money for a while, then greed will take over again.
    7 May 2011, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    Thomas,

     

    All capital takes risk. Bondholders included. They are less risky only in that they are higher in the pecking order when it comes time to liquidate. They invest in the same businesses as shareholder and assume all the risks of the business. So why in the world shouldn't bondholders that lent money to private institutions - which then lent way too much money to people who couldn't pay it back - lose some money???

     

    Its the continuation of this idea that bondholders can't lose that will ultimately lead to another collapse. We've created this myth that any bank bondholders losing money will result in no capital being available - its hogwash (in scientific terms).

     

    Look how many grand building investments have gone broke over the years.... lots of fancy skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, malls, etc, etc, etc, And the bondholders lose a lot of money! And yet we have no shortage of other people building new hotels, casinos, skyscrapers, etc, etc.

     

    Men will never not want to be making money (at least until the government simply confiscates 100% but thats a different topic), and therefore capital will flow to ideas/businesses that have the potential to make them money.

     

    Let the bondholders go after management for their investments - not the taxpayers!!!!
    7 May 2011, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    "Let the bondholders go after management for their investments - not the taxpayers!!!!"

     

    Thumbs up.

     

    The bond losses are indeed an overblown fear used to further inveigle debts onto those who didn't create it.

     

    The beauty of economic freedom (I prefer the word anarchy) is that it allows creative chaos to work itself into system. Losers lose and winners win. No bailouts for losers. No punitive confiscation from winners. Everyone is allowed to succeed or fail. And they can do that as many times as they want. And sometimes people in the 'fail' column will get changed over into the 'win' column and viceversa.

     

    This is what makes me want to continue living. Creating zombies, bailouts and pinning it on the taxpayer makes me not feel alive, suffocated.

     

    Freedom is the fuel for growth. And private property rights and laws are the oil that keep the parts moving together. We can look no farther than Chile to see how Friedman's ideas pan out over time.
    7 May 2011, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    fx

     

    Yes someone needs to be regulating and somebody needs to not be so involved in the party they cannot see the risk. The fundamental belief that home prices could not go down should have been challenged by some sober thinking person immediately. Artifical rules are always broken at some point. Regulators should be skeptical and not cheerleaders and they really missed the boat on this one fatal assumption.

     

    Also agree with your moral hazard point. Nobody in any walk of life worries about risk or consequences if the consequences are not their responsibility.

     

    TBTF is a concept that really obscures what is going on. It is not the banks that are too big too fail but the country is too big to fail or does not want to fail. And in fact a lot of equity was wiped out in FI's like Wamu, Bear, Lehman, Indy Mac so they were not TBTF. Citibank is the best example most likely of TBTF as there was nobody that wanted them so the government had to invest capital and take equity in return along with payments.

     

    But the larger point is that if 20% of all mortage loans are bad it does not matter if they are held in 1 bank or 200 banks. The size of the mortgage market swamps the overall capital of the banking system and puts it into insolvency. I suspect Ireland is in this position and does not have the size of the US to absorb the hit.

     

    Interestingly enough mortgage loans was the market that all governments had the most involvement in and this is the market that exploded to the worst possible outcome. That should say something to everyone. The government should not be funneling so much capital to home ownership and housing and running banks off balance sheet in the form of Freddie and Fannie to fund home purchases and guarantee home loans. That is the recipe for moral hazard and a transfer of risk management from the private sector to the public sector. That did not work out very well.

     

    Ultimately a lot of citizens received money from loans and spent it on homes and now the taxpayer is on the hook for those purchases as they unwind.
    7 May 2011, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    thotdoc

     

    No a lot bad will happen. Capital will flow where risk and return are more certain, balanced and economic fundamentals are strong. It is a big world out there with great opportunities and capital is very fluid. Any new investments made will be by bottom feeders and have ornerous terms and a lot of covenants and will be tightly managed.

     

    In the meantime economic activity will contract and the citizens will have less jobs, money, opportunity and high taxes to deal with the contracting economy. This will drive rates even higher and terms even tighter.
    7 May 2011, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    david

     

    Capital flow in any form helps an economy grow. Capital contraction does the reverse. If an economy is in tough shape pulling more capital out whether it is debt or equity only accelerates the slide downward.

     

    Now if you are talking about clipping bondholders then by default you have already wiped out the equity holders so the only thing left is government investment. If Ireland does not have the ability to invest then the whole banking system fails and it falls on the EC. We also don't know who all these bondholders are because it could include government entities, the EC Central Bank and who knows who else?

     

    Tim G is probably looking at a domino effect that could be pretty scary. Makes me think a little deeper about what might happen next week.

     

    In normal times I don't have much problem with your logic of letting failure happen. But keep in mind the bondholders are investing after the equity holders so all those investments you mentioned have somebody putting up real capital before the bondholders get involved. Nobody is doing 100% financing.
    7 May 2011, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • chodorkovsky
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    I can imagine a few other ways to improve competitivity of troubled country. Of course being tied to euro is not helping but: wages in Ireland are among highest in Europe. Reducing it will benefit competitiveness. Tax cuts aren't unthinkable. Argentina boosted its exports after commodities boom began and peso depreciated a lot. Ireland can boost its exports only by reducing wages. It serves as a gate to Europe for international corporations and has great high skilled labour force. It is an asset that Argentina didn't possess when defaulting.
    Ireland did well helping its banks. Now it has to default.
    7 May 2011, 04:48 PM Reply Like
  • chodorkovsky
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    Iceland is not a EU member and thus doesn't belong to the Eurozone. Moreover since it refused to pay its banks debts it has no chance to get in it because biggest share of unpaid money comes from UK and NL. That makes them vote against ICL membership. But this is off topic. The thing is: how to default within the EU? This might be the next turning point and real stress test for this project.
    7 May 2011, 05:09 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4583) | Send Message
     
    If banks are a 'systemically important' institution, that is so important that it is required for the economy to function at all, as some of the comments above suggest, then it follows that like electricity and water it should be strictly and heavily regulated and not allowed to partake of risk, period, correct me where I am wrong.

     

    This line of reasoning supporting banks above all other institutions in the economy has led to socializing losses and privatizing profits in a way that is more harmful to the economy than any of the alternatives.
    8 May 2011, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    No risk means they make no loans. That does not make sense either.

     

    If you want to see how they government would run a bank look at the GSE's. We are now $259 Billion in the hole on these companies. Keep in mind that the Fed Gov only got involved in home lending in a big way and that is where we have all the problems.

     

    Regulation needs to be enforced and done much better.
    8 May 2011, 07:06 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16279) | Send Message
     
    TVP:

     

    Exactly.

     

    The Government would operate the banks as patronage operations to purchase votes, exactly as they did with the subprime CRA debacle.
    8 May 2011, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4583) | Send Message
     
    So, just to get this straight, you believe the GSEs cost the US taxpayer $259b because they were run by the fed gov, and not because of rampant fraud and piss poor risk taking by the banking and finance sectors?
    9 May 2011, 09:29 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16279) | Send Message
     
    kmi:

     

    The GSE's were just repositories for the insane policy propagated by Dodd/Frank to mandate --under penalty of law-- that banks make loans to poor credit risks without reasonable hope of being repaid and without adequate downpayments, which, of course, this undercapitalized voter set, that Mssrs. Dodd/Frank wished to influence (i.e., buy), didn't have.

     

    The banks tried to protect themselves, or thought they were mitigating their risks, by syndicating these loans in RMBS, which the investment bankers and bond raters foisted off on them as being able to be rated AAA and offering protection by offloading the risks to new investors.

     

    Of course, all of this proved to be folly, which the bond raters probably knew, but were seduced by investment-banking fees, and the investment banks certainly knew, as they were shorting the paper as they were selling it to investors.

     

    So, yes, it was a huge scam, amplified by incompetence, but the chief architects of the scam were the Government and the investment banks, with the commercial banks mere conduits and ultimately the suckers in the game, losing hundreds of billions.
    9 May 2011, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4583) | Send Message
     
    Laying the blame for a circle of incompetence in the private sector on the GSEs - regardless of whether or not the government promoted via various methods loans and home ownership - does not support the argument that the GSEs were poorly run.

     

    It may be appropriate to suggest that the failure in due diligence extended to them - they didn't do a good job of it either - but the fact is the GSEs were profitable and growing entities prior to having all the crap from the banks offloaded onto them.

     

    You are trying to rewrite history and tell us that subprime was the only failure of the home loan and refinance shenanigans.

     

    I couldn't believe what the mortgage brokers were telling me just before the implosion, folks just out of bankruptcy getting stated loans - not subprime. The failure was pervasive, and you can't make this is a failure of gov't or the GSEs no matter how you spin it.
    9 May 2011, 10:19 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2868) | Send Message
     
    FX you said " TBTF should not be allowed to exist, and taxpayers should not have bear the burden of banker's bets gone wrong"

     

    Agreed, but TBTF banks exist while their burdensome losses were shifted onto the shoulders of taxpayers as a result and at the behest of the Federal government.

     

    This is not the problem or the responsibility of the banks it is a problem with our government

     

    "That which you tolerate you encourage"
    9 May 2011, 10:25 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    kmi

     

    The GSE's were not the only factor in the failure of the housing market but they definitely were poorly run and they had a massive impact on the housing market over the decades and eventually made a mess of it. Most banks got out of the mortgage market with any level of seriousness because the GSE's standardized the underwriting process for everyone and leveled the playing field so no bank could gain a competetive advantage. It was a price war and race to the bottom.

     

    Were the poorly run? Well they were restating earnings before the 2008 credit crisis hit as their internal controls were so poor they did not know what they had on the books. They were working on true financial statements for years and it just kept going. Or perhaps they were flat out fibbing. I did not see the results of that investigation. Do you need any more evidence of being poorly run?

     

    OK so in addition during the crisis the CEO's of one of the GSE's stated that he had to continue to buy more mortgages because their mission was to expand home ownership as they were a quasi public entity. He was basically just adding losses to the portfolio every day and he knew it as well as Congress but they did not know what to do as their charter is so dysfunctional they could not make a decision.

     

    Also the federal government was guranteeing a greater percentage of the mortgages over time through the GSE's which was shifting liability and risk on to the taxpayer to the degree that some political leaders wanted to cut them back to lower the risk. But they were ignored.

     

    I bet health care is going to look like the mortgage market in 10 to 20 years if the Feds take it over.
    9 May 2011, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • The PolyCapitalist
    , contributor
    Comments (156) | Send Message
     
    Bloomberg: "EU Said to Consider Requiring Collateral for Extra Greek Aid"

     

    bloomberg.com/news...

     

    Any thoughts on what the Greeks are going to put up as collateral? I hear Mykonos is popular with German tourists. ;)
    7 May 2011, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (592) | Send Message
     
    Yogurt?
    8 May 2011, 01:27 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4583) | Send Message
     
    I wonder why people so salivate over Greek islands. Listen, you can go there and buy real estate at will, there's lots for sale, the country is stable and ownership rights are well protected. There is, in fact, no property tax as far as I know. Though that may change in the near future.

     

    Now, go buy some real estate, there are islands for sale too, go buy some, I'm sure Greeks wouldn't mind some new wealthy foreign neighbors bringing capital into the economy.
    8 May 2011, 09:23 AM Reply Like
  • Yeti
    , contributor
    Comments (55) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps if banks are to be backed by government guarantees bankers should be paid the same as government workers. ;-)
    7 May 2011, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • thotdoc
    , contributor
    Comments (1963) | Send Message
     
    YES YES
    7 May 2011, 01:26 PM Reply Like
  • neutrinoman
    , contributor
    Comments (700) | Send Message
     
    Yes ... but the far better thing to do is, to stop trying to turn banks into public utilities. They do need some simple, broad leverage and reserve rules. But the culture of moral hazard, bailouts, and picking the pockets of savers with ultralow rates has to end. We get a further "financialization" and "speculationization" (how's that for a big word? :) of our economies, hobbling the real economy to feed the capital markets with the fuel for more bubbles.
    7 May 2011, 03:15 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Yeti

     

    No and no and no. Bankers are on average paid far below government workers..........at least the federal scale. That would break us in half.
    7 May 2011, 05:22 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Savings rates are really set by the Federal Reserve through their control of the short end of the yield curve.
    7 May 2011, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  • Buddy Canuspare
    , contributor
    Comments (406) | Send Message
     
    Really? Then I'll take Jamie Dimon's paycheck, please!
    7 May 2011, 09:28 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    "On average" is the operative phrase.
    7 May 2011, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • Yeti
    , contributor
    Comments (55) | Send Message
     
    Ok. Make that - pay bank execs the same as SES grades. :-)

     

    Actually, I'd rather let banks sink or swim just as all honest businesses have to. Let the market decide which banks survive and which fail. The same should also be applied to car manufacturers, mortgage lenders, etc. etc. etc.
    9 May 2011, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • neutrinoman
    , contributor
    Comments (700) | Send Message
     
    Mr. Bailout strikes again.

     

    The weak peripherals will leave the eurozone soon, and impose their own debt restructuring, if the EU is unwilling to do that within the eurozone -- it's inevitable. The EU will be able to do nothing about it. In five years, the eurozone will shrink down to the strong(er) core countries. It was always a mistake to cajole the peripherals in as members, and the banks will ultimately pay for it, not taxpayers.
    7 May 2011, 01:59 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    The EU is not ready to be what it was designed for. There are too many cultural anomalies present. It will take another generation to rot off and die first before these member states can reconcile, and I imagine that will be the case.

     

    The benefits of being in the EU should be clearly understood in the future and economic goals(in this case in re to debt) should be tied to continued membership. Think of it like an HOA. You don't pay your dues, you're SOL. And EU membership wouldn't have to be rigid. Every few decades, there's a blowout. Greece gets kicked to the curb. They're out. But Turkey, they're now in. So is the Ukraine. Good behavior gets rewarded over time as it strengthens the common currency.

     

    There's no way hard workers should continue bailing out the bad ones. America suffers from the same thing in many regards, but Lincoln proved the point of federal power by dramatically murdering hundreds of thousands of Americans all for the sake of 'preserving the union'. That may or may not be your take(I'm neutral on the view myself), and many will still hold to the romantic view of the eradication of slavery as the main motivation behind the "civil" war, but really it was about putting the states into a subservient position underneath the new alpha authority of federal might. Let's keep in mind, the EU has an infantile constitution, unlike ours, but at least it does lay out its provisions, rights and policies. I guess that's a start, but it is no way as binding as ours, especially considering that its barely in its adolescence.

     

    I don't see any Abraham Lincolns in the EU's immediate future. Just a bunch of bobbleheads behind burled walnut & oak desks. It will not be a war that unites the euro, bringing them together. It will be an assimilation of some new bureaucracy led by a do-gooder here and a do-gooder there, a smothering bunch of nannies who will descend upon the old world and teach them all about the fine necessities of using manners, aplomb and Robert's Rules of decorum, which in a way, is a thousand times worse than war ever would be.
    7 May 2011, 02:37 PM Reply Like
  • neutrinoman
    , contributor
    Comments (700) | Send Message
     
    Agree. But without dramatic, history-changing leadership and events like those associated with Lincoln (say) or the rescue/rebuilding of Europe after the war (Adenauer, De Gaulle, Churchill), strong natural "cultural economics" takes over: northern and northwestern Europe saves more and becomes the natural lender; southern, southeastern, and much of eastern Europe saves too little and becomes the natural borrower. A common monetary policy exacerbates this gap, instead of causing convergence.
    7 May 2011, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4583) | Send Message
     
    The peripherals are on a lifeline extended by the EU, leaving of their own will would be the absolutely most calamitous avenue possible, although some kind of orderly withdrawal would likely not.
    8 May 2011, 09:26 AM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    Bonds are not without risk. Bondholders are merely higher in the pecking order than equity holders.

     

    Ireland is simply another country that has been sold out by its political "leaders". I'm not sure why they seek favor in Brussels but they do. In essence they chose "acceptance" at the table of the Eurocrats over representing the interests of their own citizens.... in my book its called treason.

     

    The solution the gentleman puts forth is about the best the Irish can hope for at this stage. They should renounce all support of the banks, announce they are BK and let the ECB liquidate the assets. They could guarantee their citizens first 100,000 euros and let it all go.

     

    It should be of no surprise that Geithner would support the bankers. He sold out 300+ million Americans to save a few thousand millionaires and billionaires with political clout. Whats a few million more Irishmen.
    7 May 2011, 02:33 PM Reply Like
  • neutrinoman
    , contributor
    Comments (700) | Send Message
     
    The political appeal was unified by a policy of cheap credit from the mid-90s on. It appealed to ordinary people until recently, as a basis for excess consumption and undersaving. It also appealed to the financial elite as a way to lever up with cheap credit and amplify profits when times were good. But -- when times went bad, the elite demanded bailouts. Ordinary people have gotten something in the form of fiscal stimulus, but their ability to get credit has dramatically declined.
    7 May 2011, 03:24 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Nobody has easy credit right now except perhaps the Fed Gov as the Fed Reserve buys their notes.

     

    People are getting bailed out every day through loan restructuring, walking away from homes, not paying, etc.

     

    Fannie and Freddie which are taking a lot of these losses have dropped $259 Billion of losses on the Fed Gov as a result.
    7 May 2011, 05:25 PM Reply Like
  • valueinvestor123
    , contributor
    Comments (325) | Send Message
     
    Geithner does what is in the best interest of the banks because he plans on working at one and making tens of millions after he is done being a shill for them while being Secretary of the Treasury.
    7 May 2011, 08:35 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs