monday1929's Comments

FASB Changes Perpetuate Fair Value Lying

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:44:08 -0400

Your Deluded beliefs have been and will be highly profitable for me, but damaging to society. If you believe that Govts. are larger than the Market, you do not know History.

On Apr 03 10:23 AM Conan the Barbarian wrote:

> citez: Agreed, but let's carry it forward a tad.
>
> All of the World's Governments are now focused on "fixing" the problems
> and will do Whatever it takes to do so. If anyone actually believes
> that any kind of credit contraction will stand in the way of their
> concerted efforts, they have fully deluded themselves.
>
> The US no longer stands alone in this effort.

The FASB Rally: More Dishonest Breathing Room For Banks

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:34:14 -0400

And when does the tooth fairy show up at our doors? This "fire sale"
has been going on over two years now, when will you admit you are wrong? Prices are prices, as the Great Free Market Pirates loved to Tout in their heyday.

On Apr 03 07:15 AM citetez wrote:

> The "dishonesty" was really in forcing banks to book paper losses
> before they occurred (and when they might never occur) on illiquid
> assets based on a temporary market crisis. This killed the banks
> and perpetuated the crisis. Lifting Mark to Market will be hailed
> as the end of this crisi period. Not all will be rosy from here,
> but this allows the markets and the marketplace to heal.

The FASB Rally: More Dishonest Breathing Room For Banks

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:31:28 -0400

No, the internet bubble involved other crimes. All your other points are good, though.

On Apr 03 07:43 AM Michael L wrote:

> Watch when banks start buying assets from each other at "market prices".
> You buy mine and I'll buy yours. The ol' boy network or hucksters
> and frauds has new life. FASB? Who runs that and with what oversight?
> Wasn't mark to market what kept Greenspans internet bubble afloat
> for so long? When it comes to the American puplic the government's
> motto seems to be "if you can't beat 'en, cheat 'em."

The FASB Rally: More Dishonest Breathing Room For Banks

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:27:50 -0400

Keep believing, it is profitable for me. mauldin is good, but vastly underestimated the extent of this coming Depression. He also just published the Criminal PIMCO's take on things, a disappointment for me.

On Apr 03 04:52 AM yay wrote:

> you have to take into account that these writedowns at first occured
> because there was no market, and there was no market because nobody
> wanted the ACCOUNTING risks these instruments brought with them,
> not neccessarily DEFAULT risks, if you discount the cashflow these
> papers will bring if ypu hold them till maturity you should still
> get a fairly high value, read mauldins report on this, frontline
> report or sth from 2 weeks ago...

The Mark-to-Market Myth

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:37:02 -0400

Or Lower purpose......

On Apr 03 07:34 AM CautiousInvestor wrote:

> The decision to change M2M was a poliitical decision and one designed
> to buy time and forestall harsh realities; don't try to divine some
> guiding brilliance.
>
> I suspect modifications to M2M and the PPIP legacy programs were
> designed on their own...........giving very little thought to the
> possible interplay between the two initiatives. This has been a distinguishing
> hallmark feature of Treasury efforts; nobody has articulated an overarching
> strategy and how all the myriad actions work together and serve some
> higher purpose.

Stiglitz: PPIP Assets = Call Options

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:50:42 -0400

The Great thing is that virtually everyone but the hopelessly corrupted see right through this. If this goes through the People may finally rise from their slumber. How many will pay their Taxes in full to a Geithner led treasury?

On Apr 02 06:39 AM morph366 wrote:

> Think of the PPIP as a political figleaf for Tim Geithner. When,
> as will almost certainly be the case, the taxpayers end up having
> overpaid for the assets the Treasury can claim that it was all done
> through a "price discovery" process with their private sector partners.

Derivatives: Just One Reason to Short the Banks

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:05:21 -0400

If everything were "balanced", then there would be no chance of profit. It is amazing that , at this late date, one still must read those defending one Quadrillion in derivatives as "harmless". Even Greenspan admitted he got that all wrong. Your ignorance assures a few more months of profitable trading. I will be buying from you at the bottom (S&P 200) when you finally "see the light". See you then.

On Mar 30 02:02 PM NickH wrote:

> This is a useless, hysterical article and I can't figure out how
> it got published. It is a bald faced attempt to "talk your book"
> and scare us all to death thinking we are stupid and don't know that
> these entities balance their books with long and short positions.
> Which editor okayed publishing of this piece? Must have been after
> a 2 Martini lunch.

Derivatives: Just One Reason to Short the Banks

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:01:12 -0400

Yes, after riding them down from$40.00 to one dollar, why not bet that a fascist system keeps Citi/JPM/BAC and the other walking dead walking a bit more. Their shares are just lottery tickets now- and always were. The Elites should be proud of what they wrought.

On Mar 31 01:53 AM GtownMetal wrote:

> C has $35.6 Trillion in derivatives and only $1.20 Trillion in equity,
> if 3.4% of their derivatives default it totally wipes out their $1.2
> Trillion in equity. Is that a chance any of you would take in this
> market?

Derivatives: Just One Reason to Short the Banks

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:57:22 -0400

Can we all assume you are being sarcastic about the "balanced banks" holdings?

On Mar 30 05:08 AM balabanovj wrote:

> Derivatives come in many forms. For Marc to say that these are huge
> liabilities to the banks carrying them, without knowing the balance
> of derivative that they hold is pure ignorance. If the derivatives
> are well spread, there is no reason for worry, and I doubt the portfolios
> of BAC or even C are anything but balanced.
>
> JBB

Are We Headed for a Commercial Property Catastrophe?

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:12:11 -0400

Let's make the future retirement payments to Govt. officials involved in these crimes dependent on the future performance of the "plans" they devise.
If they do not work as hoped, no payments are made and the Fed and Treasury failures can work until they are ninety, as the citizens they rob will be forced to do.

Are We Headed for a Commercial Property Catastrophe?

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:05:58 -0400

Exactly- the whole point of most of these "plans" is simply to push out the day of reckoning, then blame faulty models and "unprecedented, unforseeable" market volatility. And, of course, the guilty will be safely, and comfortably, retired by then.

DB Chief Risk Officer: We're in the Middle of the Crisis Still

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:50:43 -0400

If you do not understand how the govt manipulates statistics, you do deserve the govt. you get, and the investment returns too.
At what point will you believe we are in a Depression, 10 years after it is over when the govt. "revisions" catch up?

On Mar 31 02:14 PM Vox Rationalis (aka BS Detector) wrote:

> "Zero Hedge would be willing to bet that at least 5 of these data
> points will likely receive some peculiar fudging, resulting in totally
> unexpected upside surprises..."
>
> Looks like one for the loss column.
>
> By the way, did you bother to look at the durable goods order data
> that seems to form the basis for your conspiracy theory about seasonal
> data adjustment? The seasonally-adjusted growth in new orders from
> January to February was 3.4%. The base number, which is adjusted
> for calendar days? 3.2%.
>
> Excuse me if I'm unimpressed by your theory.

Are Citi, Bank of America Pushing Prices Up?

Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:46:05 -0400

Don't worry, future generations will forget the bankers' sins and be fleeced all over again.

On Mar 29 10:23 AM User 289589 wrote:

> after what ken lewis has done to bac stock holders,who can ever trust
> bankers again??

Are Citi, Bank of America Pushing Prices Up?

Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:35:57 -0400

Citi and BAC can hardly be called "private entities". They are habitual criminals and if they are gaming their own rescue, which is being funded by taxpayer dollars ( yes, I know, for our "collective" benefit) it needs to be investigated.

On Mar 27 12:05 PM It Figures wrote:

> This story has a lot of misperceptions, in my opinion.
>
> First, in a market with thousands of participants involving trillions
> of dollars, a single institution buying a few tens or hundreds of
> millions of securities doesn't move the needle.
>
> Second, with the feds promising to finance, almost for free, private
> speculators to buy this paper "to remove toxic assets from the banking
> industry's balance sheet" in the popular terminology, how can it
> be bad in any way if a private entity puts it's own capital on the
> line in an attempt to acquire assets it deems undervalued.
>
> Third, the author has no concept of what "insider trading" means.
> These banks have been telling the world that the current market prices
> are nuts, and are now acting on their analysis, for their own profit.
> Yes, they probably have better insight into the economic value of
> these securities, because they own similar paper and know first hand
> the cash flow and prepayment behavior, but this information is readily
> available to market participants, and the banks have made no secret
> of their opinions. That's why they carry them on their books at the
> values they do.
>
> This is exactly what the dozens of government programs are hoping
> to accomplish.
>

U.S. Public Transfixed by Day-to-Day Market Gains but Blind to Future Losses

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:58:59 -0400

Yes, that 1966-1982 was nice and quick. And that is in nominal Dow. Inflation adjusted we went nowhere for 25+ years.
America's Delusions are unbreakable. So far.

On Mar 27 05:22 AM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> Do keep in mind that tax payers technically don;t pay a penny of
> the stimulus, bailouts, or tax cuts. Federal income taxes have not
> increased a penny since George W. Bush's original tax cuts. And it
> will remain that way.
>
> What bears repeating is that we're in a new bull market, and once
> a bull market gains momentum it's hard to stop. This is because we're
> still in the Goldilocks economic phase of low inflation, modest growth,
> low rates, easy money, and globalization. Nothing really changed
> between June 2007 and now. A slight dip in GP and other econ data,
> a small rise in unemployment, but as long as consumers keeps spending
> away the recessions will be brief as has been the case since the
> the Great Depression.

U.S. Public Transfixed by Day-to-Day Market Gains but Blind to Future Losses

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:54:31 -0400

Thank you for a great piece of humor. For a second I thought you were serious! Amazingly,most of America probably agrees with what you wrote.

On Mar 27 05:22 AM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> Do keep in mind that tax payers technically don;t pay a penny of
> the stimulus, bailouts, or tax cuts. Federal income taxes have not
> increased a penny since George W. Bush's original tax cuts. And it
> will remain that way.
>
> What bears repeating is that we're in a new bull market, and once
> a bull market gains momentum it's hard to stop. This is because we're
> still in the Goldilocks economic phase of low inflation, modest growth,
> low rates, easy money, and globalization. Nothing really changed
> between June 2007 and now. A slight dip in GP and other econ data,
> a small rise in unemployment, but as long as consumers keeps spending
> away the recessions will be brief as has been the case since the
> the Great Depression.

What Else Are the Banks Hiding?

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:39:36 -0400

JPM, holds 80 trillion of these derivatives. They help the FED in manipulating markets. You will never hear about the losses, they are being kept from us for "National Security" reasons. The real reason is, if the American people find out what REALLY happened, there would be a revolution. So maybe national Security IS the real reason. BIS lists numbers

On Mar 27 02:29 PM HBWOW wrote:

> I keep reading articles about the huge amount of derivatives in the
> world's market, ie "Central Banks in a Pickle" by Chris Laird article.
> He says that the world has well over $1000 trillion of derivatives
> out that are unregulated and deeply underwater. Most of the articles
> quote large numbers but I have yet to see a breakdown by country
> nor a breakdown of numbers held by our banks at any given time. Who
> started this insane gambling of unregulated, non descript, non monitored
> (by stock exchanges), non taxed (?), poorly or non recorded documentation
> type "investment"?

What Else Are the Banks Hiding?

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:35:10 -0400

It's not "sub-prime" lending. I assume you were one who early on stated that subprime was just 1% of the mortgages and 75% of those were paying on time etc etc etc.
The entire economy went "sub-prime"- covenenant Lite loans, leveraged buyouts saddling good companies with billions in debt, and TRILLIONS in derivatives with NOTHING behind them- not a house, not a shed. You have no idea (which is very profitable for me) what lurks off-balance sheet.
The reason we do not know how much loss lies in JPM's 80 TRILLION in (yes, I know, notional) is because if they told us the S&P would drop 60% overnight.
Let time tell which one of us is right. You keep trusting the Bankers- or is this Citi's PR dept. at work again?

On Mar 27 02:48 AM MattZN wrote:

> It's always a possibility that the losses will accelerate faster
> then the banks can handle, but it seems unlikely considering the
> moves the Fed made to force a bottom in home prices earlier and push
> out inflation a little further. Again, the media has done a very
> poor job on reporting. People still apparently believe that Bernanke
> is going to spend that 750B buying nothing but toxic assets. What
> he is actually doing is providing liquidity in mortgage-backed securities
> to allow banks, fannie, and freddie to ramp up origination and refi
> activity. Banks have to be able to securitize their originations
> or they hit a wall on available capital.
>
> If one were to start pointing fingers there's enough blame to go
> around, but people have already seemed to have forgotten that the
> massive ramp-up in sub-prime lending was not originated by the traditional
> banking industry. Unregulated non-bank entities were responsible
> for most of the volume, Wall street was responsible for most of the
> buying, other non-bank entities (now all out of business) were responsible
> for most of the CDO packaging, and AIG and others were responsible
> for writing CDS's without any risk controls (the banks, despite being
> hip-deep in the mess now, still had significantly better risk controls
> them companies like AIG which had basically none). Oh yah, and the
> government by 2008 was so dysfunctional that they couldn't regulate
> a 5-year old on a Popsicle binge, let alone anything real.
>
> Fortunately sanity is slowly returning to the sector. Cry Wolf too
> many times without any real figures to back up claims and investors
> simply stop believing that the banks are the boogie man.
>
> -Matt

Geithner's Financial Reform Is Doomed to Fail

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:19:01 -0400

Is that the Paul MCCulley who works with Billy Gross who got illegal inside information from Hanky Paulson that it was safe to plunge hundreds of Billions into Fannie and Freddie. That's hundreds of billions of pensioners money either risked in a criminally negligent manner or not risked at all do to inside information.
Is that wise Mr. Geithner the same Timmy who was criminally negligent in maintaining the soundness of the NY money Center Banks and got a nice promotion for failing so well? The one who can't figure out Turbo Tax?
If you call the rescue of the Banks "Capitalism", you must be Mr. Geithner himself. Hello, Timmy.

On Mar 27 01:40 PM Kinabalu wrote:

> <> Either your money is at risk or it is not at risk. Banks are stuck
> halfway in between. We are trying to pretend banks are capitalist
> institutions.>>
>
>
> This article is so ridiculous its hard to know where to start my
> criticism. The concept that a bank is not a capitalist institution
> is absurd. The author ignores the shadow banking phenomenon of the
> last 2 decades. The concept that Geithner doesn't know how to solve
> "Too Big to Fail" is simplistic in the extreme. The fact that the
> authors sycophants are lined up to praise this dreck is a definitive
> exhibition of why it is possible for someone like Madoff to "manage"
> billions of dollars. Are there no longer any critical readers on
> this site?
>
> The author, and many of the above commenters, need a basic understanding
> of the natural evolution of an economic cycle. I would suggest they
> start with Hyman Minsky's Financial Instability Hypothesis recapped
> by Paul McCulley here:
>
> rolfe.winkler.googlepa...
>
>

Geithner's Financial Reform Is Doomed to Fail

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:01:16 -0400

Beware: many banks state they did not make "sub-prime" loans. That does NOT mean they did not make Alt A "liar loans", various other bad loans and bad Commercial loans which are soon to implode. Ask specific questions, and get the answers in writing from an Officer of the bank. If they refuse to do so, you should wonder why. Check your banks safety rating- not foolproof, but better than nothing.

On Mar 27 08:59 AM Jan Baker wrote:

> Why aren't all banks cooperative, like my own? (Riverset Credit Union
> in Pittsburgh, formerly the Pittsburgh Teachers Credit Union--it
> is small compared to the one in Hillsborough County, Florida.) Does
> anyone know how a cooperative bank is structured, compared to the
> plan here? I know they didn't invest in any of the bad mortgage investments--so
> they told me when I moved my retirement money out of the market and
> into their cd's.
>
> Steven's scheme here is such a powerful analysis of the problem.
> He keeps trying to get down to the structure of the problem.

Why I Think Paul Krugman Is Wrong

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:46:43 -0400

If it is not toxic, then why does the Taxpayer have to take most of the risk to entice favored investors to "gamble" on the stuff with leveraged money. Let us pay the involved Bankers and Politicians, and FED and Treasury, with these "mis-priced" assets. Let them feed their families and fund their retirements with the proceeds from the sale of this hidden value, since they are so sure it exists.

On Mar 23 02:13 PM private equity wrote:

> I think one point that people may have overlooked is that, with regards
> to the "Legacy Securities," what investors would be purchasing are
> AAA rated securities. Obviously, the counterargument is that with
> legacy securities, AAA may not really be AAA with the lax underwriting
> standards of the past few years. That being said, AAA CMBS paper
> is trading cents on the dollar and implies an extremely high default
> rate on the loans that back this paper. Commercial real estate fundamentals
> are weakening, but the disconnect b/w the implied default rates of
> discounted AAA paper and what investors perceive to be the actual
> default rate will be can make for a fantastic investment. This is
> not "toxic paper" that is being sold. This is the top tranche in
> securitized loans, where a lack of market liquidity has resulted
> in fundamental mispricing.
>
> I also don't think that private investors will look at this as a
> free-ride. Remember, they have a fiduciary obligation to their fund
> investors (i.e. pension funds, etc.) and will face tremendous scrutiny
> from their investors on each and every deal they pursue. Capital
> is scarce for private equity and hedge fund players these days, and
> trust me, everyone wants to do a good deal. No one wants a repeat
> of the past 2 years.

Bernanke Desperate, Fed Out of Ammo

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:50:42 -0400

PRINTING money is hardly an "advanced theory".

On Mar 22 02:42 PM Karl Glazier wrote:

> This is a typical example of amateur economists (like Ron Paul) who
> have no idea how things work telling the experts what they are doing
> wrong.
> It's like laymen telling brain surgeons they are doing it all wrong.
>
>
> Bernanke is putting the most advanced theories into practice.
> With widespread overcapacity, increasing money supply will not lead
> to inflation, but to renewed economic growth.
> And the Fed is not out of ammunition, because they can create unlimited
> amounts of money, whatever is needed to get us growing again.
> Ron Paul's libertarianism (represented by Greenspan's refusal to
> regulate) is what got us into this mess.
> Unregulated markets lead to booms and busts.

Pandit's Letter to Citi Shareholders: Lame

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:35:16 -0400

Citi DIED. Don't you get it yet???

On Mar 25 07:19 AM mikeg3 wrote:

> Citi improved their Tangible Common Equity ratio because that is
> part of the stress test. Once Citi officially passes the stress test,
> the bettors on Citi's demise will have to find another target.

>
> The interesting question is why TCE replaced Tier 1 capital as the
> Fed's metric of bank health. I think that was just following the
> crowd, but it wasn't Citi's decision.

FDIC: Payday Loans a Superior Form of Short Term Credit

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:26:52 -0400

One bad rip-off does not justify another rip-off. Your comparisons are meaningless, and many of those overdrafts result from banks re-ordering withdrawals to make more checks bounce.

Geithner's Doomed Bailout Plan

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:15:56 -0400

Thank you, Mr. Bernanke.

On Mar 23 11:08 AM jr007 wrote:

> The point that most wealthy and anti-Obama folks a seem to be missing
> is that the Real estate in question has intrinsic value. When the
> "inflation effect" of all this money being printed, hits the street...real
> estate will be one of the beneficiaries..along with equities, commodities
> and metals etc. The upside down homers will have their perserverance
> rewarded.
> The losers will be bonds, fixed income and cash just to name a few..along
> with those who have financed the debt. I for one would rather deal
> with inflation ...than recession or depression.

Main St. vs. Wall St.: It's Not Easy Being Nice to Bad Neighbors

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:10:51 -0400

Bernanke thinks we are stupid. And, maybe he is correct.

Bearish Pundits Strike Out

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:07:19 -0400

Some bears understand that markets don't go straight down (except when they do). This bear bets on corruption winning everytime, and loaded up on Citi at 1-2 dollars. But the patient is still terminal. Many of us "naysayers" tried to warn the Delusionaly Manic that your bubble would end badly. You really want the bubble back, don't you? Well, if you somehow re-inflate it, I am telling you that it too will burst.

Anatomy of a Giveaway, Or Why Stocks Soared Yesterday

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:59:44 -0400

"Shoddy and Quite Obvious"- A good description of our Age ?

On Mar 24 05:34 AM Moon Kil Woong wrote:

> You left out the part where all the other banks then get to claim
> their $500k investment is now worth $850k due to the twisted logic
> of a manipulated mark to market. Now aren't we all feeling rich?
>
>
> This process is a method for fraudulently altering banks balance
> sheets through asset pricing manipulations. It's shoddy and quite
> obvious.

Restoring the Health of the 'Too-Big-to-Fails' Also Restores Them to Power

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:53:17 -0400

Well, the unregulated unfree market promoted by the Right certainly helped push things along towards Hell.

On Mar 24 11:54 AM JohnL wrote:

> You are an informed patriot Steve. There are so few.
>
> And the Left blames the free market for monopolies! Once again it
> is government intervention -- not the free market -- that helps consolidate
> economic power, along with the political power and corruption that
> go along with it.

Restoring the Health of the 'Too-Big-to-Fails' Also Restores Them to Power

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:51:03 -0400

Exactly. The brilliance of this theft, they think, is that it pushes out those losses a few years, when they assume all will be well, or more importantly, they will be richly retired. Bill Gross WAS someone I once admired. Now I believe Bill Gross sold his soul to the Treasury.
As I have suggested in the past, he should be investigated, with Paulson, for his antics buying tens of billions of Fannie/Freddie months ago. He either betrayed his fiduciary responsibility to his clients, or, he had been given assurances by Paulson/Bernanke that he "could not lose" on those purchases.
Sounds similar to this deal. If the truth ever comes out about these events, we will find that numerous illegal acts took place under the guise of "National Security". That these acts profit a small Elite is just icing on the cake, for them.