monday1929

FASB Changes Perpetuate Fair Value Lying

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.

Geithner's Financial Reform Is Doomed to Fail

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:

> <<One problem with banking is that it does not meet the test of capitalism.
> 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

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.

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

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

AIG's Blackmail Note

Live simply, boycott the thieves economy as much as you can. Help your neighbors and friends.


On Mar 16 05:11 PM Jackson Cash wrote:

> Get rid of AIG, crash and burn baby.
>
> Let the banks go #uck themselves, as for the little guy, he'll be
> okay, always has.
>
> I encourage every single consumer to withdraw their money from banks,
> and do not spend a dime.

Ashamed of AIG

The Govt. will destroy anyone who even raises these issues. They control us at the point of a gun "Homeland Security" indeed.
How much will the People take?
The American Indian foresaw our downfall. Look for Bison near you soon. More Bison, fewer Malls. It won't be so bad.


On Mar 17 01:15 AM zermux wrote:

> Does anyone know of a legal way to refuse to pay taxes, on grounds
> of goverment incompetence.

AIG Giftwraps $450M

Here Here!!


On Mar 16 06:05 PM market ace wrote:

> Sure the bonuses are outrageous and need to be stopped and the incompetent
> employees and management need to be fired not rewarded. All the gov't
> needs to do is throw them into BK as they surely can do as their
> largest creditor and let courts decide which contracts can be canceled.
>
>
> Even worse is the payment of billions of our tax payer money to foreign
> banks. The actions of this firm surely do border on treason and they
> should pay dearly for their actions - somehow very long term jail
> sentences comes to mind in this regard. We could build a special
> VIP prison for the executives that run this tax payer scam. They
> make Madoff look like a saint. Hopefully we will also leave some
> cells available for the incompetent members of congress that have
> blessed this criminal action and continue to blindly fund these crooks.

If the Best and Brightest Work for AIG, Who Works for the American Taxpayer?

As I proposed months ago, go back at least seven years and take back all bonuses from all the companies execs/traders that were "ill-gotten gains". prosecute abusive shorts ,AND abusive LONGS, ie the delusional optimists who inflated the bubble through, not just stupidity, but through specific, chargeable criminal acts.
Honest Shorter

The AIG Counterparty Argument: Nothing to Gain, A Lot to Lose

Let's see how many negative votes you get for calling crooked gamblers, crooked gamblers.


On Mar 08 01:39 PM pgtrades wrote:

> The major recipients of this "conduit " $$$ from aig should be REQUIRED
> to repay the treasury. They made a bad bet on AIG which enabled them
> to have bigger books of the mbs crap...They were well aware -these
> are incredibly smart people -that the collateral was not there in
> the event of a downgrade. It is as plain as day. Yet they took the
> risk and like any other trade should be accountable for their gains
> or losses. If there is an arguement that the system needed these
> payments to remain intact- highly disingenuous at this juncture ,
> then the $ should have been LENT for either repayment or injected
> for some equity stake. To make these dudes whole with no cost is
> total BS.

AIG Bailout Beneficiaries

No, the Govt. could have covered the INSURANCE obligations of AIG, at least to individuals and small companies. Large companies have the ability to recognize the risks of insuring with a company betting with derivatives. The GAMBLING losses should be borne in full by the counter-parties, such as JPM.
Good try with the spin machine, though. Remember when you pretended to be a capitalist, and spoke glowingly of "creative destruction"? It was all well and good until it touched your Masters, wasn't it?


On Mar 07 09:13 PM User 366653 wrote:

> I find it intesting, and somewhat amusing, that so many people are
> now shocked that AIG used bailout money to make payments to their
> counterparties.
>
> I vividly recall that the whole purpose of helping AIG was so that
> the company could continue as a going concern. The assumption of
> any company that is not in bankruptcy is that they will honor ALL
> their contracts. Do the critics now want to honor only those obligations
> that they deem appropriate? Maybe we should have had a special bailout
> that would only help those deemed deserving by our congressmen and
> women?
>
> What the hell - let's just let AIG fail. When they are unable to
> meet their commitments to thousands of companies and tens of millions
> of individuals, we'll just send a little note to those unfortunate
> folks telling them that they should never have been so foolish as
> to trust the largest insurance company in the country with their
> money.
>
> In fact, maybe we should just listen to all the advocates of "nationalization"
> and "let them all fail", and just shut down the entire global financial
> system. That'll show all those greedy policy holders, retirement
> plans, and investors. Only then can we protect the taxpayer.
>
> Oh - I forgot - the taxpayer IS the policy holder, the retirement
> plan recipient, and the investor.

AIG Bailout Redux: The Perils of Open-Ended Liability

GREAT points, well made.


On Nov 08 10:14 AM Leon DiJusticia wrote:

> AIG is only the tip of the iceberg. Both the executives of publicly
> traded companies AND legislators need to be held accountable. Otherwise,
> we have no reason to place ANY confidence in either.
>
> Currently, the American public is kept in the dark regarding much
> of the legislation. Every issue needs to be made and voted on publicly
> and be individually issue specific. Not a 'part-this' and 'part-that'
> creation from the Isle of Dr. Moreau.
>
> Moreover, when ANY public corporation collapses, there should be
> ABSOLUTELY no severance paid to exiting executives (Stephen HIlbert,
> the former CEO of Conseco was paid $47.1 Million severance after
> the company filed Chapter 11).
>
> In many cases the executives themselves should be heald liable.<br/>
>
> Likewise with legislators. EVERYTHING they do should be a matter
> of public record which is easily accessilble to everyone. Catering
> to special interests and lobby groups is tantamount to complete malfeasance.
>
>
> If those of us in the general constituency operated our businesses
> and performed our occupational performance as or legislators do,
> not only would our businesses and workplaces shut down, they would
> convict us for larceny and hold us liable for damages.
>
> I greatly suspect the demise of Elliot Spitzer was brought about
> primarily because of human failings which were exploited by the very
> parties he was attacking. Why else would 'NO CHARGES' be filed AFTER
> Spitzer plead GUILTY? Logic tells us that this is merely 'an exchange
> of hides'.
> His for theirs. I am sure Spitzer has enough dirt on these thugs
> to bring a bunch of them down.
>
> I say, not only would justice best be served by letting AIG go the
> way of Bear Sterns, but the execs should go directly to jail and
> their assets seized to remunerate those they skinned.
>
> In addition, as I've observed the bankruptcy processing in these
> cases, it appears that the BK attorneys take grandly for themselves
> and leave little, if any, of the company assets to go to the creditors
> and shareholders. This is still another issue that seriously needs
> to be addressed.
>
> On Nov 08 04:52 AM constructe wrote:

AIG: Paulson's Folly

Just saw your question. I've heard that GS and Merrill are/were big beneficiaries, but the Fed won't reveal names. My belief is that, since JPM/Jamie Dimon supposedly saw some of the risks ahead of the doomed banks, and he's got a chip on his shoulder, he bet BIG against Citi, AIG, and others. His counter-parties are now busted so he can't collect on those bets, and any hedges he made against those bets were big losers to boot. This is all just conjecture, but who else would the Fed be so interested in saving at any cost? And who else was able to bet hundreds of billions?


On Nov 12 09:15 AM countrybanker wrote:

> Monday 1929. Exactly my point from two posts earlier. Can you name
> names, or just JP Morgan. Agree, just a "zombie" conduit to get money
> to big banks. These banks have been broke for years and will continue
> to be broke (insolvent). Wait til ya see the final tally on how much
> "bailout" money , both direct and indirect, they receive.

CDS and the Looting of AIG

Ahh... the problem is that JPM has trillions of dollars in these- where do you think those tens of billions in "AIG" rescue dollars are going to?
Remember, Jamie is the one who saw all this coming- of COURSE he bet BIG on the failure of Citi AIG etc.
His friends at the FED/Treasury are making sure he gets paid.


On Mar 04 12:09 PM tom steep wrote:

> My question is this: if CDS is a zero-sum game, the loss will be
> AIGs unless it defaults, in which case the loss will be the swap
> counterparties'. Wouldn't it make more sense to spread the loss among
> all the counterparties rather than to have the US taxpayer foot the
> bill?

'Huge Gap in Regulatory System' or Fed's Conscious Decision?

Exactly- "You mean people are greedy, and Bankers not paragons of integrity and virtue?" Who could have known THAT?


On Mar 04 11:28 AM User 369432 wrote:

> absolutely right! good article..... Actually, this reveals that we
> needed to regulate this derivative market. Amazing how wrong Greenspan
> was about the possible negative affect of this 'more effective market
> discipline'. He was a champion of deregulation and how does he explain
> it now...oh, he's been let down by individual greed. Guess he never
> read any history.
> so, say the government oversees disaster but actually this shows
> how we needed more regulation by government. Not stubborn fed chairpersons
> championing theory. Maybe you mean we should dismantle the fed reserve?

'Huge Gap in Regulatory System' or Fed's Conscious Decision?

I believe Bernanke expressing "anger" was a cynical and calculated sffort to put himself and the FED/Treasury/SEC on the side of the angry public, rather than in the Criminal Dock where he and they belong.
The reason economists are useless and dangerous when they have their hands on the controls is their belief in mechanistic markets in which the participants are all robotic, rational, non-greedy and non-criminal beings.
When he suspends mark-to-market, he will justify it by denying the validity of that same market that he was singing the praises of in the above quoted testimonies. Of course he will talk about temporary (two years is temporary?)distortions... and "fire-sale prices".
But he will not have the intellectual integrity to admit that markets are ALWAYS priced by human beings who are as rational as the monkeys we evolved from, who swing (the humans, not the monkeys) from extremes of fear and optimism. THAT is why we do indeed have MANIAS (which no one ever minds) and DEPRESSIONS, which of course must be stopped by any means possible. Even Recessions, formally thought of as a normal part of the business cycle, are now fought tooth and nail. Of course, if the FED had allowed a normal recession, or even a severe one, to unfold in 2000-2003, we could have avoided the MAJOR depression we now will have. One QUADRILLION in derivatives DID disperse risk everywhere, as Robert Prechter pointed and years ago.
It dispersed it into every nook and cranny of the world.
Bernanke and geithner and Rubenron are TOTAL failures: they misunderstood (or worse) the risks and they do not understand financial MARKETS, which trade by the opposite psychology that regulate the supply/demand dynamics of utilitarian markets (like shoe laces- put them on sale and you sell more), which Bernanke does understand. Bernanke should resign and get a job with Tom McCann.