Seeking Alpha

dcb

dcb
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View dcb's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • A Radical Solution for America's Insolvent Financial System [View article]
    Alas,
    I have come to the conclusion that only violence will solve the entenched problems we face. We got rid of the British for less than what our own government is doing to us.
    Sep 7 12:29 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Low U.S. Manufacturing Investment = Eventual Dollar Collapse [View article]
    Lets see gernmany has a high tech, high labor esporting economy that is the envy of the world. euro's better than dollar. Huh? this has much more to do with american savings rates, reinvestment rate, governrnment policy that exchange rates. It has do with value added by your people. strong dollar could mean lower input prices, competitiave advantage if you add vaule to the product. we have ahd a deliberate policy of gitting the currency, which helps out the banking class. We have exported key technologies to the chinese for nothing in return. Multinational corps don't care about the state of the domestic economy. they have multinational inputs, and the goal is pure profit. export tech to cheap labor, cut costs, loose fixed investment, increase profits, policies that discourage savings (low interest rates and tax policy) you have a long term recipe of disaster. Boeing just brough their manufacturing back in house, why, because they add suffucient vale to the product. our problem is in value added, not a anything else.
    Sep 7 12:25 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Volatility Indices, Risk Appetite and Where We Might Be Headed [View article]
    great charts, very helpful. good article
    Sep 2 08:07 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Due for a Correction? Market Is Already Priced for Grim Future [View article]
    since we all were talking about removing market support mechanisms and the free money train to wall street the market has to collapse. they aren't going to end the gravy train, and so they will drop it until they once more blackmail the country into getting what they want.
    Sep 1 04:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Market Outlook: We Are at an Important Inflection Point [View article]
    data found from zero hedge:
    a $2.7 trillion move in equities was accompanied by a less than $400 billion reduction in Money Market accounts!

    Where, may we ask, did the balance of $2.3 trillion in purchasing power come from? Why the Federal Reserve of course, which directly and indirectly subsidized U.S. banks (and foreign ones through liquidity swaps) for roughly that amount. Apparently these banks promptly went on a buying spree to raise the all important equity market
    Aug 16 08:39 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Armageddon Part Two: Securitization Is Too Big to Fail [View article]
    I include two article to go with my letter above. the links should be clear from this to any and everyone why the answer isn't more credit. but good wages, less leverage, and real interest rates. of course the fat cats don't want this because their pay is based on leverage, yours is based on growth of niminal GDP!!
    NYT
    Fair Game
    GRETCHEN MORGENSON
    Published: August 15, 2009
    WITH outsized and corrupting corporate pay packages under scrutiny, you might think that companies would be rushing to tamp down their compensation plans. Making sure that pay actually rewards long-term performance, for example, seems a fairly obvious way to allay shareholder fears that managers are lining their pockets rather than safeguarding their companies.

    Skip to next paragraph
    Related
    Times Topics: Gretchen Morgenson | Executive PayBut a study of changes made in pay practices by 191 of the nation’s largest companies this year shows that where pay is concerned, enlightenment remains a long way off. In other words, meet the new pay, same as the old.

    The study was conducted by James F. Reda & Associates, an independent compensation consultant in New York, and it looked at proxy filings issued by almost 200 companies in the first half of 2009. The firm analyzed changes these companies made to their pay plans that take effect this year.

    The biggest shock? Instead of seeing a greater reliance on long-term incentive programs, the Reda report found that changes in these companies’ plans made short-term incentive pay a bigger part of the compensation pie. Let me say that again: The plans — despite the calamities that short-term profiteering has visited on our economy — made short-term incentives a bigger component of compensation.

    Last Friday, troubled financial companies relying on the taxpayers’ dime had to deliver details of their top executives’ compensation packages to Kenneth Feinberg, the government’s so-called pay czar. It will be interesting to see whether Mr. Feinberg finds the same short-term incentive skew in those pay packages that Mr. Reda did in his study.

    “If you were going to encourage long-term thinking and behavior, you would reduce short-term pay, but companies have in fact reduced the long-term programs,” Mr. Reda said. “This is counter to the direction suggested by the United States Treasury, academics and other expert advisers regarding ways to mitigate risk.”

    Another troubling finding in the Reda study was an increased use of restricted stock awards that are not performance-based. The awards simply vest over time.

    Finally, the study found no significant decline in the use of so-called tax gross-up deals, a shareholder-unfriendly arrangement under which companies foot the bill on taxes that executives owe on their munificent pay packages.

    Changes to pay practices were common this year: about 70 percent of the analyzed companies disclosed making some shift, Mr. Reda said. Almost 60 percent of the analyzed companies made what he considered to be major changes to their pay plans. But the nature of those changes surprised him.

    “I was expecting that a lot of companies would be changing the payouts from cash to stock and then restricting the stock for three to five years,” he said. “Or paying out half of the bonus in cash and half in stock that must be held for three years. Those would be helpful changes, but I didn’t see any of that.”

    Several pay policy changes showed some sensitivity to shareholder concerns about excessive compensation. For example, 43 percent of the companies making changes to their pay said they had eliminated merit increases, while 15 percent said they had reduced retirement benefits or eliminated tax gross-up payments on perquisites like insurance policies or use of jets. Some 13 percent said they froze or reduced base salaries and 4 percent reduced the benefits that would accrue to a chief executive if the company he or she oversaw changed hands.

    Here is another plus: Some companies tightened up performance measures that must be met before incentive pay is dispensed. For example, 10 companies that changed their short-term incentive pay structures added profit or cash-flow requirements to performance pay hurdles. And in long-term performance programs, several companies added capital efficiency measures to their benchmarks. These included return on equity and return on invested capital.

    BUT the overall message from the study, Mr. Reda said, is that in executive payland, real change comes exceedingly slowly. And pay for performance remains more mantra than practice.

    Mr. Reda said he suspected that the increased reliance on short-term incentive pay that he found was a result of the precipitous declines in many of these companies’ share prices. Indeed, he found that the greater the drop in a company’s stock price, the more likely that its pay program was changed.

    There were a variety of changes made to incentive pay that wound up skewing companies’ total packages toward short-term performance. First were the adjustments made to long-term incentive grants, like decreasing the value of awards or dispensing the same number of shares regardless of a decline in their value.

    The end result was a greater reliance over all on short-term incentive pay. And that invites riskier behavior among executives, Mr. Reda said.
    “Corporate America needs to deflate their compensation packages
    because with higher leverage comes higher risk,”

    With more than 20 years of executive pay analysis under his belt, Mr. Reda can offer a historical perspective on how the mix of compensation has changed over the years. In his view, leverage in compensation — where incentive pay far outweighs salary — has ballooned. And the opportunity for executives to tap into that leverage has vastly increased the risk in pay plans.


    Comparing today’s common practices with those of his early days in the business is revealing, he said.

    “When I first got in this business in 1987, a typical C.E.O. would have a short-term incentive opportunity of 60 percent of salary, and for the long-term, a good one would get two times salary,” Mr. Reda said. “If you do the math, the salary was equal to about 30 percent of the total compensation package. Today, it’s about 10 percent. So over the last 20 years or so the leverage of these compensation packages has increased dramatically.”

    Compare these figures with those paid out in 2008. The typical short-term incentive pay for a chief executive was 200 percent of salary, while long-term incentives accounted for eight times salary.

    “In both cases the incentive pay more than tripled,” Mr. Reda said. “Have people changed that much in 20 years that you need to throw these huge outsized incentive bonuses at them to get them to work?”

    Come hell, high water, financial crisis or stock market collapse, the executive pay grab goes on. Clearly, if shareholders thought the economic downturn would result in more sensible pay packages, they’ve got another think coming.


    The Federal Reserve Is Immoral 49 comments
    by: Tim Iacono August 13, 2009
    >
    During the first few days of each month comes a task that is increasingly approached with dread around here and, unfortunately, that condition is likely to persist for some time.

    Shortly after banks make their month-end update to various short-term savings accounts that we hold, these balances are queried, only to find that, almost without exception, interest credited is less than it was in prior months and far less than it was eight or ten months ago.

    Why?

    Largely as a result of the Federal Reserve keeping short-term interest rates pegged to zero.

    You see, aside from some Certificates of Deposit that were locked up late last year which, today, provide the strangest of locked up late last year which, today, provide the strangest of feelings during a very strange period in history (i.e., feeling lucky to get about 2.5 percent interest for a one-year CD), it's nearly impossible to get more than a two percent return these days on any kind of an FDIC-insured account and, more likely than not, you'll get less than one percent.

    Speaking as one who knows from experience, there's a big difference between one or two percent and five or six percent, what used to be the "minimum" rate of return for a super-safe savings account backed by the government.

    More importantly, if this is causing us angst every month, I can only imagine what it's doing to the budgets of other savers whose finances are far less comfortable than ours.

    Put simply, the freakishly low short-term interest rates that the Federal Reserve is jamming down everyone's throat are immoral and, maybe, just maybe, a lot more people are beginning to see this, along with other practices of our central bank that are just not right.

    Maybe, just maybe, something will finally be done about reforming (or, as suggested by Rep. Ron Paul, abolishing) this banking cartel - hopefully before the Fed celebrates its 100-year anniversary in a few years.
    Just to be clear on the terminology here, Merriam-Webster offers the following:


    immoral
    adjective
    not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles

    moral
    adjective
    1a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

    Setting aside questions about the dark veil of secrecy surrounding who and how much the central bank has been helping with their problem loans, problem assets, and problems staying solvent, there are at least three ways that the organization David Wessel calls "the fourth branch of government" is acting badly these days - by punishing savers, by enriching the banks, and by fleecing the poor.

    Of course, none of this is really new - it all just seems a whole lot more relevant today than ever before given the current state of affairs in this country and around the world.
    Punish the Savers

    As noted above, it used to be that you could always count on getting five or six percent interest in a "no-risk" savings account backed by the FDIC. In fact, going all the way back to 1955 (when the interest rate data at the Fed's website stops), the average short-term lending rate is right between those two marks - 5.66 percent.

    Ever since I was a teenager, I can remember thinking, "If I could somehow amass a million dollars, that would surely generate enough money to live on for the rest of my life".

    Well, welcome to the 21st century, where the asset bubbles keep a-poppin' and the interest rates keep a-droppin'.

    Over most of the last hundred years, aside from the dollar losing more than 90 percent power (versus a loss of zero during the prior ten decades), there hasn't been too much to complain about in the Fed's management of money and interest rates but, since asset bubbles and the attendant "mopping up" process have become a way of life, the rate of return on savings has been abysmal.

    With the exception of the "baby-steps" rate raising campaign a few years ago, the Fed funds rate has been below two percent since 2002 - after the decade's first asset bubble met its pin.

    Now, if there was a good reason for keeping rates so low, this might all make some sense to senior citizens who have looked disappointingly at their bank statements for years, but given the fact that the low-rates in 2002-2004 led to the housing and credit bubbles forming and then bursting a few years later, and here we are with even lower rates today, all of this should make anyone with half a brain realize that there is something seriously wrong with the system as it currently operates.

    In a nation in dire need of internal savings, the fact that savers are being punished as never before is just plain wrong - immoral - and the idea that we live in an era of "low inflation" is just salt rubbed in the wounds of senior citizens who, year after year, watch prices for health care and energy rise by some multiple of the one or two percent they can earn on their savings.

    Twenty years from now (perhaps sooner), they'll look back on today's monetary policy and say to themselves, "What were they thinking, punishing the savers like that when the U.S. desperately needed savings?"

    Enrich the Banks

    As if it weren't bad enough that savers are cheated every time the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates, the worst part is that banks are the beneficiaries.

    You see, in addition to buying up many of the bad assets previously held on banks' books over the last year or so - the result of waves of imprudent bank lending - when the Fed lowers interest rates it helps to make the business of banking much more profitable and, conventional wisdom has it that our finance-based economy will then begin to recover.

    And when the banks can borrow at these super-low rates, that means that savers can't earn much more in interest.

    Banks come first and savers are far down on the list.

    Why does the system work this way?

    Well, most people haven't got a clue what the Federal Reserve is or what it does (though, understandably, there is growing interest in this topic, ever since the wheels fell off of the global economy last fall), but the crucial bit of information that the now-slightly-more-curious public should learn quickly is that the central bank was not set up to help the people or the government, but, rather, to help the big banks.

    In fact, according to G. Edward Griffin, who happened to write a whole book on the subject, the very reason that the Federal Reserve was formed back in 1913 was so that big banks could wrest back control of the banking system from the many small, fledgling, independent banks all around the country that were taking away their business.

    Look around you today. You might see lots of little banks failing, but only a few large ones ever go under and none of the country's biggest banks ever fail.

    The Fed was created by the big banks, for the big banks, and its unwritten "mission statement" is to do whatever it takes to ensure the survival and profitability of those big banks, getting the government to step in with public money when necessary for "the greater good", effectively socializing the losses while keeping the gains in private hands.

    That's why what we have today - a wholly unsustainable system of ever-expanding credit and debt dominated by a handful of "too big to fail" banks - keeps getting propped up.

    The masses are led to believe that credit is the "lifeblood of the economy" when, in fact, credit is the lifeblood of a banking system that has, over time, sucked the life out of the economy.

    It's hard to imagine anything that is more immoral than the Federal Reserve's role in this process, now almost a hundred years in the making.

    Fleece the Poor

    In arriving at the third and final way that the Federal Reserve is immoral, clearly, that last thought in the previous section was premature.

    In fact, there is one very good example of something being done today by the central bank that is even more immoral than a nearly century long wealth transfer from the public sector to the private banking system - the ongoing assistance being provided by the Fed in helping the banking system reach out and find new customers so that every possible dollar can be extracted from them.

    You see, the country's big banks (along with the central bank that serves their interests) would much prefer that poor people all across the country not go to a place like you see to the right and, for a small fee, convert their paycheck into cash and forever live within their means.

    Bankers would much rather see the nation's poor open up checking accounts and then venture further into the world of modern day banking, quickly learning to spend well beyond their means.

    Left unsaid in the Fed's many efforts to reach out to the "unbanked" is that checking accounts are a sort of "gateway drug" for many people - a road to debt serfdom where, in addition to paying interest on money borrowed to buy stuff that they don't need, these "newly banked" poor will also be fleeced by a bewildering array of fees and charges in a system that is set up to systematically suck as much money out of as many people as possible.

    Over the years, the Federal Reserve has made great efforts to attract new customers for banks, in some cases providing cartoon characters to make the whole idea of debt serfdom seem like a friendly sort of condition, much in the same way that Joe Camel once attracted new smokers.

    Under the guise of "education" and with "consumer protection" as its goal, the Federal Reserve might seem to be "looking out for the little guy", but they're not. They've had the power to do this for many years now but, for obvious reasons, have exercised their "power to protect" the consumer only sparingly, allowing millions of subprime borrowers to give the housing bubble one last giant hurrah before it finally burst.

    Fortunately, it appears that the Obama administration would like to see the American consumers' interests watched over by some other group and for good reason. A report earlier in the week in the Financial Times detailed how big banks in the U.S. plan to extract almost $40 billion in overdraft fees from American consumers whose balance sheets haven't been bolstered by government bailouts.

    It seems that, with the collapse of the mortgage finance bubble, big banks are now reverting to a profit model that is driven more by extracting fees from their customers wherever possible and overdraft fees from the cash-strapped are "the mother lode".

    A full 90 percent of overdraft fees come from just 10 percent of all checking accounts and most of this 10 percent have low credit scores and/or are recent entrants to the world of mainstream banking.

    Not surprisingly, the highest overdraft fees come from the biggest banks - Citigroup, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, SunTrust, and Citizens Bank.

    For banks, overdraft fees are a low risk, high profit part of their business, not something that is usually mentioned as part of the Fed's outreach programs. It is a sophisticated, large scale sort of "payday loan" system that many Americans fall prey to and, as long as customers have their payroll checks automatically deposited, the bank will always have first crack at the money and people will continue to spend more than they make because, when you get down to the very basics here, most people aren't very good at math.

    But, banks are.

    Maybe Ron Paul is right - the Fed should be abolished.

    Then markets could set interest rates, banks would have to fend for themselves, and there would be one less group helping to extract what little money the poor have left.


    With more than 20 years of executive pay analysis under his belt, Mr. Reda can offer a historical perspective on how the mix of compensation has changed over the years. In his view, leverage in compensation — where incentive pay far outweighs salary — has ballooned. And the opportunity for executives to tap into that leverage has vastly increased the risk in pay plans.

    “Corporate America needs to deflate their compensation packages because with higher leverage comes higher risk,” Mr. Reda said.

    Comparing today’s common practices with those of his early days in the business is revealing, he said.

    “When I first got in this business in 1987, a typical C.E.O. would have a short-term incentive opportunity of 60 percent of salary, and for the long-term, a good one would get two times salary,” Mr. Reda said. “If you do the math, the salary was equal to about 30 percent of the total compensation package. Today, it’s about 10 percent. So over the last 20 years or so the leverage of these compensation packages has increased dramatically.”

    Compare these figures with those paid out in 2008. The typical short-term incentive pay for a chief executive was 200 percent of salary, while long-term incentives accounted for eight times salary.

    “In both cases the incentive pay more than tripled,” Mr. Reda said. “Have people changed that much in 20 years that you need to throw these huge outsized incentive bonuses at them to get them to work?”

    Come hell, high water, financial crisis or stock market collapse, the executive pay grab goes on. Clearly, if shareholders thought the economic downturn would result in more sensible pay packages, they’ve got another think coming.


    so take all three together. debt risisng faster than niminal GDP does nothing, but there are people who make killing psuing too much debt, and too mcuh debt is unstable. so don't believe the author that we need to have all this debt shoved up or ass to fix things. that's the last thing in the world americans who don't work on wall street need!! maybe we won't be able to get a new car every three years, but we won't loose 1/2 or stock market value so often and the wealth you have accumulated will be safe. Now you are at risk fro dollar collapse and another bubble bursting. the solution is less debt, bit more. if there is no leverage on wall street there are no margin calls and no fire sale of assets as prices fall. it is only when we have no leverage can we see the real price of the object we are buying!!!
    >
    Aug 16 07:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Armageddon Part Two: Securitization Is Too Big to Fail [View article]
    letter of mine to Ft regarding securitisation:
    Dear Sir,
    > Miss Tett has written extensively about the credit
    > crisis
    > but once more fails to elucidate salient points
    > regarding
    > the issue of securitisation.
    >
    > She correctly points out that research from Pimco
    > states
    > that "Until the 1980's
    > the expansion of nominal gross
    > domestic product tracked the volume of outstanding
    > private
    > credit closely. But since then credit has
    > dramatically
    > outstripped economic growth as securitisation took
    > hold".
    > Meaning credit growth beyond nominal growth rate does
    > not
    > lead to economic growth.
    >
    > According to Prof. Aswath Damadaran (NYU Stern), one
    > of
    > the
    > foremost experts of valuation today, the most
    > significant
    > input into a discounted cash flow model is the stable
    > growth
    > rate. This growth rate can be sustained in perpetuity
    > allowing us to estimate the value of all the cash
    > flows.
    > No
    > firm can grow forever at a rate higher that the
    > growth
    > rate
    > of the economy. So, the value all things can't
    > grow faster
    > than the economy (Damaodaran, Investment valuation,
    > Chapter
    > 12, 2002)
    >
    > Therefore, at a certain point the growth of credit
    > must
    > become unstable when it
    > is rises faster that the rate of
    > growth in the economy. This is essentially the nature
    > of
    > our
    > financial crisis. Valuations based on the growth of
    > credit
    > (leverage) were not able to be supported by the
    > nominal
    > growth rate of the economy.
    >
    > There are additional features to our economy that
    > have
    > happened since securitisation has taken off. The
    > stock
    > market has grown faster than the economy, CEO pay has
    > gone
    > from 30X to 300X of the average American worker, real
    > wages
    > have fallen, and wealth disparity has reached heights
    > not
    > seen since the great depression. All of these issues
    > are
    > in
    > fact related.
    >
    > Securitisation has allowed those whose pay is based
    > upon
    > leverage (credit)to increase many times faster than
    > the
    > growth of the real economy and the vast majority of
    > workers.
    > Securitisation has allowed the experts on credit risk
    > and
    > valuation (bankers) to
    > off load these risks onto the
    > public.
    > This has created instability (highly distorted
    > valuations)and a moral hazard where society bears the
    > brunt
    > of costs, while bankers and CEOs reap the benefits.
    >
    > When Ms. Tett reports that respected figures such as
    > William Dudley of the NY Fed consider it paramount
    > that
    > securitisation markets get jump started if we are to
    > recover
    > she fails to mention that Mr. Dudley, as a former
    > managing
    > director of Goldman Sachs, and the majority of people
    > who
    > are calling for this to happen are the very people
    > who
    > have
    > benefited the most from securitisatiion.
    >
    > I hope the American people will wake up and see that
    > efforts to jump start securitisation are nothing more
    > than
    > an attempt by those who caused the crisis to restart
    > the
    > system that allowed them to reap the rewards and off
    > load
    > the risks of that system onto others.
    >
    >
    > With these facts in mind one must wonder what the
    > point of
    > the Feds easy credit (money)policy are. Are they
    > benefiting
    > society? Not very much. Are the benefiting wall street
    > and
    > the banking class? Well, Goldman Sachs profits answer
    > that
    > along with a stock market that does not reflect
    > economic
    > realities.
    >
    > It also answers the inflation issue. Growth in money
    > supply
    > faster than the ability of society to use it (nominal
    > growth
    > rate) has to result in inflation or asset price
    > bubbles.
    >

    the authorshould knw that the stock market has risen about 2.5 trilllion since the lows. buy what a coincidence!!!! LOL that's there the money is from and where it has gone. we have bought their shit and they have put it in the market. that's your rally, fed induced!!

    the authos is not correct about inlfationary impacts. there trillion fro the banks to play with have been thrown into thing like commodities and oil. so oil rises when storage tanks are full and tankers are being used as storage off shore. this increases inflation.

    Additionally the rise of the markets has reduced safe haven demand for dollar driving hem down and this is inflationary. all the debt may lead to dollr collapse (like argentina) and that would be inflationary. having the money get to the real economy is not required for inflation. You don't need economic activity to have inflation. inflation happens when money supply rises faser than it can be put to good use. think post WW! german, zimbawae (sp). nobody says zim has any economic activity, but they sure have inflation. Look at the inflation in Iceland from currency fall. There are just too many examples of hw inflation can happen aside from classic macro views. asset price bubbles are a from of inflation of a particular asset too.
    Aug 16 07:31 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Market Outlook: We Are at an Important Inflection Point [View article]
    the author makes the mistake of thinking people have piled back into stocks. what has happened is the fed with all their give aways and cheap money has allowed wall street firms to lever up, and given goldman sachs a trading monopoly on the NYSE. read up some sero hedge data about where the money comes from. it ain't money market funds. bonds have gotten real money flows, not the market!!!
    Aug 16 07:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Market Outlook: We Are at an Important Inflection Point [View article]
    he has been banned, and continues to post with other names. I don't live in california so am unable to go visit him and break his legs. all you can do is report him for abuse. clearly he needs the crap beaten out of him


    On Aug 16 07:06 PM QuasiYoda wrote:

    > Somebody please ban the previous poster for spamming incessantly.
    >
    >
    > Yes, I have begun to short last week but will begin to exit my short
    > positions if I don't see confirmation this week . . . by Tuesday.
    Aug 16 07:11 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Coming Soon: Banking Crisis of Historic Proportions [View article]
    economy does not equal banks. all things being done by fed to help banks is bad for consumer. thats the real problem!!


    On Aug 16 09:15 AM chap08 wrote:

    > While I dont disagree with the facts in this article, it really says
    > nothing new and it ignores some key facts:
    >
    > 1. Systemic failure is now far less likely than it was last year.
    >
    > 2. The Fed has avoided hard defaltion and will continue to move towards
    > inflation. This will help the banks.
    > 3. A steep yield curve will also be held in place by the Fed - ideal
    > for the banks to make money.
    > 4. The Fed will take further action as it needs to - it has a lot
    > more fire power if it needs it.
    > 5. Banks that can be allowed to fail will be allowed to fail. There
    > is a severe risk to individual bank shares but you over estimate
    > the risk to the wider economy. The remaining banks will have more
    > pricing power and be stronger. The costs will be picked up by future
    > consumers and tax payers.
    Aug 16 06:35 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Federal Reserve Is Immoral [View article]
    there was no banking system at this time. fine with me lets abolish the entire banking system.


    On Aug 13 06:43 PM Alan Young wrote:

    > I must be from a different planet. How can LOW interest rates be
    > immoral, when earning interest was considered immoral by the earliest
    > civilizations who invented the very notion of "morality"? When some
    > religions to this day prohibit lending money for interest, and when
    > charging HIGH interest rates (usery) is still a crime in some places?
    >
    >
    > I agree the banks should be better regulated, but is that the Fed's
    > mandate?
    Aug 16 06:23 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Federal Reserve Is Immoral [View article]
    The author does not point out the problems with such low costs of capital. Resources are spend in non productive manners that don't have adequate return and are wasted and not good for the overall economy.
    Aug 16 02:18 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Federal Reserve Is Immoral [View article]
    Your welcome. If you understood how angry I am each and every day. they borrow money for nothing to rig a stock market that goldman sachs has a monopoly (slp) agreement allowing manipulation and we pay it back for them to (other countries) at Tbond rates. mean while the dollar looses it's value, the propped up market increases all world commodity prices (less reason for flight to safety), so we will also pay more for futire inflation and borrowing costs. I do not understand why there are not riots. Reallty I think we got rid of the British for less.


    On Aug 16 12:25 PM Teutonic Knight wrote:

    > dcb - - -
    >
    > Thank you for this astute observation, admittedly when I wrote my
    > comment I did not think of that comparison, and you hit the nail
    > on the head. It brings out another point, though, we the taxpayer
    > get the double whammy!!! It also confirms my belief and fear of excessive,
    > unwarranted, un-wanted, and un-asked-for government "services".
    >
    >
    > Long live the Bureaucrats!
    >
    > TKment
    Aug 16 01:44 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Federal Reserve Is Immoral [View article]
    The point is to have a stable economy that benefits everyone, not the few percent of people that own 99% of stocks. You don't get it because you can only think about your own welfare!!!!


    On Aug 14 12:37 AM FB5000 wrote:

    > Some sense.
    >
    > Learn from this guy.
    >
    > The wayto make money is too keep your eyes and ears open.
    > I too bought the preferrds and corp. debt. amd financials.
    >
    > If rates are zero the yield curve is bending upward - you can cry
    > about it or you can buy financials.
    >
    > What a bunch of clowns.
    Aug 15 12:26 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Federal Reserve Is Immoral [View article]
    That right, except the banks get to borrow, but the tax payer pays the treasury rate to pay back the borrowed funds, not the banks!!!. they get the teaser rate for ever, we get the late payment penalties!!!


    On Aug 14 12:03 PM Teutonic Knight wrote:

    > Just a couple of my 2 cents. Zero percent Fed Funds interest rate
    > betrays that the Fed and the government are now back against the
    > corner and the wall. It also means that they are empowering themselves
    > to borrow infinitely and to spend. It reminds me of those enticing
    > credit cards offer of the zero percent balance transfer. The catch
    > though, is that those offers invariably (and must) come with an effective
    > period. Once that period expires it will rest to something like a
    > 10%++ rate. So unless you would have an exit strategy it looks like
    > a tickling time bomb, and a very big and devastating one. Maybe around
    > December 21, 2012 when the Mayan Calendar resets to a whole New Word
    > Order?
    Aug 15 12:23 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
1,364 Comments
3,365 Likes