Tony Petroski

Expect a Near-Term Setback in Real Estate

From the article:

"If the then pending expiration of First-Time Homebuyer tax incentive (before its renewal) and the push of real estate and tax agents to help sales along, helped to drive home purchase activity ahead of the decline begun in early October, then perhaps significant demand has been pushed forward."

Quite so. And the seasonal nature of the market means that we are entering a slow period.

The interesting question is, after April 30th 2010 (why should buyers think that this is the last subsidy?) how will the market respond.

Interest rates are as low as they go outside of Japan.

Good article Mr. Kaminis.

On Bailouts and Moral Hazard

Mr. McTeer is a sober analyst and makes a lot of sense, but what ever happened to the Federalist Society? Could we have a debate between the proponents of strong central government and a federal system in this age of We are all Keynesians Now?

The suckers at the table are the taxpayers who ponied up the money to pay off the city slickers from Wall Street.

CIT Group: Taxpayers' Investment Is Virtually Worthless

Professor Wilson has spoken the truth.

Bury this enterprise, check your wallet to see if there's anything left (I suspect there is), and let's get on to the next subsidy.

Consumer Credit: Precipitous Drop in Credit Card Offers

Most of the shortage are being routed to my mailbox.

Senator Dodd Is Trying to Save Lenders from Themselves

From the article:

"Senator Dodd is not just helping borrowers out: he is saving the banking lobby from itself."

Senator Dodd is not helping borrowers out. First he helped himself to all the perks he could grab including favors from financial institutions that are under his purview, now he's trying to stay in office by buying votes.

It won't work, the Kennedy/Dodd axis is finished.

Goldman Bonuses Based on Socialist Policies, Not Capitalism

Mr. Golde: Keep the firebrand going!

Ultimately, Who Benefits from Too-Big-To-Fail

Good article Mr. Chokshi.

"However, with billions of taxpayer dollars directly supporting these operations along with potentially trillions in implicit guarantees/backstops, it appears that preserving these types of institutions is the real economic risk."

Let's get on with the job of breaking up the "too big to fail" institutions. Why do we hesitate?

Why Is the Chamber of Commerce Defending Big Banks?

If you're going to write an article like this, at least venture an opinion on the main topic, "Why is the Chamber of Commerce Defending Big Banks?"

As for the "Consumer Protection Agency," any small businessman knows that this proposed agency will not protect any consumers, morph into a parking place for out-of-work Democratic politicians and their camp followers and will eventually turn on small business with ever more regulations and paperwork.

The Problem with Smart Bankers

From Mr. Salmon:

"Maybe in future they’ll be more suspicious of things they don’t really understand, but I’m not holding my breath. That’s what regulators are for."

Maybe in the future the pack of Northeast liberals who dominate the establishment media will "be more suspicious" before they remain locked to the Democratic party and the likes of smart fellas like Summers, Rubin, Geithner and while were at it, Obama.

Debunking the 'Too Big to Fail' Myth Once and for All

Summarizing the article: Geithner and the Obama administration has used loopholes to funnel money to the too-big-to-fail institutions. They could certainly find some loopholes (besides using good-old antitrust laws) to break up the institutions.

Pass some fresh legislation and do things by the rule of law.

Regulation won't work because of "regulatory capture" by the industries.

Legislation won't get anywhere because, in your lengthy article, you didn't find the space to write the obvious: Wall St. is a place to park yourself if you are a Democrat (and a few Republicans) out of office and awaiting your next turn. You get wealthy by providing cover for the Wall St. firms, and then once your party is back in power, you can resume your service to the public.

Fannie and Freddie serve similar purposes.

Too Big to Fail - Everyone but Washington Knows What Needs to be Done

Mr. Harrison:

"Last week I was at the Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting to listen to their ideas on how to solve some of the world’s most pressing problems like poverty and education. I may have more to say about this topic in a later post,"

You have to be kidding. Clinton Global Initiative?

I await your missives on poverty and education.

The Real Deal with Ken Lewis

Mr. Goldstein:

"The only reason to keep lionizing Lewis for the many acquisitions he made during his nine-year run at BofA’s helm is if you truly believe that too-big-to-fail banks are a good thing."

I think that institutions of large size, GM comes to mind, should either fail, if that is their fate, or be broken down to size so that they're not "too big to fail."

The big problem: Who does the breaking?

As Lewis Departs, BofA Faces Toughest Quarter Yet in 2009

U.S. Congress: Leave the health-care system alone and get on with the job of breaking up the "too big to fail" banks. Start with BAC.

Is Curbing Bank Pay Socialist or Capitalist?

Mr. Smith. Let me make the case for not regulating the salaries and bonuses of bankers:

1) Price controls don't work.

2) Price controls require regulators, auditors and controllers thereby adding a layer of bureaucrats to an already bloated bureaucracy.

3) The G-20 likes it. If so many Citizens of the World are in favor, it can't be good for Americans. It will pave the way for international boards of regulators plaguing the planet with their make-work.

4) If we accept your premise that the banks are currently arms of the government, then your capitalist case leads very rapidly to "socialism" or socialism, whichever you are prepared to accept. Government running auto companies, banks, the entire health-care industry, health insurers, mortgage banking, railroads, green industries, 90% of "education, pension funds, whatever else Obama's Tzars can gobble up, leads to socialism or another term yet to be invented to spare the feelings of the socialists.

Why not call for less government involvement in the economy, not the omnipresent Obama crowd running and regulating everything? After all, that's what Americans do, associate with whom they want, bank where they want, and pay employees and partners what they want. It's called freedom.

A Two-Track Economy

Another summit? I was unaware of this until I read this article. Thanks.

There used to be a phrase called "political capital" or "diplomatic capital." It meant that you saved your powder for the big fights. You didn't have a "summit" twice a year.

"The G7/G8/G20 is back to being irrelevant or, worse...

When were they not irrelevant?

Trustbusters. That's what we need. Go to South Dakota and see who is carved in rock there.