jpiretti

After a sensible call for a jobs summit, "President Obama’s Herbert Hoover-like alter ego has re-emerged again to warn us again about the evils of government deficit spending." An argument why deficit terrorism isn't the answer.

I suggest everyone on this thread google the phrase " US debt/GDP 1933-2008" Govt. spending can be a drain or it can be an investment (notice the 90's). I find many to many folks on these threads suffer from single ledger accounting myopithy. If you are a Reagan/Bush 41 or Bush 43 fan, you will see that the tax cuts/military spending combination produced a lousy return on investment as measured by debt/GDP. Here is a link if you are a true student of economic history.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...


On Nov 14 10:36 AM Mike from NYC wrote:

> With your myopic vision you would have us believe that Obama created
> all the deficits and all the problems facing the USA in less than
> one year.
>
> For more than 30 years failed leadership, both political and economic,
> has led us to this point in time.

Sound Advice, a monthly newsletter that's +36.1% over the past year and +10.1% over the past 10, doesn't back down from its prediction of a bullish supercycle: "The handpicked leading indicators that ... are the most sensitive to changes in economic conditions, have shown unusual strength in recent months. Such unusually high increases have occurred as we begin recovering from past recessions, and before the recovery was widely recognized."

Oh, one more thing...from April 1933 (New Deal enacted) to the end of 1939, the Dow 30 went from 50 to 150 (200%)...let me guess, you believe the New Deal prolonged the depression?

Sound Advice, a monthly newsletter that's +36.1% over the past year and +10.1% over the past 10, doesn't back down from its prediction of a bullish supercycle: "The handpicked leading indicators that ... are the most sensitive to changes in economic conditions, have shown unusual strength in recent months. Such unusually high increases have occurred as we begin recovering from past recessions, and before the recovery was widely recognized."

The technicians were the only survivors in 1929 while the fundamentalists were the tools and liars of the investment banks. Simple technical tools would have gotten you either short or hedged using a 20 month MA or a 91/238 day crossover in Jan. 2008. I thank my personal God every morning there are folks like you on the other side of the trade....good luck....oh BTW, check both of those indicators now using an exponential MA and back check it. You will see a pretty consistent 4-5 cycle, but I have a strange feeling your going to let your political pre-dispositions get in the way of sound analysis.


On Nov 13 11:31 AM ebworthen wrote:

> Ah, the technical's again, while ignoring the fundamentals.
>
> If only we could resurrect the dead chartists and statisticians from
> 1929-1939 who could tell us they thought the same thing - until reality
> intervened.
>
> Those souls are gone and their ghosts cannot scream loud enough to
> prevent us from repeating their mistakes.

Dick Bove blames the government's "vendetta" against Ken Lewis for Bank of America's (BAC) troubles in finding a new leader, saying credible candidates can't see a reason to "take a post where they may be hounded to be government automatons." Look at Edward Liddy and Robert Benmosche at [[AIG]], he writes.

I respect Dick Bove as an analyst, but for God's sack, these firms would not exist not for the capital that the government and it's taxpayers have provided. Who on this earth can we hope to protect the interests of the taxpayers but the government. As far as the profits and subsequent bonuses, what moron can't take Fed money at .5%, loan it out at whatever or initiate a carry trade and not make a profit. Again, this is tax subsidized capital they are borrowing and paying themselves a bonus on the profits...spare me the pity.


On Nov 13 10:36 AM Tom Armistead wrote:

> Liddy did what he was installed to do - closed out the CDS in favor
> of GS et al and left the proceeds in the hands of the government
> in Maiden Lane II and III.
>
> Benmosche is flamboyant and outspoken to say the least. He knew what
> he was getting into and he's enjoying the attention.
>
> Ken Lewis was not being hounded by the government so much as by the
> inevitable consequences of his past mistakes and actions.

"The financial panic is behind us," says Warren Buffett at Columbia's business school. "Our economy was sputtering, still is sputtering some." But he thinks opportunities are better inside the U.S. than outside, and when it comes to the carrot or the stick for companies begging for bailouts: "More sticks are called for."

Those who have nothing else to gain (and in turn are giving away their fortune) are the least likely to "sell out". It is those whose voting records that seem to be a quid pro quo to their campaign contributions...these are the "sell outs". My father used to have a saying, and I find it to be true...One's agenda can be easily derived by knowing who fills one's pockets. If you want to question the wisdom of public policy, feel free to do so, but if you want to question Buffett's credibility vs. anyone on the other side of the aisle, your way out of your league.


On Nov 12 08:46 PM Mark Bern wrote:

> I think he must have meant more "stick saves" will be needed to keep
> the market propped up long enough for the economy to start responding
> to stimulus.
>
> I used to respect Buffet. I think he has sold out now that he's made
> his fortune. He's not looking at many more years, so maybe his perspective
> has changed. I don't think that his political views are what they
> were when he was <NOBR _extended="true">#&... a living getting
> started in business.

"The financial panic is behind us," says Warren Buffett at Columbia's business school. "Our economy was sputtering, still is sputtering some." But he thinks opportunities are better inside the U.S. than outside, and when it comes to the carrot or the stick for companies begging for bailouts: "More sticks are called for."

This is the most insane thing I have ever read on this site. Larry Kudlow (to steal a line from Larry Holmes) couldn't carry Buffett's jock strap. He has not had a cogent thought since his recovery from severe cocaine addition...have you ever peeked at this guys bio?


On Nov 12 03:59 PM Mad_Max_A_Million wrote:

> The Larry Kudlow Report is more honest. Lary is more honest than
> Warren. Buffett lost all credibility when he pumped Obama, an anti-business
> candidate. Sure we have the largest economy as he says. We are masters
> at creating jobs selling goods produced in China. So where is the
> light at the end of the tunnel doing that? Maybe Warren is just going
> short on the dollar.

A new rule that caps the interest rates paid to depositors by banks deemed "not well capitalized" will likely accelerate the rate of bank failures. The cap - 0.75% above the U.S. average - is meant to prevent weaker banks from driving up costs for the rest of the industry.

Thank You. A voice of reason and proportion.


On Nov 06 12:45 PM H.J. Huneycutt wrote:

> FDIC should call this the GMAC rule. GMAC (Ally Bank) had been offering
> exorbitant interest rates at the taxpayer expense in order to gain
> market share. The FDIC forced them to lower rates.
>
> This is a good rule. If my taxpayer dollars are going to the FDIC,
> I don't want them to allow banks engaging in reckless practices to
> drive up costs, which will make even more banks fail, and hence,
> drive up taxpayer costs even more. The banks doing this are mostly
> the poorly managed banks that are on the brink of bankruptcy.

White House data due out this afternoon will show the government's economic stimulus programs created or saved about 650,000 jobs through Sept. 30 - a figure officials are prepared to tout as a significant success. The reports cover only $150B of the $339B in stimulus spending that occurred through that date. Yesterday, the White House lashed out (I, II) at an AP report saying it overstated stimulus jobs, and at an Edmunds.com note that took cash-for-clunkers to task.

40% went to tax cuts. Please specifically identify where the waste, patronage, fraud, unneeded projects, and fat cat rewards are. I am sure there is waste anytime you allocate 787 billion, but please be specific. As for the Edmunds.com analysis of the CARS program, they conclude that even though only 8k was spent on each car, the real cost was 24k because a large portion of buyers were not motivated at all by the program, and would have bought a new vehicle anyway. If that is the case, it would suggest that the US new car consumer was in recovery already...seems specious to me, but debatable. The analysis that was not done was the spread between average gas mileage of the vehicles bought/traded in and the total volume and cost of energy saved..is that significant? That is an important question to ask. Not a question I think will be addressed in this thread.


On Oct 30 10:14 AM Neil459 wrote:

> On Oct 30 10:02 AM jpiretti wrote:

White House data due out this afternoon will show the government's economic stimulus programs created or saved about 650,000 jobs through Sept. 30 - a figure officials are prepared to tout as a significant success. The reports cover only $150B of the $339B in stimulus spending that occurred through that date. Yesterday, the White House lashed out (I, II) at an AP report saying it overstated stimulus jobs, and at an Edmunds.com note that took cash-for-clunkers to task.

No, what we paid for was road and bridge construction, and that will be left when all the money is spent. Let's try to do math like grown ups do.


On Oct 30 09:10 AM TraderMark wrote:

> Sweet
>
> so the taxpayer paid $1.2Million for each job saved or created<br/>
>
> sounds like a sensible plan form me, I'm sure our grandchildren will
> be thrilled
>
> Granted its not the 3.5M to 4M jobs "saved or created" we were promised
> by good enough!
>
> Now where is cash for clunkers 2.0? I'm waiting. Also very disappointed
> "cash for Christmas" was not passed.

T. Rowe Price Group (TROW): "The actions taken by governments and central banks around the world to get global economies moving again have succeeded in pulling markets back onto more stable ground. Investor sentiment is improving, there is considerable liquidity that can move into the stock market, and we are encouraged that investors have shown a willingness to accept more risk. The strength of the global market rebound still leaves us cautious as headwinds persist and equity valuations may have gotten ahead of the recovery. Investors should not be surprised at a pullback..." (PR)

Spare me. You never owned either one of those in the last 9 months. All of you folks provide wonderful analysis, but never have any skin in the game. By the time anyone of you folks have anything good to say about the markets or economy, I'll use that as one of my sell signals.


On Oct 23 09:03 AM herbert hoover wrote:

> Sure because AAPl at $210 and AMZN at $110 arew such freaking bargains!
> Maybe I should get a second mortgage out and buy some more! After
> all, equities are like real estate - they NEVER go down!

T. Rowe Price Group (TROW): "The actions taken by governments and central banks around the world to get global economies moving again have succeeded in pulling markets back onto more stable ground. Investor sentiment is improving, there is considerable liquidity that can move into the stock market, and we are encouraged that investors have shown a willingness to accept more risk. The strength of the global market rebound still leaves us cautious as headwinds persist and equity valuations may have gotten ahead of the recovery. Investors should not be surprised at a pullback..." (PR)

I have a sneaking suspicion that none of you folks made any money in the downside nor the upside. What T Rowe is begging/pleading is that weak hands, like yourself will capitulate...if you were ever in in the first place.

Separate from the pay cuts coming to seven bailed-out firms, the Fed today will issue new guidelines on banking pay. The Fed's rules would be applicable not just to execs but to anyone who could imperil an institution, and can be enforced by the central bank under existing powers.

I'll take the job!
From AP:

CEO pay OK, other bonuses get dropped
In addition to those three executives, Feinberg also ruled on ten others at AIG.

One of them was chief executive Robert Benmosche, who joined AIG in August. The pay czar had already approved the CEO's pay package on Oct. 2. The new CEO will receive $10.5 million in annual compensation, including $3 million in cash, $4 million in stock options and $3.5 million in annual performance bonuses.

Your information is completely wrong. Who should responsible for the 50+ trillion dollar credit default swap market that AIG created with no open market,no transparency and no counter party capital requirements. The US taxpayers are on the hook for that....and I have to give a crap about a CEO (granted he is new to the mess) who makes 10 million/year as opposed to their normal 100 million/year. I am touched by your concerns, but leave me out of the pity pool.

On Oct 22 10:31 PM Windsun33 wrote:

> You really think so?
>
> Just for example, the AIG CEO was just recently hired to fix the
> mess there. He agreed on a salary of $416,000 a year. The fed now
> wants to cut that by 90%, so he would be making $41,600 a year -
> I make more than that working part time as a web designer. And before
> you say he will get a ton of stock options - he cannot get those
> for five years (if ever).
>
> Do you really think anyone in their right mind would stick around
> under those conditions? And how is that being hardball, when it is
> really nothing more than showmanship and pandering to the screaming
> mob, while totally ignoring the real problems that caused all this.
> Can you say smoke and mirrors?

Separate from the pay cuts coming to seven bailed-out firms, the Fed today will issue new guidelines on banking pay. The Fed's rules would be applicable not just to execs but to anyone who could imperil an institution, and can be enforced by the central bank under existing powers.

Nonsense!! The shareholders by proxy were represented by the fund companies, who in turn looked the other way while these people raped the firms and the fund companies investment banking arms did quid pro quo business with these banks. The "Chinese Wall" that was supposed to separate all this graft has never worked properly, and with a recently neutered regulatory system, it was non-existent. And now all of the venom on this site is targeted towards the regulators as opposed to the thieves who are paying themselves huge bonuses again because off the tax payer supplemented credit spreads from which a half trained monkey could make a profit from. Please tell me, does anyone on this thread actually work in the field?


On Oct 22 01:44 PM tripleblack wrote:

> Please don't misunderstand, the investors on this thread ARE the
> "owners" of the companies being discussed. The stockholders. We elected
> the boards, voted our stock, and invested our money. Sure, sometimes
> we lost, voted against something but were over-ruled by our fellow
> stockholders, but that is part of how these things work. If we felt
> strongly enough about some stockholder meeting's agenda, we could
> always sell the stock and move our tent somewhere else.
>
> But still, there is a deeper principle at issue here - the basic
> tenets of how the system should or should not work, and government's
> role in that system.

Separate from the pay cuts coming to seven bailed-out firms, the Fed today will issue new guidelines on banking pay. The Fed's rules would be applicable not just to execs but to anyone who could imperil an institution, and can be enforced by the central bank under existing powers.

Does anyone consider the fact that even the banks that are not involved in TARP and thus are not partially liable to the US taxpayers are still owned by the shareholders, not the folks in the executive suite. The money/fund managers don't seem to give a crap about that, so who does? When the executives filled the compensation board with their cronies, and (in my opinion) stole hundreds of millions from the shareholders, who was there to protect them? Certainly not anybody on this thread. Why in the hell are so many people willing to pimp for these crooks?

Who says the right portfolio manager can't make a difference? Whereas the Dow would still need to rally another 41% to retake its Oct. 2007 peak, no fewer than 16% of the portfolios in investment newsletters followed by Mark Hulbert are ahead today of where they were two years ago. Mutual funds? Just 1.2%.

The only decent trades they make seem to make are placed on the last day of the quarter (window dressing). I don't mean to paint all fund managers as incompetent boobs, but many do manipulate the quarterly statements.


On Oct 21 12:50 PM Graham and Dodd Investor wrote:

> Those 16% of news letters are doing their job. But the mutual funds
> are victims of "groupthink."