Surprisingly, Bernstein's Craig Moffett thinks the iPhone (AAPL) is destroying AT&T's (T) wireless business. "With breathtaking swiftness,” he writes, the tech press has painted AT&T as the evil gatekeeper, even as iPhone users' voracious data appetites overtax its network. [View news story]
As a longtime AT&T customer, I can vouch for this. Since the release of the iPhone I have seen nothing but increasingly slower data speeds on their network. I think Verizon is more evil than AT&T will ever be, but their looking pretty good these days just for the data speeds.
Bandwidth isn't unlimited and hence isn't free. No other carrier lets you use up 5GB/mo for only $30/mo -- if they did, they'd all be slow as molasses.
iPhone users need to remember that they're already getting a pretty sweet deal, they just need to learn to share with each other and everyone else on the network.
Paul Kanjorski, House Capital Markets subcommittee chairman, (re)raises the question of whether credit rating agencies should continue to be paid by Wall Street banks: "I think they let us down ... We're not going to correct this problem if in the future they can let us down again by the issuer paying the rating agency for the valuation." [View news story]
I agree that ratings agencies shouldn't paid by the people whose securities they're rating (which is a conflict of interest in the extreme).
Daniel Indiviglio: Increased antitrust enforcement is good for competition (and competition is good for capitalism), so what's The Wall Street Journal'sproblem with it? [View news story]
True, but anti-trust actions are seldom about how a company /becomes/ dominant, rather than about how a company /remains/ dominant.
It's economically wise to ensure that today's dominant companies are dominant today because they're the best, not because they just happened to be dominant yesterday.
On Jul 13 02:39 PM cyclingscholar wrote: > some (many) companies become dominant and even exclusive > in their industry because they are efficient and responsive > producers
Daniel Indiviglio: Increased antitrust enforcement is good for competition (and competition is good for capitalism), so what's The Wall Street Journal'sproblem with it? [View news story]
It's their blind "government is bad!!!!" mentality that causes their objection.
No one likes too much government interference, but the reality is that sometimes someone needs to step in and make sure the kids play nicely.
For most bad loans, no adjustment will ever be enough. We need to get people out of loans they shouldn't have been given in the first place.
For you vindictive sorts, don't worry, the borrowers will pay the price: their credit will be wrecked, their house will be gone, and worse yet, they'll have to talk to bankers and lawyers -- ick.
But what we should focus on is speeding up the foreclosure process, and helping people move out of homes they can't afford and into homes (rental homes or apartments) that they can afford.
That process will happen one way or another -- better to accept it and do it quickly and orderly, as opposed to a long, slow, painful process.
Banks Not Letting Owners of Foreclosed Homes Walk Away [View article]
To summarize the tone of this posting: "Ha ha! Stupid borrower! Take that!"
Borrowers already have established mechanisms for being...unwise...in their borrowing: They lose the house, the wreck their credit, etc. Even today, in the midst of the fipocalypse, this seems fair.
The banks also have established mechanisms for their unwise lending: they have to take the house back and deal with it.
Now the banks are crying "Not it!" on their end of the deal, and /again/ leaving borrowers with the decrepit remains of the housing bubble that the banks created.
I feel the worst for responsible borrowers living next door to the shambles that the banks should have cleaned up. Instead of a few houses, whole neighborhoods are now losing even more value.
Joe Nocera on the July 28 Come-to-Geithner meeting for the top 25 mortgage servicers: To understand why modifications are so slow, realize that servicers were built just to collect checks, not to do complex one-on-one fixes - and worse, they actually have little incentive to fix mortgages. [View news story]
On Jul 11 01:36 PM Poor Texan wrote: > Rather than just modify certain mortgages, why not modify all.
This has been proposed by a handful of rational-thinking pundits, and it's actually not that bad of an idea -- and mathematically it's MUCH less expensive for the taxpayer than bailing out all the leverage products the banks and insurers have screwed around with.
> everyone who has or had a mortgage was the victim > of a crime.
A bit exaggerated, but not horribly off base. The crime was mostly one of negligence, but at its heart it's scarcely different from any other financial fraud.
Joe Nocera on the July 28 Come-to-Geithner meeting for the top 25 mortgage servicers: To understand why modifications are so slow, realize that servicers were built just to collect checks, not to do complex one-on-one fixes - and worse, they actually have little incentive to fix mortgages. [View news story]
My old history teacher always said, "They never make a law until somebody screws up."
Guess what, someone screwed up. Big. Really big.
So, before too long you can bet there will be some new laws.
But what happens immediately after the screw-up is a kind of nebulous period where we still don't have the laws that we wish we'd had all along, but something must be done to keep things from getting worse.
Before there were anti-trust laws, the government leaned on monopolies.
Before there were malpractice laws, the government leaned on doctors and lawyers.
Now, before there are "don't be a destructive evil bank/broker/rater" laws, the government must lean on banks/brokers/raters to keep things from getting worse.
On Jul 11 01:34 PM Neil459 wrote:
> I am sorry, but it does. Its the one thing that separates us from Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and all the other countries where powerful politician's can just do what they want. In this instance you think it makes sense and it may. However, once crossed the abuses will be far larger than any benefit now.
Joe Nocera on the July 28 Come-to-Geithner meeting for the top 25 mortgage servicers: To understand why modifications are so slow, realize that servicers were built just to collect checks, not to do complex one-on-one fixes - and worse, they actually have little incentive to fix mortgages. [View news story]
Why do ignorant people support the collapse of the economy? The collapse of the economy is one major reason why we are about to be just another two-bit tin-horn third world country.
Do the math kids, something needs to be done. Most of the defaulters aren't in a position to do anything, so unfortunately it false to the other side of the equation.
Please try to think, at least some of the time. The letter of the law doesn't always actually do anything useful.
When's the recovery? Never. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich predicts not a V, not a U, but an X. The economy can't get back on track because the track we were on for years - flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity - can't be sustained. "The X marks a brand new track - a new economy. What will it look like? Nobody knows." [View news story]
There will only be a "new economy" if policy makers have the balls to make real fundamental changes in the financial industry.
A little behind schedule, banks are apparently ready to begin signing contracts that would allow modification of second mortgages and other home-equity debt. This in the wake of a frustrated Treasury pressing companies to step up modifications. [View news story]
I disagree. The problem has already been passed.
Some of the least productive members of society (brokers, etc) already took their cut, or are still taking it.
The ones who actually make meaningful contributions to society (teachers, police, engineers, etc) are now paying the insanely-leveraged price of the swindling.
On Jul 10 02:11 PM nova wrote:
> There are too many idiot thinking that a government has answers to > all problems. > > Our populous is on drugs being unable to function by itself. Americans > became too addicted to a government for survival. Unfortunately, > Americans learned nothing from either Soviet Union or Communist China. > > > Debt modification is nothing else as passing a problem from least > productive elements of a society to most productive ones. It is like > poisoning a good well with clear water with toxic water from a bad > well.
Evan Newmark at Mean Streetwonders: How long before we have retail brokers recommending balanced portfolios of subprime CDOs, front-loaded mutual funds, and state IOUs? [View news story]
Sorry, forgot the rest:
"And when the investment goes sour, you pay us again to get rid of it, plus you have pay off the insurance policy we took out on it.
Then you keep paying us to keep your state economy from collapsing.
A little behind schedule, banks are apparently ready to begin signing contracts that would allow modification of second mortgages and other home-equity debt. This in the wake of a frustrated Treasury pressing companies to step up modifications. [View news story]
Loan modification doesn't work.
Doing more of something that doesn't work, still isn't going to work.
Evan Newmark at Mean Streetwonders: How long before we have retail brokers recommending balanced portfolios of subprime CDOs, front-loaded mutual funds, and state IOUs? [View news story]
Satire aside, the point is valid.
Wall Street is once again telling investors: "OK, here's how it works. You pay us to let you spend your money to buy crappy investments. Got it? Good."
Krugman continues to push for a second Obama stimulus: "What Mr. Obama needs to do is level with the American people. He needs to admit that he may not have done enough on the first try." [View news story]
Not always true. Ever heard of defense contracts? That's government spending that directly leads to contractor hiring.
On Jul 10 01:33 PM Windsun33 wrote:
> Government spending does not create jobs, it only moves them around > from the private to the public sector.
Surprisingly, Bernstein's Craig Moffett thinks the iPhone (AAPL) is destroying AT&T's (T) wireless business. "With breathtaking swiftness,” he writes, the tech press has painted AT&T as the evil gatekeeper, even as iPhone users' voracious data appetites overtax its network. [View news story]
Bandwidth isn't unlimited and hence isn't free. No other carrier lets you use up 5GB/mo for only $30/mo -- if they did, they'd all be slow as molasses.
iPhone users need to remember that they're already getting a pretty sweet deal, they just need to learn to share with each other and everyone else on the network.
Paul Kanjorski, House Capital Markets subcommittee chairman, (re)raises the question of whether credit rating agencies should continue to be paid by Wall Street banks: "I think they let us down ... We're not going to correct this problem if in the future they can let us down again by the issuer paying the rating agency for the valuation." [View news story]
But who should they be paid by? Investors?
Daniel Indiviglio: Increased antitrust enforcement is good for competition (and competition is good for capitalism), so what's The Wall Street Journal's problem with it? [View news story]
It's economically wise to ensure that today's dominant companies are dominant today because they're the best, not because they just happened to be dominant yesterday.
On Jul 13 02:39 PM cyclingscholar wrote:
> some (many) companies become dominant and even exclusive
> in their industry because they are efficient and responsive
> producers
Daniel Indiviglio: Increased antitrust enforcement is good for competition (and competition is good for capitalism), so what's The Wall Street Journal's problem with it? [View news story]
No one likes too much government interference, but the reality is that sometimes someone needs to step in and make sure the kids play nicely.
Why mortgage mods aren't working. [View news story]
For you vindictive sorts, don't worry, the borrowers will pay the price: their credit will be wrecked, their house will be gone, and worse yet, they'll have to talk to bankers and lawyers -- ick.
But what we should focus on is speeding up the foreclosure process, and helping people move out of homes they can't afford and into homes (rental homes or apartments) that they can afford.
That process will happen one way or another -- better to accept it and do it quickly and orderly, as opposed to a long, slow, painful process.
Banks Not Letting Owners of Foreclosed Homes Walk Away [View article]
Borrowers already have established mechanisms for being...unwise...in their borrowing: They lose the house, the wreck their credit, etc. Even today, in the midst of the fipocalypse, this seems fair.
The banks also have established mechanisms for their unwise lending: they have to take the house back and deal with it.
Now the banks are crying "Not it!" on their end of the deal, and /again/ leaving borrowers with the decrepit remains of the housing bubble that the banks created.
I feel the worst for responsible borrowers living next door to the shambles that the banks should have cleaned up. Instead of a few houses, whole neighborhoods are now losing even more value.
Nice job, banksters. Keep up the lousy work...
Joe Nocera on the July 28 Come-to-Geithner meeting for the top 25 mortgage servicers: To understand why modifications are so slow, realize that servicers were built just to collect checks, not to do complex one-on-one fixes - and worse, they actually have little incentive to fix mortgages. [View news story]
> Rather than just modify certain mortgages, why not modify all.
This has been proposed by a handful of rational-thinking pundits, and it's actually not that bad of an idea -- and mathematically it's MUCH less expensive for the taxpayer than bailing out all the leverage products the banks and insurers have screwed around with.
> everyone who has or had a mortgage was the victim
> of a crime.
A bit exaggerated, but not horribly off base. The crime was mostly one of negligence, but at its heart it's scarcely different from any other financial fraud.
Joe Nocera on the July 28 Come-to-Geithner meeting for the top 25 mortgage servicers: To understand why modifications are so slow, realize that servicers were built just to collect checks, not to do complex one-on-one fixes - and worse, they actually have little incentive to fix mortgages. [View news story]
Guess what, someone screwed up. Big. Really big.
So, before too long you can bet there will be some new laws.
But what happens immediately after the screw-up is a kind of nebulous period where we still don't have the laws that we wish we'd had all along, but something must be done to keep things from getting worse.
Before there were anti-trust laws, the government leaned on monopolies.
Before there were malpractice laws, the government leaned on doctors and lawyers.
Now, before there are "don't be a destructive evil bank/broker/rater" laws, the government must lean on banks/brokers/raters to keep things from getting worse.
On Jul 11 01:34 PM Neil459 wrote:
> I am sorry, but it does. Its the one thing that separates us from Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and all the other countries where powerful politician's can just do what they want. In this instance you think it makes sense and it may. However, once crossed the abuses will be far larger than any benefit now.
Joe Nocera on the July 28 Come-to-Geithner meeting for the top 25 mortgage servicers: To understand why modifications are so slow, realize that servicers were built just to collect checks, not to do complex one-on-one fixes - and worse, they actually have little incentive to fix mortgages. [View news story]
Do the math kids, something needs to be done. Most of the defaulters aren't in a position to do anything, so unfortunately it false to the other side of the equation.
Please try to think, at least some of the time. The letter of the law doesn't always actually do anything useful.
When's the recovery? Never. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich predicts not a V, not a U, but an X. The economy can't get back on track because the track we were on for years - flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity - can't be sustained. "The X marks a brand new track - a new economy. What will it look like? Nobody knows." [View news story]
A little behind schedule, banks are apparently ready to begin signing contracts that would allow modification of second mortgages and other home-equity debt. This in the wake of a frustrated Treasury pressing companies to step up modifications. [View news story]
Some of the least productive members of society (brokers, etc) already took their cut, or are still taking it.
The ones who actually make meaningful contributions to society (teachers, police, engineers, etc) are now paying the insanely-leveraged price of the swindling.
On Jul 10 02:11 PM nova wrote:
> There are too many idiot thinking that a government has answers to
> all problems.
>
> Our populous is on drugs being unable to function by itself. Americans
> became too addicted to a government for survival. Unfortunately,
> Americans learned nothing from either Soviet Union or Communist China.
>
>
> Debt modification is nothing else as passing a problem from least
> productive elements of a society to most productive ones. It is like
> poisoning a good well with clear water with toxic water from a bad
> well.
Evan Newmark at Mean Street wonders: How long before we have retail brokers recommending balanced portfolios of subprime CDOs, front-loaded mutual funds, and state IOUs? [View news story]
"And when the investment goes sour, you pay us again to get rid of it, plus you have pay off the insurance policy we took out on it.
Then you keep paying us to keep your state economy from collapsing.
Capiche?"
A little behind schedule, banks are apparently ready to begin signing contracts that would allow modification of second mortgages and other home-equity debt. This in the wake of a frustrated Treasury pressing companies to step up modifications. [View news story]
Doing more of something that doesn't work, still isn't going to work.
Evan Newmark at Mean Street wonders: How long before we have retail brokers recommending balanced portfolios of subprime CDOs, front-loaded mutual funds, and state IOUs? [View news story]
Wall Street is once again telling investors: "OK, here's how it works. You pay us to let you spend your money to buy crappy investments. Got it? Good."
Krugman continues to push for a second Obama stimulus: "What Mr. Obama needs to do is level with the American people. He needs to admit that he may not have done enough on the first try." [View news story]
On Jul 10 01:33 PM Windsun33 wrote:
> Government spending does not create jobs, it only moves them around
> from the private to the public sector.