The ongoing financial turmoil and financial discussion thread

[Glenflame]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ Really interesting, but no one really knows for sure. These "shapes" in the market are not uncommon. (i.e. where the market comes up for a bit, re-tests and goes through the previous low). It could be as a result of the poor reception of his stimulus plan, or could be the market ebbing and flowing.

Wall Street is kidnapping the stock markets to express their unhappieness/dispointment towards Obama as he blames Wall Street all the time and stimulus plans have nothing much to do with their interest.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Interesting 'opinion' from the WSJ.


Emphasis added.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html

Like I said, big time failure by someone who trumped 'hope' as a campaign slogan for 2 years. According to the polls, the number of people who strongly disagree with him are rising, and his approval rating is starting to dip.

Might mean nothing, might mean something.

Doesn't mean Obama is fixing anything.

That WSJ article is just one opinion.

They have no more answers than you or I on how to fix the financial system. Sure, letting it burn to the ground is probably the most efficient approach but the fallout effects are so dire that no politician, not Obama not even frickin an undead Lincoln, would go anywhere near.

The U.S. is married to this system and needs to save it despite itself. Blaming that Obama is just plain assinine.

With respect to his budget, he's using the crisis to put through long-held democratic policies. That's what politicians do. Never waste a good crisis. The Bush administration did the same thing after 9/11. From my vantage, that new spending is necessary and has been put off far too long.

All in all that's a poor article from WSJ.

[Azure]

The new spending is necessary?

A trillion dollar deficit that will only increase year after year is, necessary?

Are you kidding me?

Obama is using fear and intimidation, as well as his heralded status as a President nobody is going to question seriously for a long time to get his ridiculous projects passed.

The fact that so many people are willing to look the other way in the name of 'fixing the economy' is pathetic.

Exactly WHEN is the economy going to start repairing itself? Before or after Obama spends so much money that 3 generations from now, the American people are STILL going to be paying for all the debt he racked up?

Face it, the stimulant bill has done 'nothing.' Which isn't a surprise, considering what kind of idiocy was going on in the Whitehouse, Congress and throughout the country in regards to what they tacked onto it.

Even Bush was mellow compared to Obama's first 50 days.....spending wise.

[Traditional_Ale]

^ Do you smell what "Ba-rack" is cookin'?

[macker]

Originally Posted by Glenflame

Wall Street is kidnapping the stock markets to express their unhappieness/dispointment towards Obama as he blames Wall Street all the time and stimulus plans have nothing much to do with their interest.

__________________________________________________ ______________
Why not work til you make $249,999 and then take the rest of the year off under his new tax scheme

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

That WSJ article is just one opinion.

They have no more answers than you or I on how to fix the financial system. Sure, letting it burn to the ground is probably the most efficient approach but the fallout effects are so dire that no politician, not Obama not even frickin an undead Lincoln, would go anywhere near.

Please explain where WSJ article suggests that letting the financial system burn to the ground is a good idea. It actually suggests that hopelesly dead institutions such as AIG should not be rescued with $70 billion extracted from taxpayers. That's a black hole sucking scarce resources out of the economy, without a business plan in sight. Bailing AIG out is actually burning down healthy sectors of the economy.

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

The U.S. is married to this system and needs to save it despite itself. Blaming that Obama is just plain assinine.

Again, WSJ is not blaming Obama for causing the crisis, it is blaming Obama and his policies for slowing down the recovery. And that's exactly what he's doing.

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

All in all that's a poor article from WSJ.

Actually it's one of the better articles on this topic written so far. Warm and fuzzy anti-capitalist talks during the campaign are one thing, real effects of such anti-capitalist policies are a whole different animal. The whole left-wing spectrum in America is about to get a lesson on this very issue.

[Nancy]

Maybe this Obama bashing stuff deserves its own thread.

US unemployment rises to 8.2% today, worst since '83. I figure it will hit at least 10% before the end of the recession.

[HotHotHeat]

It's not a recession, it's an economic downturn.

Anyways, I'd expect this article is a sample of something that happens all the time in the banking world...Few billion goes missing, meh...

Merrill Lynch may have lost hundreds of millions of dollars on currency trading and credit derivatives last year, the New York Times reported earlier today. The losses did not “spill into plain view” until after Bank of America investors had approved the $33 billion takeover in December and Merrill Lynch disbursed $3.6 billion in bonuses to bankers, the newspaper said. Bank of America later sought additional government funding.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...fzQ&refer=home


American bankers have become the slimiest grouping of businessmen on the face of this planet. Swiss bankers look like angels next to them now. I'd trust my money more with the Russian Mafia.

[macker]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

It's not a recession, it's an economic downturn.

Anyways, I'd expect this article is a sample of something that happens all the time in the banking world...Few billion goes missing, meh...

Merrill Lynch may have lost hundreds of millions of dollars on currency trading and credit derivatives last year, the New York Times reported earlier today. The losses did not “spill into plain view” until after Bank of America investors had approved the $33 billion takeover in December and Merrill Lynch disbursed $3.6 billion in bonuses to bankers, the newspaper said. Bank of America later sought additional government funding.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...fzQ&refer=home


American bankers have become the slimiest grouping of businessmen on the face of this planet. Swiss bankers look like angels next to them now. I'd trust my money more with the Russian Mafia.

__________________________________________________ _________________

So would this guy : http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...BJkqAD96N3GCG0

[macker]

Originally Posted by fotze

If I have some stock through a merril lynch account, can I lose the stock if they were to go belly up? Not merrill lynch stock, another company of course. I assume I actually own the stock and its not some dummy stock that brokerages use garbage that wouldn;t surprise me.

FDIC or CDIC wouldn't cover you in this case

[MJK]

Back on the topic. Am I the only one who is actively buying stocks right now? Looking for solid companies who's stocks have dropped a ton and picking them up?

Who has been actively trading during this time?

[macker]

Originally Posted by fotze

But if I own stock in Microsoft through a brokerage like ML and the brokerage goes belly up, do I still own the microsoft stock or does the brokerage take me down with them?

Ok, I see what you are saying....
Yes you would still own the shares and you would get them back after bankruptcy proceedings. You wouldn't be able to trade the stock during this time and the brokerage would also have to give you back any cash you may have in your account. FDIC or CDIC would protect you up to the stated limits.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by MJK

Back on the topic. Am I the only one who is actively buying stocks right now? Looking for solid companies who's stocks have dropped a ton and picking them up?

Who has been actively trading during this time?

I know for sure there is money to be made out there, but I'm terrified to try and make it. There are a lot of companies that we deal with that are undervalued, but with the uncertainties in the markets they could go tits up for no apparent reason.

[smith12]

Originally Posted by MJK

Back on the topic. Am I the only one who is actively buying stocks right now? Looking for solid companies who's stocks have dropped a ton and picking them up?

Who has been actively trading during this time?

I sold my condo for 2 reasons.
1. I didn't want to have that massive debt load with all the uncertainty out there.

2. I think, like you, that this might be a once in a life time opportunity to make a ton of money off stocks. So I took most of the money from the sale of my condo and put it into stocks. So far, 2 of the companies I've invested in were bought out.

When/if the economy recovers I am thinking I'll be paying cash for my next home.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by MJK

Back on the topic. Am I the only one who is actively buying stocks right now? Looking for solid companies who's stocks have dropped a ton and picking them up?

Who has been actively trading during this time?

If you don't need this money for a few years it's not a bad strategy assuming the markets recover. To get back to the highs of a few years ago that could take years. Don't forget that Japan was in a similar situation back in the 1980's and didn't get any gains for 10 plus years. This could be a similar scenario.

Buy pieces over time doing dollar cost averaging and don't expect any profits in short term. It'll be tough to time a bottom so dollar cost averaging is your best bet. Also, tough to determine solid companies when typical recession proof companies are also in the gutter and large caps are now mid caps etc.

[Azure]

Oh here we go.

WASHINGTON -- Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd is moving to allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to temporarily borrow as much as $500 billion from the Treasury Department.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123630125365247061.html

[Azure]

And another interesting 'opinion' from the WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html

Bloomberg also has this on their site, with a story to follow later.

‘Obama Bear Market’ Punishes Investors as Dow Slumps (Update2)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aGJ_.gr_awkY

[Azure]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...w8nJwD96P7RC80

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama offered his domestic-policy proposals as a "break from a troubled past." But the economic outlook now is more troubled than it was even in January, despite Obama's bold rhetoric and commitment of more trillions of dollars.

.....

Many health care stocks are down because of fears of new government restrictions and mandates as part a health care overhaul. Private student loan providers were pounded because of the increased government lending role proposed by Obama. Industries that use oil and other carbon-based fuels are being shunned, apparently in part because of Obama's proposal for fees on greenhouse-gas polluters.

.....

Obama may have contributed to the national anxiety by first warning of "catastrophe" if his stimulus plan was not passed and in setting high expectations for Geithner. Instead, Geithner's public performance has been halting and he's been challenged by lawmakers of both parties.
Republicans and even some top Democrats, including Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, have questioned the wisdom of Obama's proposal to limit tax deductions for higher-income people on mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
Charities have strongly protested, saying times already are tough enough for them. The administration suggests it might back off that one.


Even White House claims that its policies will "create" or "save" 3.5 million jobs have been questioned by Democratic supporters.
"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Montana Democrat Max Baucus, told Geithner last week.


....


Many deficit hawks also worry that the trillions of federal dollars being doled out by the administration, Congress and the Federal Reserve could sow the seeds of inflation down the road, whether the measures succeed in taming the recession or not. The money includes Obama's $3.6 trillion budget and the $837 billion stimulus package he signed last month.
Polls show that Obama's personal approval ratings, generally holding in the high 60s, remain greater than support for his specific policies.
"He still has a fair amount of political capital, so the public is willing to cut him some slack and go along with him for a while," said pollster Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "But the public will have to get some sense that the kinds of things he's proposing are going to work, or are showing some signs that they are working."

Looks like the media is finally picking up on the screwups the Obama administration has been making in regards to the economy.

[HOZ]

4 pages of wonderful news about Geithner.

Sydney Morning Herald

"A fantastic choice," said a Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi analyst, Chris Rupkey, as the Dow rose by nearly 6 per cent. Even one of Obama's political rivals, the hard-bitten Republican senator Richard Shelby, agreed Geithner was "up to the challenge".
If anyone in the US media had thought to ask a former Australian prime minister for his assessment, they would have heard a different view. And they would not have been so surprised at Geithner's performance since.
*******
In other words, Geithner fundamentally misdiagnosed the problem. And his misdiagnosis led to a dreadfully wrong prescription.
******
Worse, Keating argued, Geithner's misjudgment had done terminal damage to the credibility of the IMF, with seismic geoeconomic consequences: "The IMF is the gun that can't shoot straight. They've been making a mess of things for the last 20-odd years, and the greatest mess they made was in east Asia in 1997-98, so much so that no east Asian state will put its head in the IMF noose."


Obama's and his Admin.'s choices and deeds of late have been horrendous.

[HOZ]

Maybe I should put this in the FFFFfffffffffffffffkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!! thread.


Barak: I am too tired and overwhelmed.



And this gem from the Wall Street Journal

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.