wall st massacre....

[AGBF]

Date: 9/16/2008 12:11:20 PM
Author: stone_seeker

We need smart kids going into other industries such as law and medicine and manufacturing so we can regain our edge.

We also need them going into teaching and social work and other low-paying jobs that benefit society in less obvious ways.
The ones who enter the professions I mentioned probably won't be doing it for the money, however. I love it when I meet a really smart young teacher whose grammar is good and who is passionate about literature. I know that he is not teaching because he couldnt find a higher paying job!

Deborah

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/18/2008 4:01:57 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 9/16/2008 12:11:20 PM
Author: stone_seeker

We need smart kids going into other industries such as law and medicine and manufacturing so we can regain our edge.

We also need them going into teaching and social work and other low-paying jobs that benefit society in less obvious ways.
The ones who enter the professions I mentioned probably won''t be doing it for the money, however. I love it when I meet a really smart young teacher whose grammar is good and who is passionate about literature. I know that he is not teaching because he couldnt find a higher paying job!

Deborah

And that''s how we really regain our edge.

 

[swimmer]

Freakonomics author weighs in on the crisis: link

Kisses to AGBF from a teacher!

 

[ksinger]

Date: 9/18/2008 4:15:20 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/18/2008 4:01:57 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 9/16/2008 12:11:20 PM
Author: stone_seeker

We need smart kids going into other industries such as law and medicine and manufacturing so we can regain our edge.

We also need them going into teaching and social work and other low-paying jobs that benefit society in less obvious ways.
The ones who enter the professions I mentioned probably won''t be doing it for the money, however. I love it when I meet a really smart young teacher whose grammar is good and who is passionate about literature. I know that he is not teaching because he couldnt find a higher paying job!

Deborah

And that''s how we really regain our edge.

We''d have to actually VALUE education first, but as a culture we don''t. Evidenced by the fact that those of us who actually read are a dying breed.

 

[Harriet]

Temporary ban on short selling!

 

[Skippy123]

Global crackdown on short selling Article http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080918/tbs-uk-fsa-7318940.html

 

[Dancing Fire]

what a crazy week on wall st.

 

[Harriet]

Another one coming up.

 

[Skippy123]

Last major investment banks change status http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bank_change

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/22/2008 12:34:59 AM
Author: Skippy123

Last major investment banks change status http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bank_change

You beat me to it, Skippy, but then you''re a financial pro! I am wondering who will regulate "bank holding companies". (I did not read the article you posted; I read about the news elsewhere.) Will they be examined by bank examiners? There are so darned many regulatory agencies for banks...the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, the OCC (Office of the Controller of the Currency), State bank examiners for some banks...and I don''t even know if these would be banks!


Deborah

 

[Beacon]

Hard to keep up with the music since the government is now a 24/7 service corporation. Apparently the change in status is already approved for MS and for GS.

I don''t think this is a new concept. Citigroup is a bank holding company and has been for years. I know the Federal Reserve Board oversees BHCs, and there are probably other regulators.

It is amazing the speed of all the activity. This stuff used to take months and months. It''s unnerving. Lots of decisions quickly made often result in difficulties.

 

[stone_seeker]

The Fed has jurisdiction over BHCs. Just means their leverage and other capital ratios will be regulated by the government. In turn that means lower profit in the future but I guess that''s better than bankruptcy of being forced to sell at depressed share prices.

They can also now accept deposits.

 

[tradergirl]

Hey Harriet (and Diamondfan for that matter)

Here''s your future.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/622acc9e-87f1-11dd-b114-0000779fd18c.html

but it was nice while it lasted no?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/22/2008 3:00:07 AM
Author: Beacon

I don't think this is a new concept. Citigroup is a bank holding company and has been for years. I know the Federal Reserve Board oversees BHCs, and there are probably other regulators.

Thanks, Beacon and stone_seeker, this is not my area of expertise (to put it mildly!). I am trying to learn as I go along.

Will the SEC still be regulating the bank holding companies? I assume that the bank holding companies will continue their

investment activities. I actually knew that Citibank once had an investment bank arm because my husband briefly worked

for it. I do not know into what incarnation Citibank grew ( i.e. Citigroup or Citicorp), however, after that when it became a

bank holding company or if it was a bank holding company when it was still Citibank. I have vague recollections of some

banks having had both commercial and investment bank arms before it became illegal to be both and therefore being

grandfathered in as legal dual armed entities with some supposed partition betwen the two parts. I don't recall

if Citibank was one?



Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/22/2008 8:03:59 AM
Author: tradergirl


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/622acc9e-87f1-11dd-b114-0000779fd18c.html

That's scary reading, tradergirl. As if things weren't bad enough. Everything is really coming unravelled...or so it seems.


Deb

 

[ksinger]

Date: 9/22/2008 8:24:31 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 9/22/2008 8:03:59 AM
Author: tradergirl


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/622acc9e-87f1-11dd-b114-0000779fd18c.html

That''s scary reading, tradergirl. As if things weren''t bad enough. Everything is really coming unravelled...or so it seems.


Deb

Pshaw. Mere child''s play in the scary department. Did you read the link I put in the thread on 500B?

Try this one on for size.... Hyperinflation (Weimar Republic anyone? Hubby has an actual 5 million mark note from that time....)

For the record, this guy is a self-described conservative Republican, with a Libertarian bent. (Just in case anyone is inclined to dismiss my link simply because I linked it. So, there''s no axe to grind here....)

 

[stone_seeker]

The SEC will always have authority over the securities of the banks as public entities. But the big change comes in the form over the Fed''s regulation of these holding companies. In addition, the FDIC will also have authority. Doing this makes raising capital easier and allows them to buy a bank with an FDIC insured deposit base which these companies may be eager to do to improve their balance sheets.

Citibank acquired the securities firm Smith Barney and Travelers Insurance years ago. Since the original Citibank held customer deposits I assume it was already governed by the BHC act but I would need to check the record.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/22/2008 8:33:20 AM
Author: stone_seeker

Citibank acquired the securities firm Smith Barney and Travelers Insurance years ago. Since the original Citibank held customer deposits I assume it was already governed by the BHC act but I would need to check the record.

Actually, stone-seeker, we are old. My husband was with Ctibank. I believe that once Travelers and Citibank merged that it became Citigroup. My husband may have still been there (I do not recall), but from my time perspective Travelers came in very late in the game. My husband's idol used to be Walter Wriston and he watched the new golden boy, John Reed, ascend within the ranks. Then there was a struggle for power among three men who were co-chairmen. This is all ancient history .


Deb

 

[Beacon]

Date: 9/22/2008 8:03:59 AM
Author: tradergirl
Hey Harriet (and Diamondfan for that matter)

Here''s your future.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/622acc9e-87f1-11dd-b114-0000779fd18c.html

but it was nice while it lasted no?

Reading this article, the implication is that this is everyone''s future. I do not see how this applies only to Harriet or DF.

Roubini is a scare monger and I have read other articles from him that are positively ridiculous. In this article he does make some good points. The large hedge funds, employing vast leverage and often highly illiquid derivitive positions are an accident waiting to happen. It''s already happened, for example ten years ago with Long Term Capital Management. I recall it vividly. Everyone thought the financial system would collapse. It was a very real concern. Imagine multiple LTCMs happening simultaneously. Bad, and yes, possible.

In any event, hedge funds are imploding right now. It is not a future problem. Either you have this market right or you are in trouble. If you use big leverage and you are wrong, you are already dead. This was the red flag waving out of Bear Sterns that signaled it''s demise.

We''ll all stay tuned.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 9/22/2008 8:03:59 AM
Author: tradergirl
Hey Harriet (and Diamondfan for that matter)

Here''s your future.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/622acc9e-87f1-11dd-b114-0000779fd18c.html

but it was nice while it lasted no?

I have already read today''s FT, but thank you for the link. For clarification, my husband''s fund does not belong to the class described. Please remember that I myself am highly qualified and can hold my own.

 

[Krissie]

Date: 9/22/2008 7:58:45 AM
Author: stone_seeker
The Fed has jurisdiction over BHCs. Just means their leverage and other capital ratios will be regulated by the government. In turn that means lower profit in the future but I guess that''s better than bankruptcy of being forced to sell at depressed share prices.

They can also now accept deposits.

Their ability to invest in non-banks will be limited (they can''t be deemed to "control" non-banks), although I assume that the merchant banking regs will apply to them (assuming they''re financial holding companies in addition to being bank holding companies, which I assume they are) which gives them more flexibility. Otherwise investment in hedge funds etc. would be limited to 5% of voting securities of any particular class, per the BHC Act.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/22/2008 11:36:01 AM
Author: Harriet

I have already read today''s FT, but thank you for the link. For clarification, my husband''s fund does not belong to the class described. Please remember that I myself am highly qualified and can hold my own.

I have never been quite clear on what a hedge fund is, dear Harriet, but I am terribly glad that your husband''s fund will not be affected! And as for you, you are the most competent woman I know! I adore you!


Your friend,
Deb

 

[Krissie]

Where there''s a will, there''s a way. I was reading over the weekend that managers are now shorting indices, then buying up their non-targeted securities so that they''re still shorting their target.

 

[Harriet]

Darling Deb,
Thank you for your confidence in me. We have to meet. Our hubbies, if they come along, can talk shop. We can just yammer away.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 9/22/2008 11:36:01 AM
Author: Harriet

Date: 9/22/2008 8:03:59 AM
Author: tradergirl
Hey Harriet (and Diamondfan for that matter)

Here's your future.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/622acc9e-87f1-11dd-b114-0000779fd18c.html

but it was nice while it lasted no?

I have already read today's FT, but thank you for the link. For clarification, my husband's fund does not belong to the class described. Please remember that I myself am highly qualified and can hold my own.

FYI, I made the switch from tax to bankruptcy law months ago. Pretty prescient, don't you think?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/22/2008 11:48:47 AM
Author: Harriet


Thank you for your confidence in me. We have to meet. Our hubbies, if they come along, can talk shop. We can just yammer away.

Well, of course I have confidence in you! I''m not stupid! I just have some kind of learning block when it comes to finance! When I read Liar''s Poker years ago I actually understood the difference between stocks and bonds for for a while. (My husband kept trying to explain about subordinated and unsubordinated debt, which didn''t work.) Unfortunately, I''d probably have to read the book at least once a year in order to keep it straight.

I know stock means equity which means owning part of something, but I ''ll be darned if I can understand a bond. This was very embarrassing when my husband was a bond analyst for Standard & Poor''s. I had to fudge my way through many a business function .

At any rate, my point was that when we get together and yammer, just don''t talk to me about bonds or hedge funds, OK? I am really not up to that .


Hugs,
Deb

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/22/2008 11:56:25 AM
Author: Harriet

FYI, I made the switch from tax to bankruptcy law months ago. Pretty prescient, don''t you think?

Hey! I told you I''m not stupid! I know a smart woman when I meet one!


Deb

 

[Harriet]

Date: 9/22/2008 12:00:52 PM
Author: AGBF

Well, of course I have confidence in you! I''m not stupid! I just have some kind of learning block when it comes to finance! When I read Liar''s Poker years ago I actually understood the difference between stocks and bonds for for a while. (My husband kept trying to explain about subordinated and unsubordinated debt, which didn''t work.) Unfortunately, I''d probably have to read the book at least once a year in order to keep it straight.

I know stock means equity which means owning part of something, but I ''ll be darned if I can understand a bond. This was very embarrassing when my husband was a bond analyst for Standard & Poor''s. I had to fudge my way through many a business function .

At any rate, my point was that when we get together and yammer, just don''t talk to me about bonds or hedge funds, OK? I am really not up to that .


Hugs,
Deb

Of course you''re not daft! I''ll

anyone who even hints at that.

Ok. I''ll explain taxation of bonds to you!

 

[swimmer]

Well done Harriet, way to stay classy.

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 9/22/2008 11:28:56 AM
Author: Beacon

Date: 9/22/2008 8:03:59 AM
Author: tradergirl
Hey Harriet (and Diamondfan for that matter)

Here''s your future.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/622acc9e-87f1-11dd-b114-0000779fd18c.html

but it was nice while it lasted no?

Reading this article, the implication is that this is everyone''s future. I do not see how this applies only to Harriet or DF.

Roubini is a scare monger and I have read other articles from him that are positively ridiculous. In this article he does make some good points. The large hedge funds, employing vast leverage and often highly illiquid derivitive positions are an accident waiting to happen. It''s already happened, for example ten years ago with Long Term Capital Management. I recall it vividly. Everyone thought the financial system would collapse. It was a very real concern. Imagine multiple LTCMs happening simultaneously. Bad, and yes, possible.

In any event, hedge funds are imploding right now. It is not a future problem. Either you have this market right or you are in trouble. If you use big leverage and you are wrong, you are already dead. This was the red flag waving out of Bear Sterns that signaled it''s demise.

We''ll all stay tuned.

I''m not hearing such bleak news from people in the City here. Yes, times are tough but it won''t go that bad.