Strategies & Market Trends | The Residential Real Estate Post-Crash Index-MODERATED


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: The Reaper who wrote (66668)5/14/2012 12:55:42 PM
From: TH2 Recommendations   of 90824
 
TR,

Great, so be it. It changes nothing.

And, the Facebook IPO marks a natural point for a top. It's all too perfect perhaps.

GT
TH

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: TH who wrote (66670)5/14/2012 12:58:34 PM
From: The Reaper9 Recommendations   of 90824
 
I've had the impression that they're all rushing around to get this IPO out PDQ before it all implodes. There's an awful lot of stories out about FB being oversubscribed when it appears that anybody with an online trading account can get some. This deal smells bad, bad, bad.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (5)

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (59928)5/14/2012 12:59:53 PM
From: NOW   of 90824
 
KGC hit the sweet spot
scharts.co 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: bentway5/14/2012 1:01:58 PM
1 Recommendation   of 90824
 
JPMorgan debacle - it may be worse than Dimon says, but JPM makes SO much money, they're unlikely to stop doing it, unless forced to.
------------------------------------
Monday, May 14, 2012
Ezra Klein's Wonkbook

On Saturday, at 9:17am, Henry Blodget, the editor of Business Insider, asked the question that was on everyone's mind: "So, when Is JP Morgan going to fire the incompetent fools who just lost $2 billion and trashed the firm's reputation?"

The answer, according to the Wall Street Journal, is...soon. The paper reports that the botched trade is "likely to result this week in the departure of three of the highest ranking executives with direct ties to the investments."

Over at Seeking Alpha, Gene Kirsch tried to put Hedgegate into a broader context. "JPMorgan losses are reported to be actually $800 million in Q2 with the potential for legal and other losses up to $4.2 billion over a longer period of time, possibly exceeding one year," he wrote. "The banking unit of JPMorgan Chase alone made $12.4 billion last year. The holding company has over $2.26 trillion in assets and is the largest U.S. bank and 8th largest in the world. The holding company made $29.9 billion in operating income and just over $20 billion in net income for 2011. So, this initial loss of $800M represents approximately 4% of its total net profit for all of 2011, less than 2.7% of its operating income."

The firm, in other words, can manage it. Though as Brad DeLong was quick to point out, tallying the direct losses misses the episode's larger impact on the firm's value. "The revelation that JPMC did not have control over its derivatives book--even though accompanied by promises of multiple firings and deep reforms--destroyed 1/7 of JPMCs franchise value." Turns out the market doesn't much like it when what's reputed to be the safest bank on Wall Street turns out to be incompetent.

Jared Bernstein draws out the larger lesson nicely, and so I'll quote him at some length. "The fundamental truth here is the one known since Adam (Smith, that is) and amplified by the great financial economist Hy Minsky: humans underprice risk. Their proclivity to do so increases as the business cycle progresses and confidence takes over (remember, JP’s bet was unwound by the fact that the economy wasn’t as strong as they thought). The advent of a global derivatives market with notional trades in the trillions greatly amplifies the risks."

"The fact that humans like Jamie Dimon—he who presided over JP’s self-proclaimed 'fortress balance sheet'—he who inveighed against financial reform as imposing unnecessary oversight on such skilled risk managers as he and his staff—fall prey to this fundamental truth only underscores the lesson of this episode in financial hubris."

"And that is this: financial markets are inherently unstable. They will neither self-correct nor self-regulate. Their instability poses a threat to markets and economies and people across the globe. Therefore, they need to be regulated. That’s not to say that anyone knows the best way to do this yet in order to balance the necessity of oversight with the dynamics of the markets. We don’t know where to set the speed limits. It must be an iterative process. But we do know they need to be set, and JP’s loss should be taken as a warning that our tendency is to set them too low."

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: The Reaper who wrote (66671)5/14/2012 1:10:01 PM
From: TH1 Recommendation   of 90824
 
TR,

Could not have said it better.

I believe that is exactly what is happening.

GT
TH

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: The Reaper who wrote (66671)5/14/2012 1:16:39 PM
From: Smiling Bob3 Recommendations   of 90824
 
You can pick up some FB shares at Best Buy, but you'll have to get in the back of the line.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: bentway5/14/2012 1:17:01 PM
1 Recommendation   of 90824
 
RNC Chief: Leave Wall Street alone

By Steve Benen
-
Mon May 14, 2012 8:00 AM EDT

JPMorgan's reckless, $2 billion fiasco appears to have a silver lining of sorts: the bank's bad bets help demonstrate the need for safeguards in the system. In his new column, Paul Krugman thanks JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon for offering "an object demonstration of why Wall Street does, in fact, need to be regulated."

And yet, somehow, some still don't see it that way. On NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus, common sense be damned, argued that the JPMorgan mess changes nothing.

Host David Gregory asked a straightforward question: "In light of the losses on Wall Street this week, you think we need less financial regulation rather than more?" In Preibus' mind, it's not even a close call: "I think we need less." The RNC chief added that Democrats have "made things worse" by approving new safeguards and adding new layers of accountability to the financial system.

It reminded me of an Upton Sinclair line: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

This really isn't that complicated. In 2008, Wall Street, left to its own devises, nearly collapsed the global financial system. Four years later, institutions like JPMorgan are still taking enormous risks in reckless schemes. It's hard to even conceive of a straight-face argument against sensible regulations in light of recent developments, but the chairman of the Republican National Committee was on national television anyway, arguing that policymakers should be doing less.

Mitt Romney, the Republicans' choice for president, believes the same thing, calling for eliminating Wall Street safeguards and replacing them with nothing.

As we discussed on Friday, this seems politically suicidal – who wants to vote for a presidential candidate running on a "leave Wall Street alone" platform? -- but the GOP believes the public hates government regulation, at least as much as voters hate the Wall Street elite, so the party has no qualms about its position, regardless of the JPMorgan fiasco.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: bentway5/14/2012 1:19:19 PM
1 Recommendation   of 90824
 
How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the ruling on Citizens United

newyorker.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Horgad who wrote (66649)5/14/2012 1:21:46 PM
From: John Chen   of 90824
 
" my assbook idea "

By any chance you also CONSIDER :

breastbook

spinebook ( or whatever )

brainbook

in order of lesser significance going down.

Awesome.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: TH5/14/2012 1:24:52 PM
   of 90824
 
Conversation this morning

Very wealthy investor (sold medical practice at 39, kinda hot too <g>): Should I sell all my stocks?
Me: Hard to say really. Do you have any tangible assets?
VWI: Besides stocks? No.
Me: Do you have any hedges?
VWI: No.
Me: Let me get back to you. Telling someone to sell with Bernanke breathing is not a prudent thing to recommend for a non-trader.

I assist four doctors. One is slick as hell (he has more help than me...from a guy worth over 100 million and that guy is really good). One is a degenerate gambler (great guy), that bills such a staggering number each year I can't even comprehend it. And yet he is broke every single year. The other two have no understanding of money or investing (but one is leaning fast)

And I wonder if I want them messing with my plumbing and all that <g>

Tricky market if you are buy and hold. Do you really tell someone to sell their Apple they have held since $260? I'm not sure I can do that. I think it may be bad advice.

GT
TH

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.