Page 118 of 324 FirstFirst ... 104114116117118119120122132 ... LastLast
Results 1,171 to 1,180 of 3231

Thread: Go, Economy!

  1. !
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	bailout.jpg 
Views:	69 
Size:	65.2 KB 
ID:	42768  

  2. That sums up my feelings succinctly.
    Boo, Hiss.

  3. Interesting take

    Quote Originally Posted by Financial Times
    The crisis gives the US new financial power
    By Ricardo Hausmann

    Published: December 15 2008 19:19 | Last updated: December 15 2008 19:19

    The economic crisis in the US signals the end of American global hegemony. Or does it? Pundits from different camps, some with fear and others with glee, contemplate a future where the US will have a much diminished weight in global affairs. But if the US plays its hand well, things will turn out to be just the opposite.

    It is useful to remember that power is a relative, not an absolute concept. True, the US has been hurt by the current turmoil but so have many others. The Dow Jones is down by almost 40 per cent so far this year but this makes it pretty much the best performing stock market in the world.

    More importantly, as far as power is concerned, unfriendly states such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela are suffering from a dual collapse in the price of their oil exports and the value of their sovereign bonds.

    Remember the dangerous scenario this past summer with Russia intervening in Georgia and threatening Europe with the energy card?

    Now, Russian policymakers perform daily prayers just to be able to open the stock market for regular business.

    More broadly, the financial meltdown has translated into a sudden stop in capital flows to emerging and developing countries, which threatens to destabilise their growth, their financial systems and their government accounts.

    Contrary to popular opinion, the current crisis has very little to do with the Armageddon that Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at New York University, predicted over the past few years. In his mind, the widening US current account deficit would eventually top the willingness of the rest of the world to fund it, causing the US dollar to crash while long term interest rates on US Treasury bonds would soar.

    That has little to do with this crisis: the US has become the only remaining super-borrower, able to issue thousands of billions of dollars in debt at record low rates while the dollar strengthens. People are unwilling to lend to almost anybody except for the US Treasury. This has allowed the US to provide – at record low cost – about $5,000bn (£3,325bn, €3,700bn) to bail out its financial system and organise a Keynesian reflation of its economy.

    At the same time, fairly well behaved countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, South Africa and Turkey have essentially lost access to external finance.

    What should the US do with its newfound financial power? While it is tempting to use this power only for domestic policy purposes, it would be a mistake to do so.

    First, the US is already running a large current account deficit, a reflection of the fact that domestic spending is well above output. Using the capacity to borrow just to spend it domestically is going to aggravate this deficit and leave the US with a worsened external balance that will limit growth down the line.

    Second, net public debt is rising sharply just as baby boomers will begin to collect their social security cheques, worsening long-run fiscal solvency.

    Third, many countries across the world are going to suffer the consequences of the lack of access to finance at a time where the decline in their export earnings would have warranted more borrowing to smooth things out. If unchecked, this will cause their economies to shrink and their imports to decline, hurting US exports just when they are most needed. Under these conditions, there is the risk that countries will shut themselves off from the global economy and impose the financial equivalent of the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 . This can lead to an unravelling of the consensus for globalisation that has characterised the post-cold war era.

    Fourth, if the US re-circulates financial resources, by on-lending to well behaved countries that have lost access because of the financial crisis, it would not increase its net debt but instead would make money for the US taxpayer while helping increase demand for US exports.

    Fifth, re-exporting capital to the rest of the world would prevent the inconvenient strengthening of the dollar.

    Finally, exercising this function would give the US enormous soft power in the world. Countries would have to decide whether they want to play ball with market democracy and benefit from access to the financial resources that the US and others can mobilise, or try to form a separate camp with Russia, Iran or Venezuela just as the rug has been pulled from under them.

    Re-circulating the money in the needed scale will require more than business as usual at the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and regional development banks. These institutions have been lending well below $100bn a year but the collapse of financial markets represents some $700bn in lost access.

    Moreover, countries are afraid to ask for assistance for fear of scaring the markets. The US Federal Reserve has already broken new ground by offering $120bn in swap agreements with Brazil, Korea, Mexico and Singapore but this is geographically limited and unilateral. Intervening directly by creating a fund to purchase globally public and private securities, as is being done at home, and the Latin American Financial Regulation Shadow Committee – of which I am a member – has recently recommended, may be a promising way forward.

  4. Essentially taxpayers are paying for the bonus compensation Wall St. received off false profits (not prophets) since the compensation scheme is so fucked there are no clawbacks.

    December 18, 2008
    The Reckoning
    On Wall Street, Bonuses, Not Profits, Were Real
    By LOUISE STORY
    “As a result of the extraordinary growth at Merrill during my tenure as C.E.O., the board saw fit to increase my compensation each year.”

    — E. Stanley O’Neal, the former chief executive of Merrill Lynch, March 2008

    For Dow Kim, 2006 was a very good year. While his salary at Merrill Lynch was $350,000, his total compensation was 100 times that — $35 million.

    The difference between the two amounts was his bonus, a rich reward for the robust earnings made by the traders he oversaw in Merrill’s mortgage business.

    Mr. Kim’s colleagues, not only at his level, but far down the ranks, also pocketed large paychecks. In all, Merrill handed out $5 billion to $6 billion in bonuses that year. A 20-something analyst with a base salary of $130,000 collected a bonus of $250,000. And a 30-something trader with a $180,000 salary got $5 million.

    But Merrill’s record earnings in 2006 — $7.5 billion — turned out to be a mirage. The company has since lost three times that amount, largely because the mortgage investments that supposedly had powered some of those profits plunged in value.

    Unlike the earnings, however, the bonuses have not been reversed.

    As regulators and shareholders sift through the rubble of the financial crisis, questions are being asked about what role lavish bonuses played in the debacle. Scrutiny over pay is intensifying as banks like Merrill prepare to dole out bonuses even after they have had to be propped up with billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. While bonuses are expected to be half of what they were a year ago, some bankers could still collect millions of dollars.

    Critics say bonuses never should have been so big in the first place, because they were based on ephemeral earnings. These people contend that Wall Street’s pay structure, in which bonuses are based on short-term profits, encouraged employees to act like gamblers at a casino — and let them collect their winnings while the roulette wheel was still spinning.

    “Compensation was flawed top to bottom,” said Lucian A. Bebchuk, a professor at Harvard Law School and an expert on compensation. “The whole organization was responding to distorted incentives.”

    Even Wall Streeters concede they were dazzled by the money. To earn bigger bonuses, many traders ignored or played down the risks they took until their bonuses were paid. Their bosses often turned a blind eye because it was in their interest as well.

    “That’s a call that senior management or risk management should question, but of course their pay was tied to it too,” said Brian Lin, a former mortgage trader at Merrill Lynch.

    The highest-ranking executives at four firms have agreed under pressure to go without their bonuses, including John A. Thain, who initially wanted a bonus this year since he joined Merrill Lynch as chief executive after its ill-fated mortgage bets were made. And four former executives at one hard-hit bank, UBS of Switzerland, recently volunteered to return some of the bonuses they were paid before the financial crisis. But few think others on Wall Street will follow that lead.

    For now, most banks are looking forward rather than backward. Morgan Stanley and UBS are attaching new strings to bonuses, allowing them to pull back part of workers’ payouts if they turn out to have been based on illusory profits. Those policies, had they been in place in recent years, might have clawed back hundreds of millions of dollars of compensation paid out in 2006 to employees at all levels, including senior executives who are still at those banks.

    A Bonus Bonanza

    For Wall Street, much of this decade represented a new Gilded Age. Salaries were merely play money — a pittance compared to bonuses. Bonus season became an annual celebration of the riches to be had in the markets. That was especially so in the New York area, where nearly $1 out of every $4 that companies paid employees last year went to someone in the financial industry. Bankers celebrated with five-figure dinners, vied to outspend each other at charity auctions and spent their newfound fortunes on new homes, cars and art.

    The bonanza redefined success for an entire generation. Graduates of top universities sought their fortunes in banking, rather than in careers like medicine, engineering or teaching. Wall Street worked its rookies hard, but it held out the promise of rich rewards. In college dorms, tales of 30-year-olds pulling down $5 million a year were legion.

    While top executives received the biggest bonuses, what is striking is how many employees throughout the ranks took home large paychecks. On Wall Street, the first goal was to make “a buck” — a million dollars. More than 100 people in Merrill’s bond unit alone broke the million-dollar mark in 2006. Goldman Sachs paid more than $20 million apiece to more than 50 people that year, according to a person familiar with the matter. Goldman declined to comment.

    Pay was tied to profit, and profit to the easy, borrowed money that could be invested in markets like mortgage securities. As the financial industry’s role in the economy grew, workers’ pay ballooned, leaping sixfold since 1975, nearly twice as much as the increase in pay for the average American worker.

    “The financial services industry was in a bubble," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “The industry got a bigger share of the economic pie.”

    A Money Machine

    Dow Kim stepped into this milieu in the mid-1980s, fresh from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Born in Seoul and raised there and in Singapore, Mr. Kim moved to the United States at 16 to attend Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass. A quiet workaholic in an industry of workaholics, he seemed to rise through the ranks by sheer will. After a stint trading bonds in Tokyo, he moved to New York to oversee Merrill’s fixed-income business in 2001. Two years later, he became co-president.

    Even as tremors began to reverberate through the housing market and his own company, Mr. Kim exuded optimism.

    After several of his key deputies left the firm in the summer of 2006, he appointed a former colleague from Asia, Osman Semerci, as his deputy, and beneath Mr. Semerci he installed Dale M. Lattanzio and Douglas J. Mallach. Mr. Lattanzio promptly purchased a $5 million home, as well as oceanfront property in Mantoloking, a wealthy enclave in New Jersey, according to county records.

    Merrill and the executives in this article declined to comment or say whether they would return past bonuses. Mr. Mallach did not return telephone calls.

    Mr. Semerci, Mr. Lattanzio and Mr. Mallach joined Mr. Kim as Merrill entered a new phase in its mortgage buildup. That September, the bank spent $1.3 billion to buy the First Franklin Financial Corporation, a mortgage lender in California, in part so it could bundle its mortgages into lucrative bonds.

    Yet Mr. Kim was growing restless. That same month, he told E. Stanley O’Neal, Merrill’s chief executive, that he was considering starting his own hedge fund. His traders were stunned. But Mr. O’Neal persuaded Mr. Kim to stay, assuring him that the future was bright for Merrill’s mortgage business, and, by extension, for Mr. Kim.

    Mr. Kim stepped to the lectern on the bond trading floor and told his anxious traders that he was not going anywhere, and that business was looking up, according to four former employees who were there. The traders erupted in applause.

    “No one wanted to stop this thing,” said former mortgage analyst at Merrill. “It was a machine, and we all knew it was going to be a very, very good year.”

    Merrill Lynch celebrated its success even before the year was over. In November, the company hosted a three-day golf tournament at Pebble Beach, Calif.

    Mr. Kim, an avid golfer, played alongside William H. Gross, a founder of Pimco, the big bond house; and Ralph R. Cioffi, who oversaw two Bear Stearns hedge funds whose subsequent collapse in 2007 would send shock waves through the financial world.

    “There didn’t seem to be an end in sight,” said a person who attended the tournament.

    Back in New York, Mr. Kim’s team was eagerly bundling risky home mortgages into bonds. One of the last deals they put together that year was called “Costa Bella,” or beautiful coast — a name that recalls Pebble Beach. The $500 million bundle of loans, a type of investment known as a collateralized debt obligation, was managed by Mr. Gross’s Pimco.

    Merrill Lynch collected about $5 million in fees for concocting Costa Bella, which included mortgages originated by First Franklin.

    But Costa Bella, like so many other C.D.O.’s, was filled with loans that borrowers could not repay. Initially part of it was rated AAA, but Costa Bella is now deeply troubled. The losses on the investment far exceed the money Merrill collected for putting the deal together.

    So Much for So Few

    By the time Costa Bella ran into trouble, the Merrill bankers who had devised it had collected their bonuses for 2006. Mr. Kim’s fixed-income unit generated more than half of Merrill’s revenue that year, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter. As a reward, Mr. O’Neal and Mr. Kim paid nearly a third of Merrill’s $5 billion to $6 billion bonus pool to the 2,000 professionals in the division.

    Mr. O’Neal himself was paid $46 million, according to Equilar, an executive compensation research firm and data provider in California. Mr. Kim received $35 million. About 57 percent of their pay was in stock, which would lose much of its value over the next two years, but even the cash portions of their bonus were generous: $18.5 million for Mr. O’Neal, and $14.5 million for Mr. Kim, according to Equilar.

    Mr. Kim and his deputies were given wide discretion about how to dole out their pot of money. Mr. Semerci was among the highest earners in 2006, at more than $20 million. Below him, Mr. Mallach and Mr. Lattanzio each earned more than $10 million. They were among just over 100 people who accounted for some $500 million of the pool, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.

    After that blowout, Merrill pushed even deeper into the mortgage business, despite growing signs that the housing bubble was starting to burst. That decision proved disastrous. As the problems in the subprime mortgage market exploded into a full-blown crisis, the value of Merrill’s investments plummeted. The firm has since written down its investments by more than $54 billion, selling some of them for pennies on the dollar.

    Mr. Lin, the former Merrill trader, arrived late to the party. He was one of the last people hired onto Merrill’s mortgage desk, in the summer of 2007. Even then, Merrill guaranteed Mr. Lin a bonus if he joined the firm. Mr. Lin would not disclose his bonus, but such payouts were often in the seven figures.

    Mr. Lin said he quickly noticed that traders across Wall Street were reluctant to admit what now seems so obvious: Their mortgage investments were worth far less than they had thought.


    “It’s always human nature,” said Mr. Lin, who lost his job at Merrill last summer and now works at RRMS Advisors, a consulting firm that advises investors in troubled mortgage investments. “You want to pull for the market to do well because you’re vested.”

    But critics question why Wall Street embraced the risky deals even as the housing and mortgage markets began to weaken.

    “What happened to their investments was of no interest to them, because they would already be paid,” said Paul Hodgson, senior research associate at the Corporate Library, a shareholder activist group. Some Wall Street executives argue that paying a larger portion of bonuses in the form of stock, rather than in cash, might keep employees from making short-sighted decision. But Mr. Hodgson contended that would not go far enough, in part because the cash rewards alone were so high. Mr. Kim, for example, was paid a total of $116.6 million in cash and stock from 2001 to 2007. Of that, $55 million was in cash, according to Equilar.

    Leaving the Scene

    As the damage at Merrill became clear in 2007, Mr. Kim, his deputies and finally Mr. O’Neal left the firm. Mr. Kim opened a hedge fund, but it quickly closed. Mr. Semerci and Mr. Lattanzio landed at a hedge fund in London.

    All three departed without collecting bonuses in 2007. Mr. O’Neal, however, got even richer by leaving Merrill Lynch. He was awarded an exit package worth $161 million.

    Clawing back the 2006 bonuses at Merrill would not come close to making up for the company’s losses, which exceed all the profits that the firm earned over the previous 20 years. This fall, the once-proud firm was sold to Bank of America, ending its 94-year history as an independent firm.

    Mr. Bebchuk of Harvard Law School said investment banks like Merrill were brought to their knees because their employees chased after the rich rewards that executives promised them.

    “They were trying to get as much of this or that paper, they were doing it with excitement and vigor, and that was because they knew they would be making huge amounts of money by the end of the year,” he said.

    Ben White contributed reporting.

  5. That's despicable.... to quote Josh, "Fuck the rich".

    And Gooch, you're too nice. I'd like to knock these motherfuckers out.
    Last edited by Type Ryan; 19 Dec 2008 at 12:23 PM.
    "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often." -- Winston Churchill

  6. I have no problem with the rich. I have a problem with silver spoon fed thieves, spoiled brats with a sense of entitlement. This aristocratic class that has stolen their wealth. They get off free, I'd like to give them a ball bat beating myself.

  7. We've had a nice little rally and though many will criticize it for its low volume nature, the most important thing is the price action itself. We're starting to see a series of higher highs and higher lows which is the nature of an uptrend. I would be very reluctant to short this market, even with financials still lagging, but I do think a few more shoes will drop and consequently would set tight stops.

    I read this posting today and I agree with it regarding 401k management:

    I wanted to call attention to a study by Rob Hanna of Quantifiable Edges regarding using a simple timing mechanism to try to achieve better returns over an 11 year period in a hypothetical 401k.

    Rob’s post “Should You Time Your Entries into Your 401k?” addresses this question and tests the difference between equal contributions on the 15th and 30th of each month vs entering when a 2-period RSI registers below 20 (which would indicate an oversold market with the expectation being a rally was due).

    Read Rob’s post for the full details, but Rob found no significant difference between the two strategies - using the RSI timing strategy produced an additional profit of $30 over an 11 year period vs fixed contributions (assuming $100 per contribution).

    It wasn’t really that finding that got me thinking. It was this sentence which Rob casually glanced over:

    “If their returns matched the S&P 500 that $26,400 would now be worth $19,748.34.”

    He states that, “If someone placed $100 into their 401k twice a month for the last 11 years the total invested would be $26,400.”

    Hanna starts the hypothetical investment 11 years ago on 1/1/1998 and notes that the combined $26,400 would have lost over $6,600, or 25%! That’s what caught my attention. Holding an investment 11 years put you down 25%. I had to see that on a chart:

    [CHART NOT PASTED]

    Keep in mind, the investor was contributing $200 per month throughout the entire up, down, up, down cycle from 1998, but even without that, had an investor purchased in 1998, he or she would be roughly flat or down (not including dividends) to this day. That’s quite a difficult pill to swallow and is a reason many people are becoming frustrated with their investments.

    Even famed Legg Mason investor/money manager Bill Miller’s Value Trust Fund (LMVTX) is below the price levels it listed in 1998 (it began 1998 at roughly $30 per share and began 2009 near $25 per share). Keep in mind Mr. Miller has outperformed the S&P 500 for 15 consecutive years… until 2007 and 2008.

    It goes to show how much shareholder and investor equity has been wiped out in the 2007 to present Bear Market.

    Nevertheless, Hanna concludes his informative post with a statement that perhaps other investors should echo:

    The lesson here is that trying to time the entry of your money into your 401k is a waste of time. If you are going to boost your returns you need to focus on trading the account.
    Last edited by Gooch; 05 Jan 2009 at 08:09 AM.

  8. http://online.wsj.com/video-center/t...ll-street.html

    Really interesting series of 10 minute videos about what happened.

  9. How the hell is the liability of short term profit seeking behavior news to anyone? I blame the stockholders for being idiots, partially.
    Check out Mr. Businessman
    He bought some wild, wild life
    On the way to the stock exchange
    He got some wild, wild life

  10. I am nearly convinced that the next shoe to drop will be the collapse of Bank of America. But the bottom line is that the market does not care what I think, so I am gradually opening short positions in it, scaling in, but just as a note I'm not a buy and hold guy. I don't marry my investments. I will be in and out of this short position as price action dictates. But if you want to short the basket of financials, the following ETFs may be of interest:

    SKF - short 200% the financials (make sure you are aware of what companies comprise this portfolio)

    FAZ - short 300% the financials (ditto)

    I would otherwise not recommend shorting at this moment unless you are prepared to day trade. The jobs report comes out in 15 minutes and that will give a clearer picture and where we may be heading from here.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Games.com logo