Y! Alert: Полнотекстовые фиды для блогофермеров

Автор: REFLEX-X | 1:55 AM | 0 коммент. »

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from Полнотекстовые фиды для блогофермеров

Ranger must close out title race if they are to be great again Top
Graham Spiers For their own medium-term health and self-esteem, Rangers need to claim the Clydesdale Premier League title this Sunday afternoon at Tannadice. Victory for Celtic, which would subject Rangers to four long years without the ultimate accolade in Scottish football, does not bear thinking about at Ibrox. Rangers hold a two-point lead over their great rivals as the final round of SPL matches looms. There is, though, much more at stake in the next five days for Rangers than just the 2008-09 crown.The gulf between Rangers and Celtic - especially the financial gulf - has grown over these past four years, and a fourth successive title success for Gordon Strachan's team would only reinforce that chasm. With TV money so paltry in Scotland, direct entry to the Champions League is a coveted windfall for both halves of the Old Firm, and in recent years that advantage has gone to Celtic. It has been shocking recently to see in black and white the growing disparity between the two clubs. Celtic currently manage to generate almost - but not quite - twice the amount of business achieved by Rangers. Celtic's turnover this year is expected to hit the £75million-plus bar, whereas Rangers will be lucky if they scrape to even £45m. The likelihood is that the amount of business that Rangers will generate in the present financial year will be less than Celtic posted for their first six months. And while Celtic, buoyed by their recent domestic success, have managed to wipe out almost their entire debt, Rangers' borrowings are still believed to be hovering around £26m and rising. Such dry figures are of little interest to football fans. This coming weekend, however, they are of keen interest to Sir David Murray, the Rangers chairman, and Walter Smith, the club's manager. If Rangers can land their first title in four years it will alleviate the growing financial pressure on the club. If they don't win, Celtic's domestic dominance in Scotland will only look more emphatic. "The fact is that, on the pitch, there is hardly anything separating the two teams," said Smith last week. If you go by recent encounters between the two sides, or glance at the current tightness of the title race, that is certainly the case. Yet Smith knows that the next 12 months are going to be very hard at Ibrox. The Rangers manager has repeatedly stated that players will have to be off-loaded in the summer, and, by implication, that cheaper ones will come in. Rangers, financially, are about to endure another bout of downsizing. Put it this way: hardly any Rangers players in the next two years will earn more than £13,000 a week as the club feels the squeeze. Smith, Ally McCoist, or whoever is to be the Rangers manager over the next few seasons will have their work cut out. It is going to take a bit of managerial genius to make this club great again in the current climate. But winning the title this Sunday will certainly help. *** There has been something quite disgusting about the treatment doled out to Mike McCurry, the Scottish referee who has just been binned by the SFA, two years before he was due to retire. McCurry, an ordained Baptist minister, has gone from being Scotland's leading referee two years ago to a state of oblivion in football. First, he has had to endure ludicrous tabloid headlines about his private life, and also, due to his denominational leanings, been repeatedly abused by a section of Celtic supporters. McCurry has made mistakes on the field but his abrupt removal from the SFA list of officials is deplorable. Source
 
DDo$ Top
главный пират готфрид свартхольм из трекера "pirate bay" призывает передать превед адвокатской канторе, которая недавно обула его на много денег. способ прост, за перевод на счёт адвокатов 1 шведской кроны (вобщемто с любой не крупной суммы) с получателя взывмается комиссия 2 кроны. вот вобщемто и всё. переводить деньги из благодарности, да ещё и канторе "поборовшей главного пирата" - совсем не возбраняется. Pirate Bay founder Gottfrid Svartholm (aka anakata) recieved a bill for the 30 million SEK that he, along with Peter Sunde (aka brokep), Fredrik Neij (aka TiAMO), and Carl Lundstrom, was fined in the verdict of the Pirate Bay trial just over three weeks ago. The bill inspired anakata to devise a plan involving sending money to Danowsky’s law firm, but not to pay the fine of course which they say will never be payed. Anakata’s clever plan is called internet-avgift , internet-fee in English. Anakata encourages all Internet users to pay extremely small sums around 1 SEK (0.13 USD) to Danowsky’s law firm, which represented the music companies at the Pirate Bay trial. The music companies will not benefit from this, instead it will cost them money to handle and process all the money.   The plan can be called a Distributed Denial of Dollars attack (DDo$). The plan is an away-from-keyboard DDoS attack. DDoS attacks involve lots of users overloading the victim with internet traffic damaging their ability to provide services. Money, instead of Internet traffic is used in this case. The victim is Danowsky’s law firm which represented the IFPI at the Pirate Bay trial. A friend of anakata told Blog Pirate that the bank account to which the payments are directed has only 1000 free transfers, after which any transfers have a surcharge of 2 SEK for the account holder. Any internet-fee payments made after the first 1000, which includes the law firm’s ordinary transfers, will instead of giving 1 SEK, cost 1 SEK to the law firm. Since Danowsky & Partners Advokatbyrå is a small firm, all the transactions are handled by hand. Handling all payments will be time consuming, costing the law firm in productivity. Maybe it will even affect their success in other cases. Make direct payments to Danowsky & Partners Advokatbyrå KB. Plusgiro 79 31 21 -5 . Additionally if after paying the internet-fee you determine that your payment was erroneous, Swedish law states that you can request the money back, putting an additional load on Danowsky’s law firm. Since the Pirate Bay crew was provided with such clear, logical, and well explained methods for calculating the damages in the trial, an explanation on how the internet-fee was calculated is provided. Use the formula below, substituting anything anywhere, to check that the internet-fee really is 1 SEK. The name internet-avgift, as well as the layout of the site is based on tv-avgift and they layout of its site. Radiojanst , a state owned company, is responsible for collecting TV license fees in Sweden Source
 
Roc C Et Fredro Starr - Hustle 101 Top
Clip de Roc C Et Fredro Starr - Hustle 101 . Retrouvez les paroles de la chanson dans la suite si elles sont disponibles. Roc C et Fredro Starr - Hustle 101 / NEW Related posts:Jim Jones Et Oshy Starr - Blow The -bank Clip de Jim Jones Et Oshy Starr - Blow...Jay Hustle - [...] Related posts: Jim Jones Et Oshy Starr - Blow The -bank Clip de Jim Jones Et Oshy Starr - Blow... Jay Hustle - I Feel You Clip de Jay Hustle - I Feel You .... The Hustle Boyz - Don’t Bother Me Clip de The Hustle Boyz - Don’t Bother Me... Source
 
Tony Blair is guest of honour for first Gala Dinner of the Israeli-Palestinian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Top
Last night I attended the reception and first gala dinner of the Israeli-Palesinian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Speeches were made by the Vice-Prime Minister, Silvan Shalom, Tony Blair and Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon. The event started and finished with the choir of the Jewish-Arab Centre in Jaffa, who had just performed for the Pope. In 2007 I had taught music to members of the choir at the Church of Scotland School in Jaffa, and it was great meeting up again. The CEO of the IPC was amused to hear from them that they had learned such gems as 'Yellow Submarine' from me, as well as a potted history of Liverpool. Mrs. Blair was photographed with the girls later. The main speeches of the evening started with Mr. Shalom . He spoke about the importance of finding peace with the Palestinians, as well as with the rest of the Arab world. Economics and politics should work hand-in-hand, he stated. Moderate Arabs must be supported. He pledged that the Israeli government would work towards this goal, and asked for Tony Blair's assistance. 'Today' Mr. Shalom said, 'We are making history'. After the hors d'oeuvres of salmon, aioli and roquette, Tony Blair took the stand. He spoke of a three-part project of economics, politics and security working hand-in-hand for bothy Israelis and Palestinians. The economic dimension, he feels, is critically important. The aim is 'transformative change', especially on the West , where growth, jobs and higher living standards would be of enormous benefit. He also advocated a new approach to access and movement for Palestinians, which would especially help business people. He said that it would be good if this approach could be extend to Gaza as well. However, he recognized the security issues which would be involved in such a move. He reiterated that economics and politics depend on each other.  From his vast experience of different religions, cultures and ethnic groups all over the world, he had found that the great desire of all was to be awarded dignity and self-respect and to be dependant on no-one but oneself.  This did not entail only an absence of violence, but also the dignity to shape one's own destiny. Economic growth and enterprise could play their part in the realisation of these aspirations. Business can transcend the divide.  Mr. Blair had observed from the example of the Jewish-Arab Choir, as also at the Tel Aviv Award Ceremony the previous night, the importance of self-interest. One of the other award recipients had said that his prize money would go partially to pay off his mortgage. Self-interest is important. The majority of people would like peace and a better life for themselves and their families. Construction should triumph over destruction.  The final speech was by Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon. He said: 'We shall never agree on narratives of history. We are now building a new narrative of the future - of peace, and the economic track will start without pre-conditions.' He pointed out the presence in the room of the Governor of the of Israel. And the next day, the American tourist using the neighbouring computer told me how lovely Cherie Blair had been to her when they had met in passing in the foyer.     Source
 
Paralysed Top
What to do today?  There are so many little things to be done, I can't make a list even- it's paralysing.  Yes, I know how pathetic that is.    So, what will I do?  I know!  I'll go to the shops.  I *need* translucent vellum.  Really I do.  Plus I need to buy skinny black jeans for Jamie and get some money out of the bank because I'm taking him for a hair cut this afternoon.  I've promised not to cry.   Fun stuff is that 21st Century Breakdown is brilliant and I've been reading some Philip Larkin- his death obsession is reassuring.  I remember some of the poems from school.  Neil made me read Galileo's Daughter and I have to say, I felt most worthy whilst doing so.  Fascinating, but I have trouble retaining names and dates and events so it's all a very nice mish mash in my brain. We went out to Yo Sushi on Saturday at the hell hole (utter madness).  But Neil insisted and it was fun... if expensive.  Here's Neil looking very happy indeed. Source
 
Дизайн карты Visa Electron Росдорбанка - лучший в регионе CEMEA Top
Congratulations! Visa CEMEA Card Design team has some great news for you. Commercial Roads 's card design has been voted the Best CEMEA Card Design in February 2009 by members of Visa CEMEA sales and marketing teams. Your card design was considered unique, fresh and innovative and we would like to publish it in our Card Design Newsletter and VisaOnline pages. Also, we would like to represent the poster size print out of your card design in Visa's London office. Issuer: Commercial Roads , Russian Federation Product Type: Visa Classic, Debit Vendor: TAG SYSTEMS SA, Andorra Additional Information: Drawing by Alan Fearnley Source
 
Citigroup Sued By Oei Hong Leong Top
On Singapore's StraitsTimes: Oei sues Citigroup LOCAL businessman Oei Hong Leong - dubbed the 'man with the Midas touch' - lost a whopping $1 billion on foreign exchange and US Treasury bond transactions last year. While he has fully paid off these losses, he is now suing Citigroup's private bank ing arm in the High Court for negligence and misrepresentation, legal documents seen by The Straits Times reveal. Mr Oei claims that the bank - with which he has a 30-year relationship - repeatedly gave him an inaccurate picture of his trading exposure, causing him to take on more positions than he would have otherwise done so . When he knew the full extent of his exposure, he felt he had no choice but to close his positions - at an extremely volatile time last October - thus suffering massive losses. It is not clear how much of a beating Mr Oei's net worth has taken, but he was ranked Singapore's 29th richest man by Forbes last year with a net worth of only US$210 million (S$308 million). Forbes bases its listing on stakes in publicly traded companies and in private company filings. Ironically, Mr Oei has become the latest high-profile victim of the financial crisis because he was trying to reduce his exposure. In 2007, he believed that the global economy would experience a downturn and decided to trim his trading positions, his statement of claim says. Meanwhile, he told his private bank ers that he wanted to maintain a margin surplus of about US$100 million. This is cash placed with a bank and clients can trade up to several times that amount. If the trades run up losses, this margin has to be topped up. Following a change of relationship manager last year, Mr Oei dealt mainly with two assistants in the private bank ing department, whom he would call to check on the balance on a daily basis. What an incredible lawsuit! Source
 
Market Tips And Observations Top
Posted by Dr. Brett. Ten Weekend Thoughts From Dr. Brett I would say that these are 10 great market tips for all. * Distractions come from unfinished business; * I've yet to meet an impressive person who has needed to impress people; * Passion without commitment is wasted energy; * The early bird gets the worm; the night hawk gets the early bird; * Success comes when doing things right is combined with doing the right things; * When you are doing what you're meant to be doing, effort gives energy; * In trading, as in life, you succeed by acting decisively on your convictions; * You will never win if your goal is to not lose; * Successful people are productive; they traffic in efforts, not intentions; * Narcissism craves admiration; self-esteem desires understanding. ------------------------------------------------------------ Truly excellent as usual. I hope you like it. :D I've yet to meet an impressive person who has needed to impress people; LOL! How indeed true. One more from him. Trading and Investing: The Danger of Mixing Mindsets Several traders that I interacted with today were not able to participate on the long side despite the fact that the stock market was strong throughout the day. When they explained their selling bias, they said things like, "I just don't believe we should be trading up here" and "There's no way we are going higher; the economy is in terrible shape." Mixing the mindset of trader and investor is hazardous to your wealth. As an investor, I can tell you that I remain very conservatively positioned with my retirement assets. I believe that we entered a secular bear market in 2000, and I believe that bear market has years--not months--to run. Just as we hit bottom in 1932 and did not see a full fledged bull market until the late 1940s, and just as we hit bottom in 1974 and did not see a fresh bull until 1982, we could muddle around for a considerable period in a long-term bottoming process. And that's generously assuming that we made a price low for the secular bear in March! All of that, however, is irrelevant to what I think about the stock market *today*. If I see that there is no bearish bias over the next several days and that indicators are strengthening over a three-day period, I am going to look for reasons to buy in today's session if I detect signs of strength. Trading is about exploiting supply and demand during short-term intervals; it is not investing. You could tell me that President Obama is saddling this country with outrageous debt; you could decry the greed of bank s; you could question the ability of the consumer to sustain a durable economic recovery; you could question the fundamentals of the U.S. dollar: for the most part, I would agree with you. But those have nothing to do with whether institutional participants, right here and right now, are purchasing, selling, or avoiding equities. There's a time for politics, and there's a time for economics. Just not when you're trading the day timeframe. Good point mentioned by Dr. Brett. The trader should understand that the short term market movements has nothing to do with market fundamentals. Good example? Look at our stock market!! :p But what then should the investor do now? LOL! The March rally has made so many market experts. Try asking them. :p Source
 
Unemployment, Unsustainable Trend In Debt And Taxes Top
Featured article on John Mauldin's newsletter: Faith-Based Economics (subscription is required - but it's free) Couple of issues stand out. John writes about unemployment numbers and questions if the numbers should be a lagging indicator. The typical pundit keeps telling us unemployment is a lagging indicator, and that the recovery will be well under way before it shows up in the job numbers . Therefore, you should buy what they are selling, because the recovery is on its way. But that may not be the case this time. One of my favorite reads, when I get to see it, is the economic analysis from Bridgewater. They are among the best thinkers anywhere, and everyone who follows them gives them a great deal of credence. This is what they wrote about unemployment being a lagging indicator last month: "Normally, labor markets lag the economy because incremental spending transactions are financed via debt, stimulated by interest rate cuts. But as long as credit remains frozen, spending will require income, and income comes from jobs. And debt service payments are made out of income. Therefore, in a deleveraging environment job growth becomes an important leading, causal indicator of demand and other economic conditions. "... The bounce in the economy and the stabilization in markets reflect government actions that are big enough to impact near-term growth rates, but are not sufficiently directed at the root problem of excessive indebtedness to produce permanent healing. The deterioration in employment markets will continue because companies' profit margins are so deeply damaged that a little bounce in growth won't do much to alter their need to cut costs. This deterioration in labor markets will undermine demand and continue to pressure loan losses, which will keep the pressure on the bank s and elevate the cost of capital for tentative borrowers, inhibiting credit expansion." This again illustrates the problem of using past performance to project future results. You have to look at the underlying conditions in order to get a real comparison , and we have not seen a deleveraging recession in the US for 80 years. Using the past data in today's world is statistical masturbation: it may make you feel good, but it is not producing anything really useful, and may be harmful to your portfolio . How now my dearest Brown Cow? John then writes about the debt and tax issue. And like Warren Buffett has stated recently, sooner rather late, the taxes has to increase. (ps. do give the forbes article a read. ) An Unsustainable Trend in Debt This week, the federal government published two important reports on long-term budgetary trends. They both show that we are on an unsustainable path that will almost certainly result in massively higher taxes. By 2016 we will have to fund Social Security out of general revenues, as the surplus we now have will be gone. And there are no trust funds. They are a myth. It as if I wrote myself a check for $2 trillion and then declared I was worth $2 trillion. The money is just not there. Social Security makes Bernie Madoff look like a small-time crook. And Medicare is in far worse shape. For those with the stomach, you can read Bruce Bartlett's analysis at http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/14/taxes-social-security-opinions-columnists-medicare.html . He estimates that taxes will have to go up by 81% if we are to pay the obligations as they now stand. Now that is unsustainable. It won't happen. And as the saying goes, if something is unsustainable, at some point it will stop. No getting around it. Long before we get there, change you will not like will be forced on the US. The following headline caught my eye: "Obama Says US Long-Term Debt Load is 'Unsustainable.'" Yet they announced a $1.8 trillion deficit, which is really going to be at least $2 trillion, and are getting ready to pass health-care programs that will mean at least a trillion in deficits for as long as one can project. How will they pay for it? Even getting rid of the Bush tax cuts will only produce a few hundred billion a year, which is nowhere near enough. They project much lower medical costs in the future, because they assume they are going to figure out ways to cut costs and make medical care more efficient. As if no one has ever tried that. Yes, there are some savings on the margin; but the only way you really cut costs is to ration health care, especially health care in the last year of life, which is about 30% of health-care expenses. That is going to be very tough in the US. But when faced with a real budget crisis, the choices are going to be stark. And that crisis is coming if we do not control spending. You cannot propose massive increases in spending without either creating crushing debt that the markets will simply not allow, pushing interest rates much higher and really slowing growth and hurting the economy . It is a simple fact that you cannot increase the debt-to-GDP ratio without limit. We found the limit on personal and corporate debt this past year. We pushed the limits until the system crashed. And now the US government wants to basically do the same thing. They are planning to see where the limits on government debt-to-GDP will be. Unless cooler and more rational heads in the Democratic Party prevail, this is not going to be pretty. Sometime in the middle of the next decade we will hit the wall, and it will make the current crisis pale in comparison. The only way to solve the problem is to grow GDP more rapidly than debt, and for that to happen you have to have policies which are shaped for the growth of the economy or massive savings by consumers. And right now we have neither . Cap and trade is hugely anti-growth. So are high corporate taxes, and Obama is proposing to effectively raise corporate taxes by closing loopholes for income earned outside the US. Much better would be to lower the overall corporate level to a competitive world rate and then require the offshore income to be taxed. A lower rate would actually increase tax revenues. Looming protectionism worldwide is a problem . (See the article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30758018 .) Towns in Ontario, Canada with a population totalling 500,000 have effectively barred US contractors from doing business with them, in retaliation for job losses stemming from US protectionism in the stimulus plan. That movement is spreading. A US steel mill with 600 union jobs will have to close down because its owners are not US-based, and thus it is not technically a US supplier. They are losing jobs to US-owned mills -- but those are US jobs. The insanity goes on and on. As I have written for many years, the one thing that really gets me worried is protectionism. That can make this very significant recession into a depression quicker than you can imagine. Bad ideas have bad consequences . All in all, we face some very difficult decisions, not just in the US but all over the developed world. Ironically, the less developed nations will have fewer problems and on a relative basis will likely grow much faster than the developed world. But, multi-trillion-dollar deficits and massive new programs are not the right answer. Obama is right: the debt load is unsustainable . Let's hope he will do more than talk, and show some budget restraint . Source
 
Weekend Reading With Charlie Munger Top
Transcript of Charlie's Munger's QA with Joseph A. Grundfest at Sanford University. GRUNDFEST: I'll begin with two words: Bernie Madoff. What do you think "l'affaire Madoff" teaches us about the operation of our financial system? MUNGER: One of the reasons the original Ponzi scheme was thrown into the case repertoire of every law school is that the outcome happens again and again. So we shouldn't be surprised that we have constant repetition of Ponzi schemes. And of course there are mixed schemes that are partly Ponzi just shot through American business. The conglomerate rage of buying companies at 10 times earnings and issuing stock time after time at 30 times earnings to pay for them was a legitimate business operation mixed with a Ponzi scheme. That made it respectable. Nobody called it illegal. But it wasn't all that different from mixing a significant amount of salmonella into the peanut butter. Harry Markopolos, a hedge fund expert, sent a detailed memo to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) articulating why Madoff must have been a fraud. The SEC did nothing with it. We don't know the reason why, but I'm willing to suggest that the lawyers who received Markopolos's warning simply didn't understand the finance or math that Markopolos relied on. Lawyers who only know a mass of legal doctrine and very little about the disciplines that are intertwined with that doctrine are a menace to the wider civilization. Why didn't the SEC understand the warning that was clearly placed at its door? The SEC is pretty good at going after some little scumbag whom everybody regards as a scumbag. But once a person becomes respectable and has a high position in life, there's a great reticence to act. And Madoff was such a person. Why aren't our regulators capable of addressing many of the issues that we confront in the market today? Most of them plan to go back to living off money made in the system they are supposed to regulate. You can argue that financial regulation is so important that no one in such a position should ever be allowed to do as you partially did—serve and then leave to make money in the regulated field. Such considerations led to lifetime appointments for federal judges. And we got better judges with that system. So government service should be a little like a monastery from which you can never escape? What you can opt to do is retire, which is pretty much what our judges do. What about the idea that investors should be able to fend for themselves? We want the sophisticated investor to protect himself, but we also want a system that identifies crooks and comes down like the wrath of God on them. We need both. And here I think what's intriguing is we have a failure of both . Yes. As we look at the current situation, how much of the responsibility would you lay at the feet of the accounting profession? I would argue that a majority of the horrors we face would not have happened if the accounting profession developed and enforced better accounting. They are way too liberal in providing the kind of accounting the financial promoters want. They've sold out, and they do not even realize that they've sold out. Would you give an example of a particular accounting practice you find problematic? Take derivative trading with mark-to-market accounting, which degenerates into mark-to-model. Two firms make a big derivative trade and the accountants on both sides show a large profit from the same trade. And they can't both be right. But both of them are following the rules. Yes, and nobody is even bothered by the folly. It violates the most elemental principles of common sense. And the reasons they do it are: (1) there's a demand for it from the financial promoters, (2) fixing the system is hard work, and (3) they are afraid that a sensible fix might create new responsibilities that cause new litigation risks for accountants. Can we fix the accounting profession? Accounting is a big subject and there are huge forces in play. The entire momentum of existing thinking and existing custom is in a direction that allows these terrible follies to happen, and the terrible follies have terrible consequences. The economic crisis that we're in now is, in its triggering circumstances, worse than anything that's ever happened. Worse than the Great Depression? The economy hasn't contracted as much as during the Great Depression, but the malfeasance and silliness, the triggering events for today's crisis, were much greater and more widespread. In the '20s, a tiny class of people were financial promoters and a tiny class of people were buying securities. Today, it's deep in the whole culture, and it is way more extreme. If sin and folly get punished appropriately, we're in for a bad time. And do you see a chance that our current economic woes could reach to a level closer to the Great Depression? Well, nobody can predict that very well because we've never faced conditions as extreme. Very few people realize how much we've screwed up. Even in leading law schools and business schools very few people realize that the mess at Enron never could have happened if accounting customs hadn't been changed. What we have now is a bigger, more widespread Enron. When the regulators put in the option exchanges, there was just one letter in opposition saying "you shouldn't do this," and Warren Buffett wrote it. When they wanted to make the securities market function better as a gambling casino with vast profits for the people who were croupiers—there was a big constituency in favor of dumb change. Buffett was like a man trying to stop an elephant with a pea shooter. We're not controlling financial leverage if we have option exchanges. So these changes repealed longtime control of margin credit by the Federal Reserve System. You get unlimited leverage. Unlimited leverage comes automatically with an option exchange. Then, next, derivative trading made the option exchange look like a benign event. So just one after another the very people who should have been preventing these asininities were instead allowing foolish departures from the corrective devices we'd put in the last time we had a big trouble—devices that worked quite well. The investment banks of yore, chastened by the '30s, were private partnerships, or near equivalents. The partners were dependent for their retirement on the prosperity of the firms they left behind and the customs and culture they left behind, and the places were much more responsible and honorable. That ethos, by the time the year 2006 came along, had pretty well disappeared. Our regulators allowed the proprietary trading departments at investment banks to become hedge funds in disguise, using the "repo" system—one of the most extreme credit-granting systems ever devised. The amount of leverage was utterly awesome. The investment banks, to protect themselves, controlled, to some extent, the use of credit by customers that were hedge funds. But the internal hedge funds, owned by the investment banks, were subject to no effective credit control at all. You and your partner, Warren Buffett, have for years warned about the dangers of the modern derivatives markets, particularly credit derivatives, and about interest rate swaps, currency swaps, and equity swaps. Interest rate swaps have enormous dangers given their size and the accounting that has been allowed. But credit default derivatives took that danger to new levels of excess—from something that was already gross and wrong. In the '20s we had the "bucket shop." The term bucket shop was a term of derision, because it described a gambling parlor. The bucket shop didn't buy any securities. It just enabled people to make bets against the house and the house furnished little statements of how the bets came out. It was like the off-track betting system. Until the house lost its money and suddenly disappeared. Or the house made its money and suddenly disappeared. That is right. Derivatives trading, with no central clearing, brought back the bucket shop, because you could make bets without having any interest in the basic security, and people did make such bets in the billions and billions of dollars. Some of the most admired people in finance—including Alan Greenspan— argued that derivatives trading, substituting for the old bucket shop, was a great contribution to modern economic civilization. There's another word for this: bonkers. It is not a credit to academic economics that Greenspan's view was so common. Isn't it ironic in a sense that what we now have is a world in which every major financial institution is a federally chartered bank. We had a rule that a business couldn't also be a deposit-insured bank, because we didn't want every business to be able to use the government's credit to do anything it wanted. It was a profoundly good idea to prevent the banks from being in other businesses. Well now, when the captive finance companies like General Motors Acceptance Corporation are too big to fail and get in trouble, we give them a bank charter so that a company whose main interest is to preserve employment in Michigan gets to use the government's credit in huge amounts to sell more cars. This is crazy. Our whole regulatory system was long designed to prevent what we're stumbling back into as a reaction to a crisis. We do not need a bunch of non-banks with unlimited access to the government's credit. So some of the steps that we're putting in place now to try to correct the problems are creating new problems. Yes. We're also recreating old problems because we're reacting hurriedly to a crisis. I think it's a given that you have to change General Motors in order to save it. Well, of course. But count on some changes being silly. The Federal Reserve is today buying assets that it wouldn't have even considered looking at a year ago. I think the problem is so extreme that nothing non-extreme has any chance of working. I like the fact that it is so willing to do things that have never been done before, because we have problems that we have never seen before. I am a right-wing Republican, and I like the fact that Obama has put into the White House Larry Summers, who is a ferociously smart human being and will try to do the right thing even if it offends some people. I think that's a quality that we need right now. What do you think of the job that President Obama is doing so far? Given the circumstances, I think he's doing very well indeed. I don't want to trade him in at the moment for any other Democrat. Do you have any views on the fiscal side of things—the mix of fiscal stimulus, tax cuts, and the like? We have to save the financial system, in spite of our revulsion about the way many of its denizens behave. We also need a huge spending stimulus from the federal government. We have a whole lot of things that are worth doing. By and large, the president does not plan to have people standing around holding shovels in the middle of some forest. He is talking about fixing infrastructure and so on. In the city of Los Angeles, where I live, the streets are a disgrace compared with the streets in Japan. Japan had so much fiscal stimulus that you can't find a pothole on a side of a mountain. As part of the response, the U.S. government and governments worldwide are printing money at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented. Should people be worried about deflation? Sure. But the dangers from what we have to do are less than the dangers that would come if we responded much as we did in the '30s. I think it is dangerous to have big disasters in a modern economy. I regard pre-World War I Germany as an advanced, decent civilization. After all, little Albert Einstein got a very good, subsidized primary education in German Catholic schools. But in its economic misery, Germany became dominated by Adolf Hitler. We've seen some god-awful people come to power in various miseries in various countries. Enough misery has huge dangers in a world where we have new pathogens, atomic bombs, and so forth. So we can't afford to have huge economic collapses. I think we have to do what we're doing. We're hooked. And so are the other advanced nations. What I'm hearing from you, Charlie, is "so far so good"? It is very reasonable to react with the extreme vigor that's been shown. In retrospect the vigor wasn't quite enough. I would argue that it was pluperfectly obvious the government had to save all these banks and major investment banks. So on a scale of 1 to 10, how big a mistake was it that they let Lehman Brothers go? I don't think that was a mistake. You can't save everybody. That would have created unlimited revulsion in the body politic. I probably would have let Lehman go, too. Even though the market seized up very dramatically afterwards and we had some of the most difficult short-term financial consequences of that failure? We needed a total correction to a system that was evil and stupid. You can't have a rule that no matter how awful you are, you're always going to be saved. You have to allow some failure. We don't need all our bright engineers going into derivative trading and hedge funds and so on. We need some revulsion. How and why do you think economists have gotten this so wrong? I would argue that the economists have not been all that good at working concepts of good and evil into their profession. Nor do they understand, at all well, the economic consequences of bad accounting. In fact, they've made a profession of driving value judgments out of the subject. Yes. They say it's not economics if you think about the consequences of good and evil, and good and bad business accounting. I think what we're learning is that when you don't understand
 
Dr. Faber Warns That US Government Will Go Bust! Top
Strong warning from Dr. Marc Faber. "The US government for sure will go bust. That I guarantee you. Not tomorrow, but it will go bust," he added. US government bond yields bottomed out in December 2008, he said. "I think this is the beginning of a long-term bear market. And I think the government will have to keep interest rates artificially low because deficits will be too high," Faber said. "People said fundamentals are bad and markets are going up for no reason. But money printing is a reason," he said, explaining why quantitative easing will continue. "The worse the statistics will be, the more money will be printed. Believe me, globally all the central bank s will print money like there's no tomorrow." Source: here Source
 
The Printers Did It! Top
The printers did it! That's what caused the stocks to soar! Fundamentals???? LOL! So says Dr. Marc Faber. Major central bank s' efforts to lift the world economy by printing money has boosted asset prices, so stocks are unlikely to hit their lows from November and March , Marc Faber, the author of "The Gloom, Boom & Doom Report," wrote in his latest research report. "I have explained repeatedly in the past that if a government is really determined to try and postpone an inevitable collapse by 'printing money' in order to lift or support asset prices, it can be done," Faber wrote. "This is not to say that the global economy is about to embark on a strong and sustainable growth phase. It also doesn't mean that a new bull market in global equities a la 1982-2000 has begun," he said. "But I think that, at least in nominal terms (inflation-adjusted), the global printing presses being run by the world's central bank s and fiscal deficits have begun to impact asset prices positively ," Faber wrote. Many investors did not take advantage of the recent rally because they thought it was a bear-market rally, so they stayed on the sidelined, hoarding cash. But stocks are not likely to collapse, as more players take courage to dip into the market, he said. "Put yourself in the shoes of a fund manager who, in the last 18 months, has lost 50 percent of his clients' money and missed the recent rally," Faber wrote. "What is he likely to do? I would think he would be inclined to purchase equities as they correct the sharp advance since early March, especially as the economic news in the near term becomes less negative," he said. But very high volatility and "price fluctuations that don't appear to make any sense" will be the new dominant characteristic of the market, he warned. The lows reached by resource and mining stocks, as well as Asian equities and most emerging markets, are likely to hold for now , according to Faber. But the US long-term government bond market "has the highest probability" of having reached a high, he said. Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30742936 Source
 
Temasek Admits To Their Terrible Investing Mistake In Bank Of America By Cutting Losses! Top
Just saw this news clip: Temasek sells BOA stake SINGAPORE'S state-owned investment vehicle Temasek Holdings said today that it has sold its entire stake in the -bank of America. A Temasek spokesman said: 'We have divested our shares in -bank of America.' The Straits Times understands the sale was done via a series of transactions in the first quarter of this year. Temasek declined to reveal the average price it got for its 188.8 million shares, but preliminary estimates put the potential loss at a whopping US$4.26 billion. Temasek had paid about US$5.9 billion for a 13.7 per cent stake in Merrill Lynch since December 2007, which was converted into -bank of America stock following the completion of the acquisition. This gave it a stake of some 188.8 million -bank of America shares, or about 3.8 per cent. Reuters cited a source briefed on the deal saying that the shares were sold for between US$2.53 and US$14.81 in the first quarter. Based on a Reuters calculation which assumed an average price of US$8.67, Temasek may have suffered a loss of about US$4.26 billion. Temasek's net portfolio value dropped 31 per cent between March 31 and Nov 30 last year, from $185 billion to $127 billion. This reminded me of the posting dated Friday, February 20, 2009, Singapore GIC Investment Mistake In Citigroup And UBS ( Do read the highlighted link, "Substantial Long-term Returns" From -bank Investments? Fat Hope, GIC ) Anyway I am thinking out loud here. My thinking could be obviously flawed but I cannot stop wondering about Singapore GIC. What are they thinking? Obviously Citigroup and UBS were terrible mistakes and they paid some terribly high prices for their mistakes. So why couldn't they just admit they made a terrible mistake and realise their losses? Why can't they cut loss? Why insist on taking this long term approach? Don't they realise that holding them long term solves nothing? Long term investors? They look like long term mistake holders! Well looks like they are finally admitting to their terrible investing mistake in -bank Of America. Bravo! It takes a big man to admit to their mistakes man! ps: see also Neptune Orient Lines (NOL) Suffers Huge Losses - Big Ouch For Temasek! and Temasek Holdings Chalking Up Massive Paper Losses Everywhere! Source
 
The Issue Of TRUST In Investing: Do You And Should You Trust Your Financial Advisor? Top
Was just reading the following posting on NationalPost, Can you trust your financial advisor? In that post, it highlights a video clip on CBC: here . Do give it a view. :D This reminded me of an article I read last year also. Ripped Off: Can You Trust Your Financial Adviser? And on a much broader sense, this old article deserves to be highlighted again. Anthony Deden wrote In Whom Do You Trust? Semper (In)Fideles We can never make any investment without running these sorts of risks – indeed, the returns to our investment arise directly as the reward we earn because we are running them. On the other hand, if the accountant is fudging the books, or if the company declares assets which don't exist, or if the CEO is otherwise deceiving his shareholders and creditors – clearly, this is a very different sort of hazard. This is what we mean by "unsystematic" risk. A moment's thought will show that it is highly problematical – to the point of impossibility – to uncover the existence of such risks until it is too late. Fraud is generally undetectable unless one has complete access to all the books and complete freedom to question their entries. Even then, one must know what questions to ask – a difficult task in itself in today's world, where there is no shortage of executive brainpower devoted to ensuring that even the questions are well obscured. Mr. Deden then gave some excellent investing advice. Keep the red flag flying We have laid out all the above in the hope it might prove useful in clarifying and identifying some of the little-regarded sources of risk. We will skip past the densely packed minefields of accounting and auditing (q.v. Enron, WorldCom, Parmalat, et al.) for another time. In the end, if we should not rely on the rules and accounting standards, or on mathematically tractable entities, to mark out dishonesty and incompetence, and if we cannot identify malfeasance directly from an Excel spreadsheet, what hope do we have to survive? Or, must we withdraw from the market completely, perhaps pausing only to bury a few gold coins in the soil? Perhaps not. Far from that, we believe there are a number of readily comprehensible, qualitative and perhaps intuitive considerations to which we can turn when examining the securities of a company. Any one of these signals should give rise to serious doubts about the overall suitability of a given investment. If more than one such factor is in existence – and believe me, these bearers of bad news tend not to travel alone – a huge red flag should prompt us to utterly reject the investment altogether. It is far better to overlook a good company not fully understood than to pack a portfolio with unmarked dirty bombs; however en vogue they might be. For every investment idea rejected out of a sensible exercise of prudence, there are a multitude out there somewhere – presently unknown or perhaps not yet even founded – that are far more worthy of interest and money. Six (financial) flags Not enough "stuff" – Deficiencies in net tangible assets. This is clearly a basic bank ing approach to lending that can also be used by equity investors. When a company's balance sheet is stripped of intangible assets, 'other assets' and any other items which are only financial in nature, what is left is the tangible asset base – the "stuff" the company really uses to pay its suppliers, hire its workforce, repair and upgrade its equipment and to generate wealth for its owners. If there do not seem to be enough of these in comparison to the rest of the entries in the accounts one should start to wonder whether stocks and machinery have been replaced by smoke and mirrors. The wellspring of "write downs" starts with a hollow balance sheet. Mergermania – Excessive acquisition activity is also a sign of ill health. Nothing truly great was ever built via a process of fevered acquisitions. This is not to dismiss all takeovers, regardless of circumstance, but to point out that they are usually far more lucrative for the corporate financiers and insiders than for the company stockholders. Frequent acquisitions are a sign of weakness, of misplaced priorities and of the inability to enhance worth from within. More growth – and at any price. In practice, this usually means growth at too high a price. Market share is not what matters but return on capital. Profitability is what counts, not mere turnover, much less "eyeballs" or any of the other New Era nonsense metrics. No honest business ever grew in an uninterrupted geometric progression – especially not one in double digits. Life just doesn't come in such neat packets, no matter what Jack Welch might say in his latest airport executive pep-talk. Too many trips to the well. Frequent recourse to the financial markets for funding is another danger sign. A good business makes money by reinvesting its profits, not by slowly mortgaging itself to its bank ers or by continually diluting its owners. Too much fine print. If the annual report has more fine print than a budget edition of "Gone with the Wind," the firm's shareholders will only get to dream of Tara; they will never know her. Well-run companies have simple and straightforward accounts. Lots of fine print can either imply the company doesn't know what it's doing – or that it doesn't want you to. In the end, more often than not, fine print raises more questions than it answers. Lack of substantive ownership by those at the top – and presumably by those in the know – is hardly a ringing endorsement of a business. If the CEO and his buddies only hold stock through option grants and never actually pay for their holdings, and if the members of the board have better things to do with their pensions than to waste them on the company they supervise – who are we to argue? Five (Behavioral) flags Managing the stock, not the company. We believe that in an entrepreneurial setting, the price of common stock is merely the reflection of wealth rather than wealth itself. To the extent that the Street and the stock ticker become the focus of a company's management, we would swiftly avert our own gaze. Wise, long-term decisions cannot be made when most strategies adopted are aimed at flattering the next quarter's numbers. In recent years, in fact, CEOs will even give "guidance" to analysts as to future sales and profits – a practice which, at heart, is designed merely to support and cater to share price management. Tell me something I don't already know . More often than not, a firm which insists on calling in consultants at every turn becomes hooked on the avoidance of full managerial responsibility, no matter how it may justify it. Consultants often know little more (and sometimes quite a lot less) about a business than the people working there. Typically, they are an expensive way to confirm the Boss in something he lacks the resolve to implement himself. Quite often, consultants are also a sure sign of a firm in which ideas have dried up because of poor internal communication, strained employee relations, or limited understanding of the customer. Who are those people cluttering up the shop? In the free market, the consumer is king and anyone who loses sight of this simple truth is likely to be thrown out of the kingdom. By succumbing to the lure of Wall Street – induced empire building, many companies have lost sight of whom they serve. The same condition often causes them to neglect their employees also – meaning they end up with unhappy people on both sides of the counter. Packing the Court. If you think that the board of directors has been picked in order to curry political favor, or to provide a chorus to sing "Yes!" in harmony to the CEO, beware! Does the company routinely offer sinecures to petty aristocrats, or does it participate in the revolving door back-scratching of those on the government-boardroom-bureaucracy carousel? Does the board consist of a fashionably correct ethnic or gender-based mix – where the persons concerned seem to have been chosen for PR reasons, not on personal merit? Are there figureheads around the table, rather than independent and respected voices who can defend the shareholders from the worst impulses of a dictatorial CEO? Rock'n'Roll Cowboys. The CEO is the person employed by the owners to put their capital to work in running a business. Let us not forget, he is (admittedly very expensive) hired help. His role is to serve the owners to the best of his ability. An inveterate show-off, less well known for his business acumen than for his yachting exploits, his mistresses, his sports sponsorship, his politics, or any of a number of other extra curricular pursuits, would not make it past the selection panel if you and I had been asked to sit on it. If the guy wants to be an Emperor, let him emigrate to Ruritania. If he wants to be a rock star, let him go take a few guitar lessons. Meanwhile, I want to invest in an entrepreneur who is too busy running the company for such distractions and is humble enough to know that there is always more he does not know than there is that he does. The first guy will doubtless make himself rich: the second might make his owners rich instead. We earnestly hope the foregoing has given the reader a few pointers as to where he should start exercising "street smarts" in the selection of investments. Once honed and directed, these intuitive skills – when wedded to the analytical capabilities which anyone can acquire with a little study – should act as a defense mechanism against the many elusive unsystematic risks that plague our financial world. In the end, one can only trust his own judgment, intuition and skepticism, not only in investment selection but also in the selection of those to whom he conveys fiduciary duty. If one can manage to spot the red flags, warning signs and maintain discipline in the face of great challenges – resist the tug of the ticker tape and the smooth talk of the stock salesmen and uppity bank ers – then that person might just stand a chance against great odds. We reckon that's a lesson which is worth at least half of a hundred and fifty million francs Source
 
Is It A Good Option To Bet On The Emerging Markets? Top
Posted On The UK Telegraph: Emerging markets second wind blows in the face of short-term thinking Here is a snippet of what's written.. ...Perhaps not surprisingly, given the uncanny ability of many investors to buy high and sell low, that gloom marked a turning point. My observation that emerging market investors had given up hope along with half the value of their portfolios came within days of the start of a new bull market for these riskiest of assets. The MSCI Emerging Markets index bottomed out on October 27, and since then it has risen by 50pc. As investors have rediscovered their appetite for chasing returns in far-flung places, some markets have done considerably better than this. Brazil's Bovespa index is up more than 70pc since its October low, while Russia's RTS index has very nearly doubled since January. The oil price has risen by two thirds since Christmas Eve. The FTSE 100, by contrast, is up just 8pc since October. America's S&P 500 stands at the same level it did six months ago. A couple of weeks ago, emerging market investment funds had one of their best ever weeks, taking $4bn (£2.6bn) of new money . Since November more than $10bn has flowed into these funds compared with almost $50bn heading the other way out of developed market funds. "De-coupling", a vogue investment term a year ago but dismissed as wishful thinking six months later, is back in fashion. Three factors have driven this sentiment yo-yo. First, the Chinese government announced a massive 4,000bn yuan (£400bn) stimulus package in November , which fuelled hopes that other emerging market exporters could switch their attention from the cash-strapped West to the world's new consumer of last resort. Twenty years ago, two thirds of emerging market exports were to developed countries. Now about half goes to other emerging markets. Second, investors started to believe that Asia's bank s were less exposed to toxic assets and so less vulnerable to nationalisation. More broadly, the high savings rates and government surpluses in the region suggested that emerging markets were actually a safer long-term bet than developed markets. Third, investors reacted to early signs that the worst of the global recession might be over by switching from safe but over-priced assets (such as government bonds) to risky but potentially rewarding investments like emerging market equities and commodities . The price of copper, a bellwether of global economic growth , rose by 40pc in the first three months of 2009. Can the rise continue? Overall, emerging markets don't look over-priced, having fallen from an average of 18 times earnings a year ago to just eight in October and about 11 today. But generalising about emerging market investments is dangerous when the outlooks for the Baltic states and China, for example, are so different. The valuations of the hottest markets are starting to ring alarm bells. China's Shanghai Composite index trades on a price/earnings multiple of 30 today , three times as much as it did six months ago. Brazil's multiple has jumped from seven to 19 and its government is intervening in the currency markets to prevent the real from appreciating too quickly against the dollar. Proponents of the emerging markets story argue that companies operating in the developing world should trade at a premium because of the greater growth potential in these markets . Per capita incomes in these fast-growth parts of the world more than doubled between 2002 and 2007 compared with an increase of less than 40pc in developed markets. Economic growth in high single digits is expected in countries like China and India, compared with falls in the industrialised world this year and then a probably anaemic recovery as rising taxes and a long process of debt reduction holds back growth. Even so, today's valuations leave little wriggle room should growth disappoint in any way. Two clear lessons emerge from the recovery in emerging stock markets over the past six months. First, when all around you are reading the last rites for a region or asset class, your antennae should start twitching. The best time to buy is when it feels hardest to do so. Second, investors should ignore the short-term noise and back the long-term investment case. When I wrote about the abandonment of the emerging markets thesis six months ago I noted that "the IMF's latest World Economic Outlook forecasts growth in developing Asia of 7.7pc, with China a bit higher and India a bit lower. These are rates the rest of us can only dream of as we head into recession." Source
 
Yeah Them Market Call Bragging Rights! Top
LOL! Love it. Absolutely. On MarketWatch.com. Who wants bragging rights? By Mark Hulbert May 13, 2009, 10:42 a.m. EST Who wants bragging rights? Commentary: It doesn't much matter what we call the rally since March 9Explore related topics ANNANDALE, Va. (MarketWatch) -- Whoever finishes with the most money wins. That may seem unobjectionable enough -- even obvious. Yet, try injecting this thought into the debate over how to classify the market's rise since March 9. You'll get lots of objections from investors who consider it to be of the utmost importance whether or not we're in a new bull market, as opposed to a mere bear market rally. But how important is it, really? If you can make money from it, does it matter what you call it? Doesn't this debate boil down to little more than just bragging rights? Giving these questions added urgency: It's possible for an adviser to win bragging rights and still lose a lot of money. Just take Harry Schultz, editor of the International Harry Schultz Letter. Fellow columnist Peter Brimelow named it Newsletter of the Year for 2008 because of a prescient prediction in the fall of 2007 that the investment markets faced an imminent "financial tsunami." Schultz was spectacularly right, of course. And, yet, according to the Hulbert Financial Digest's calculations, the newsletter's model portfolio lost 76.1% during 2008, more than doubling the 36.7% loss for the Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index . Who needs bragging rights like those? Imagine, for a moment, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rallying another five thousand points to reach the 14,000 level, and then commencing an extended decline that takes it below the March 9 low of 6,547. Would the entire rise to the 14,000 level -- a 114% increase -- be considered a bear market rally just because the Dow did not reach a new high before it reached a new low? It's surprisingly difficult to answer this question with a precise definition that fits all of what we in the past have considered to be bull and bear markets. It's reminiscent of the challenge the Supreme Court faced when discussing pornography: They conceded that they didn't know how to define it, though they insisted that they knew it when they saw it. One definition that I have often relied upon in my columns is the one devised by Ned Davis Research, the quantitative research firm. According to them, a bull market requires one of three conditions to hold: (1) at least a 30% rise in the Dow in 50 calendar days, (2) at least a 13% rise in the Dow in 155 calendar days, or (3) at least a 30% reversal in the Value Line Geometric index . This definition strikes me as eminently reasonable. And, according to it, the market's rise since March 9 is indeed a bull market. Note carefully, however, that if you adhere to this definition, you also must classify as a bull market the rally from late 1929 to early 1930. That rally began on November 13, 1929, following the 48% loss for the Dow that occurred over the previous three months. Between then and the subsequent April 17, the Dow rallied 48%. Not surprisingly, investors' mood became markedly cheerier during that rally. President Hoover's Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, stated in February 1930 that "there is nothing in the situation to be disturbed about." Yeah, right. Over the 26 months following that high of April 17, 1930, as we now know all too well, the Dow lost 86%. The lesson to learn, I think, is that regardless of whether the Dow's 48% rise between November 1929 and April 1930 is called a bear market rally or a new bull market, profiting from it required nimble footwork. Agreeing on what to call it made little difference. You could be right and still lose a lot of money, just as you could be wrong and nevertheless turn a handsome profit. I would apply that same lesson today. So be my guest: Call the rally since March 9 either a bull market or a bear market rally. The important question is what to do with your portfolio to maximize returns and minimize risk. And more importantly... how now Brown Cow? Would You Buy This Stock Pullback? and reckon that Sell In May And Go Away An Unwise Option This Year? . Look at them investors getting so bullish now! But if they are so bullish, why are the Insiders disposals at record highs ? Why are the major shareholders disposing their shares like crazy? Are they in need of money so desperately that they are willing to forgo the market rally? Hey even the blog on WSJ is highlighting this issue, Insider Selling Adds to Cautious Tone And what about the uncle with the bow tie? Why is Jim Rogers warning on stocks and why is he calling an end to USD rally ? What is all that talk about US Government is inflating the market? Why is Whitney calling this "The great government momentum trade"? Why? Even some bloggers are noting some 'sell' signals. Three 'Sell' Triggers out of Four On FinancialSense, Ryan Puplava wrote Recipe: Bear Market Bottom Everything is pointing towards an improvement to our economic environment; however, the market has gotten ahead of itself in this rally with a return of 39.6% from a March 6th low to a May 8th high. We have one part improved expectations, but we're missing the follow through of those improved expectations into retail sales and an increase in industrial production. The technology sector signaled a short-term correction last week with its shift from sector lead to sector lag. The advance-decline line is rolling over. The S&P 500 bullish percent index is rolling over. All technicals are pointing towards a short-term top, but we have the potential this summer to confirm the March bottom in stocks and point towards a recovery in the economy in the second half of 2009 which would mix to create the recipe for a bear market bottom. Remember Whitney's strong words on the financial sector? I Would Not Own bank Stocks: Meredith Whitney "At a core basis, I would not own these stocks," Whitney said in a live interview. "Their business models are not going to come back." Whitney, a former analyst at Oppenheimer who has her own firm, is renowned for calling out the problems with bank s' toxic assets before the issue became widespread. "This is the great government momentum trade," Whitney said on why bank stocks had seen some improvement lately. " But the underlying core, earnings power of these bank s is negligible." Whitney also said that consumer spending is still going to remain slow. "There's a massive retraction in consumer liquidity," said Whitney. "Credit contraction is happening at an accelerated pace. Consumer spending is going to be less than people expect going forward." Well, if Whitney is correct, then legendary investor Bill Miller could be really dead wrong! Miller Wrestles Whitney in Showdown Over bank Stocks How now Brown Cow? * whistle * Source
 
Federal Reserve Cannot Account For $9 Trillion Top
Highlighted the other day: Does The US Federal Reserve Knows Where The Trillions Went?? Moneynews.com had an article on the video. Federal Reserve Cannot Account for $9 Trillion Video: Federal Reserve Cannot Account for $9 Trillion Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:30 PM By: Julie Crawshaw Article Font Size The Federal Reserve apparently can't account for $9 trillion in off-balance sheet transactions. When Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Orlando) asked Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman of the Federal Reserve some very basic questions about where the trillions of dollars that have come from the Fed's expanded balance sheet, the IG didn't know. Worse, nobody at the Fed seems to have any idea what the losses on its $2 trillion portfolio really are. "I am shocked to find out that nobody at the Federal Reserve is keeping track of anything," Grayson says. Grayson asked Coleman if her agency had done any research into the decision not to save Lehman Brothers, which "sent shockwaves through the entire financial system," Coleman said it had not. "What about the $1 trillion plus expansion of the Federal reserve's balance sheet since last September?" Grayson asked. "We have different connotations," Coleman replied. "We're actually conducting a fairly high-level review of the various lending facilities collectively." Translation: Nobody at the Fed knows where the money went. Do you know what who got the $1 trillion or more in the Fed's expansion of its balance, Grayson pressed. "I do not know. We have not looked at this specific area at the particular point on that specific review," Coleman answer. What about the trillions of off-balance transactions since last September, Grayson asked. Coleman demurred again, saying the IG does not have jurisdiction to audit the Federal Reserve. Grayson pointed out that it was the inspector general's job to audit such spending and asked again if the office had done any investigation at all. Coleman's answer: Not enough yet to even respond. "We are in not a position to say if there losses." Grayson concluded, "I am shocked to find out that nobody at the Federal Reserve, including the inspector general, is keeping track of this." Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says the bank is working on ways to rein in the massive balance sheet commitments. "A majority of the members who made these projections just recently took 2 percent as being an appropriate number" for inflation, Bernanke said Monday. "Somewhere between 1-1/2 to 2 percent is basically the number that our committee has individually stated is the appropriate medium-term inflation rate. "To achieve that we need to demonstrate that we will be able to exit from the balance sheet position that we currently have, and have been working on this intensively," Bernanke said in response to questions after a speech to a conference organized by the Federal Reserve bank of Atlanta, reported by Reuters. Truly embarrassing and shocking. Just where is the money? And here is the video clip again. Source
 
Visa тестирует карты нового поколения со встроенным генератором одноразовых кодов Top
Усовершенствованные карты Visa со встроенным генератором одноразовых кодов пройдут тестирование при содействии четырех европейских банков. технология призвана бороться с растущей проблемой мошенничества с кредитными картами в режиме онлайн. MBNA, британская компания of America, Corner в Швейцарии, Cal в Израиле и IW в Италии примут участие в ограниченном тестировании новых карт Visa с одноразовым кодом. Кредитные карты следующего поколения имеют числовую клавиатуру на обратной стороне. Клиенты вводят свой PIN-код, чтобы получить пароль. Этот пароль отображается на дисплее карты и используется для аутентификации покупок в режиме онлайн. Такой подход стал альтернативой применению пароля при подтверждении онлайн-покупок посредством раскритикованной схеме Verified by Visa. Как сообщалось ранее, пароли VbyV часто можно переустановить, зная лишь данные карты и дату рождения пользователя. Новые карты, разработанные в сотрудничестве с австралийской компанией Emue Technologies, являются гораздо более надежными, хотя их нельзя назвать непогрешимыми. Некоторые банки уже ввели технологии двухфакторной аутентификации, чтобы обеспечить дополнительную защиту транзакций онлайн-банкинга. Хотя технология разового кода не является гарантией против онлайн-мошенничества, она является большим шагом вперед по сравнению с применением паролей, которые, как подчеркивает Visa Europe, вскоре будут благополучно позабыты. Технология разового пароля, встроенная в карту, означает, что пользователям не придется иметь дело с многочисленными устройствами. Для тестировании Corner приглашены 500 пользователей, другие банки запустят испытания с участием до 3 000 добровольцев, рассказали представители Visa. Программа стартует в течение нескольких следующих недель и продлится 6-12 месяцев, в зависимости от банка. оригинал Source
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.

0 коммент.

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)