| Author |
REFORM Replies |
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 13138
Location: Sunny California
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
From JPM:
| Quote: | | ....During 2009 alone we offered approximately 600,000 new trial loan modifications to struggling homeowners. Of these, 89,000 loans have achieved permanent modification. By March 31, 2010, we will have opened 51 Chase Homeownership Centers across the country, and we already have more than 14,000 employees dedicated to mortgage loss mitigation.”.... |
Okay....better late than never.
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 13138
Location: Sunny California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 13138
Location: Sunny California
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
British banks making up the bonus tax--thus taxing the investors. I own some of those "preferreds" and I'm xxx. When are these guys gonna get it. The bonus tax wasn't about the money it was about the "bonus." Bonus and failure do not mix either in dictionaries or popular opinion. The People want contrition and they get connivance.
Toxic asset bonuses is the way to square that circle. With a a share in the FED's Maiden Lane holdings at Christmas, for example, who needs money? Hell, they could even have called it public service and leveraged it into a new home loan 
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 13138
Location: Sunny California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 13138
Location: Sunny California
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again, it's the fundamental weakness of capitalism, time. Time cuts through most of the reforms we've seen from increased capital to pre-emptive bankruptcy plans. And it's abuse runs deeper than anything we can expect to see from the "authorities."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4fd97d0a-e84f-11de-8a02-00144feab49a.html
| Quote: | How to fix all this? The accounting issue apart, there is in the end only one solution, in two forms.
First, the institutions need to decide who they can trust with their money, and give them long-term contracts accordingly. The agreement would specify fund managers' targets over perhaps five years, and the penalties for failure.
Second, there should ideally be a corresponding shift to the model of private equity rather than hedge funds. That is, investors should commit their money for a fixed term and abide by the consequences. In return for that risk, they should of course be charged much lower fees. |
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 13138
Location: Sunny California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HenryTo
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 9723
Location: Houston, Texas & Los Angeles, California
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Looks like the HF folks still don't quite get it (come on, purchasing those $5 calls with just 9 days until expiration?), but then if everyone is still doing it, it must be okay? The SEC certainly does not think so.
3Com Options Trades Before Hewlett Bid Said to Be Probed by SEC
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0LDGguBASUU&pos=4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 13138
Location: Sunny California
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Progress finally being made towards linking debt to floundering banks in crises. Still "wait-and-see" attitude from FED and S&P while Lloyds et. al. pioneer the process.
The knock is that why would a rational investor forsake "equity-like" returns while retaining all the downside of equities. Returns on equities vs. bonds on almost any time frame for the last 30years should be reason enough for these "rationalists."
The position really amounts to the selling of a put. This could be very desirable for any "return-to-mean" investor and well as equity funds seeking to balance out their positions.
The real reason this is so hard has to do with 100yrs of legal precedent in property and bankruptcy. That CoCo's are not a direct challenge to bonds should assuage this concern.
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 13138
Location: Sunny California
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Big business IS the enemy of capitalism. The goal is not growth. The goal is to grow to the right size. The right size is the size that excludes your competitors. An island....in extremis, japan.
At least that's the way it "used to" be. Going forward it seems "a" strong competitor is desired. Google would not be Google without microsoft. Detroit without Japan. Starbux without McDees.....WalMart without Amazon?
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nodoodahs
Moderator
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 2229
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rffrydr wrote: | | Quote: | | "It's a natural drive of capitalism to escape control and escape regulation and to keep growing to any size." |
Is this true  |
NO.
To the extent that one is a true believer in capitalism – and make NO mistake, there are NONE of these in the halls of “Big Business” – then one would be loath to be controlled or regulated by the State.
Being a true believer in capitalism doesn’t entail driving for “growth” per se. I’ve long maintained that “X thousand customers forever” is a viable business plan, and the only “growth” that’s absolutely necessary is ultimately the nominal kind, you know, that keeps you ahead of the pace of collapse in fiat currency. Even in those business models where “growth” of a non-nominal basis is needed, there is a “sweet spot” for every business model, past that point is where growth becomes counterproductive.
Keep in mind that the discussion of what “true believers in capitalism” want has ZERO to do with what big business wants.
Big business is an ENEMY of capitalism.
(1) it only exists because of the State, i.e. without corporate law, maximal company size would be much smaller.
(2) it uses the power of the State to suppress competition.
(3) no monopoly ever existed without State approval.
Pretty much every corporation that rails against some act of regulation has, at one point or another, been “on the bandwagon” for some other act of regulation. All, of course, on the basis of what favors them specifically and not on any moral grounds (although they will cite moral grounds as ideological cover when it suits them).
_________________
I haven’t seen a beatin’ like that since somebody stuck a banana in my pants and turned a monkey loose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 13138
Location: Sunny California
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "It's a natural drive of capitalism to escape control and escape regulation and to keep growing to any size." |
Is this true
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HenryTo
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 9723
Location: Houston, Texas & Los Angeles, California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HenryTo
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 9723
Location: Houston, Texas & Los Angeles, California
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
John Reed - former co-Chairman and co-CEO of Citigroup - kicks in with his two cents:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=albMYVE7D578&pos=12
| Quote: | Congress’ overhaul of U.S. financial regulations should include ordering banks to hold more capital, ensuring executives’ compensation is aligned with long-term profitability and banning firms that take deposits from also engaging in equities and fixed-income trading, Reed said.
“I would compartmentalize the industry for the same reason you compartmentalize ships,” Reed said in the interview in his office on Park Avenue in New York. “If you have a leak, the leak doesn’t spread and sink the whole vessel. So generally speaking you’d have consumer banking separate from trading bonds and equity.”
Citizen’s View
Lawmakers were wrong to repeal the Depression-era Glass- Steagall Act in 1999, Reed said. At the time, he supported overturn of the law, which required the separation of institutions that engaged in traditional customer banking services from those involved in capital markets. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rffrydr
Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Posts: 13138
Location: Sunny California
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently it's already in effect at a meeting of the great and the good last week. Banks are being instructed to pay like it's 2010.
_________________
Today is the Tomorrow you worried about Yesterday! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HenryTo
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 9723
Location: Houston, Texas & Los Angeles, California
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Look for "compensation reform" to be on the Fed's radar screens by early next year. The ongoing rise in the unemployment rate - along with stubbornly high structural unemployment - is going to heighten the calls for stricter pay practices, especially since the middle class has had no real income increase (and wealth increase) since 2000:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/05/news/bonus.pool.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009110513 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Please log in to view without the ad banners |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Statistics
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
