Free money everywhere! Might not grow on trees.... but certainly seems to fall from the sky in some areas! (I keep watching for some in my back yard.... so far not much coming my way. Must be a 'drought' in my area. Climate change, global warming you know.)
Since the Fed can create fiat at will and buy whatever they want, the fact that they are buying real estate is no surprise. And they're doing it with newly-created fiat, anytime they want. So who owns the properties? The directors of the Fed banks? The upper management? Of course.
Banks like JPM can issue loans at will with no capital reserve requirement. That's 100% leverage. And buying anything with imaginary, newly-created money is unethical at best, and should be prosecuted for criminal fraud. But, they won't be.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
These days, 5,000 is just a number. Pick any number. Congress can pick their own numbers for debt and fiat. Physical gold is a real thing that responds to the imaginary output from the Fed. The number doesn't matter as much as the physical reality.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said:
Since the Fed can create fiat at will and buy whatever they want, the fact that they are buying real estate is no surprise. And they're doing it with newly-created fiat, anytime they want. So who owns the properties? The directors of the Fed banks? The upper management? Of course.
Banks like JPM can issue loans at will with no capital reserve requirement. That's 100% leverage. And buying anything with imaginary, newly-created money is unethical at best, and should be prosecuted for criminal fraud. But, they won't be.
False. You have clearly never looked at a bank's balance sheet or 10-K.
You wrote that banks such as Goldman Sachs don't invest their own capital in real estate, and then accused me of having a failure in reading comprehension. But according to Bloomberg, at least one major bank (Goldman Sachs and their employees) put their own capital into real estate. Neither you nor I know the entirety of what the bankers do. A few billion on the surface does not necessarily indicate the full extent of benefits they get from their position close to the Federal Reserve. But it is possibly an indication.
They don't. This is a tiny portion of their risk capital that is probably not even part of their regulatory capital.
Do you understand how regulation works ? Do you think regulators allow firms like GS to invest in risky real estate ?
@dcarr said:
It seems not cool to refer to a person on the forums by their first name when that person does not know who you are or what your real name is.
I presume everyone know what "dcarr" stands for. "Dan" is just shorthand for dcarr. I thought it was more respectful and a nice change of pace rather than typing "dcarr" all the times.
But it remains that there were numerous bank bailouts, something you said did not occur.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
You wrote that banks such as Goldman Sachs don't invest their own capital in real estate, and then accused me of having a failure in reading comprehension. But according to Bloomberg, at least one major bank (Goldman Sachs and their employees) put their own capital into real estate. Neither you nor I know the entirety of what the bankers do. A few billion on the surface does not necessarily indicate the full extent of benefits they get from their position close to the Federal Reserve. But it is possibly an indication.
They don't. This is a tiny portion of their risk capital that is probably not even part of their regulatory capital.
Do you understand how regulation works ? Do you think regulators allow firms like GS to invest in risky real estate ?
.
"They don't" [put their own capital into real estate] ?
So are you disputing the Bloomberg article which indicates that they did ?
You keep trying to dismiss the issue claiming that it is a relatively small amount of money for a big bank such as Goldman Sachs. The article only mentions one instance, from one bank. How many more instances are there ?
"Risk Capital" or "Regulatory Capital" - you admit that you don't know (I don't know either).
But either way, these large banks have a privileged position with ties to the Federal Reserve and they are doing a lot more with the "free" money than making loans and investing clients' money.
False. You have clearly never looked at a bank's balance sheet or 10-K.
Which balance sheet? The one you see, or the one you will never get to see? Do you think that the regulators are about ready to start doing their jobs?
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said:
But it remains that there were numerous bank bailouts, something you said did not occur._
They certainly did bail out AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be made whole, so that all of their bonuses could be > >paid.
Well, another good week for gold. Continues to hang around $2,000. Could do it for weeks or months or even years but I continue to think that years from now....looking at a long-term chart....we'll look at $2,000 and ounce as a buying opportunity that laid there for YEARS...and nobody banged the drums...for bullion or investment-grade coins.
@jmski52 said:
But it remains that there were numerous bank bailouts, something you said did not occur._
They certainly did bail out AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be made whole, so that all of their bonuses could be > >paid.
That never happened but keep believeing it did.
AIG would have failed, if not for being rescued by the Fed.
Where was the Federal Reserve in 2006 when hucksters on TV were offering 125% equity home loans ?
It was obvious that would end badly. But AIG was happy to keep raking in money by writing insurance polices for increasingly-dubious Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS). Banks gobbled up the MBS and that allowed the 125% equity loan scheme to go on (for a while). The Fed did nothing. When the whole thing fell apart and MBS tanked, AIG couldn't cover all the MBS insurance policies they wrote. If not for the rescue, AIG would have been unable to pay the substantial amount that they owed to Goldman Sachs and others.
@dcarr said:
AIG would have failed, if not for being rescued by the Fed.
I agree with that in all likelihood. Let the record show that politicians chose the CEO of AIG, replacing multi-decade founder Hank Greenberg. Also chose the CEO of Citibank, Chuck Prince. Both companies needed financial assistance because of the stupidity of their politically-appointed CEOs.
Where was the Federal Reserve in 2006 when hucksters on TV were offering 125% equity home loans ?
It was obvious that would end badly. But AIG was happy to keep raking in money by writing insurance polices for >increasingly-dubious Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS). Banks gobbled up the MBS and that allowed the 125% >equity loan scheme to go on (for a while). The Fed did nothing. When the whole thing fell apart and MBS tanked, AIG >couldn't cover all the MBS insurance policies they wrote. If not for the rescue, AIG would have been unable to pay >the substantial amount that they owed to Goldman Sachs and others.
First, the GSEs -- Fannie & Freddie -- were the main promoters of the housing bubble. 1 political party was the driving force behind "crap mortgages" going back to HUD and 1998.
You are wrong about The Fed. The Fed (Greenspan) wanted it reigned in as early as 2002. I know, because my trade group was involved in the effort. It was shut down by elected officials of BOTH parties, but again, mostly from 1 political party.
Goldman would have been paid back -- at least 80 cents on the dollar, and probably 100 cents within 12-18 months. Even a 100% write-off wouldn't have killed Goldman and they STILL wouldn't have needed TARP $$$ (which they did NOT want) -- they had $35 billion in equity capital even with a 100% write-off of AIGs amount.
@dcarr said:
AIG would have failed, if not for being rescued by the Fed.
I agree with that in all likelihood. Let the record show that politicians chose the CEO of AIG, replacing multi-decade founder Hank Greenberg. Also chose the CEO of Citibank, Chuck Prince. Both companies needed financial assistance because of the stupidity of their politically-appointed CEOs.
Where was the Federal Reserve in 2006 when hucksters on TV were offering 125% equity home loans ?
It was obvious that would end badly. But AIG was happy to keep raking in money by writing insurance polices for >increasingly-dubious Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS). Banks gobbled up the MBS and that allowed the 125% >equity loan scheme to go on (for a while). The Fed did nothing. When the whole thing fell apart and MBS tanked, AIG >couldn't cover all the MBS insurance policies they wrote. If not for the rescue, AIG would have been unable to pay >the substantial amount that they owed to Goldman Sachs and others.
First, the GSEs -- Fannie & Freddie -- were the main promoters of the housing bubble. 1 political party was the driving force behind "crap mortgages" going back to HUD and 1998.
You are wrong about The Fed. The Fed (Greenspan) wanted it reigned in as early as 2002. I know, because my trade group was involved in the effort. It was shut down by elected officials of BOTH parties, but again, mostly from 1 political party.
Goldman would have been paid back -- at least 80 cents on the dollar, and probably 100 cents within 12-18 months. Even a 100% write-off wouldn't have killed Goldman and they STILL wouldn't have needed TARP $$$ (which they did NOT want) -- they had $35 billion in equity capital even with a 100% write-off of AIGs amount.
.
"Hank" Greenberg resigned as CEO of AIG amidst an accounting scandal in 2005. AIG had to restate financial earnings for the years 2000-2004. They were fined 1.6 billion dollars and criminal charges were brought against some AIG executives (one was sentenced to 4 years in prison). Greenberg admitted to being involved in a $500 million accounting fraud.
You make it sound like it was wrong to replace Greenberg. I can find no evidence that Greenberg's successor (Martin Sullivan) was appointed by politicians.
Chuck Prince resigned as CEO of Citigroup in late 2007 during a time when the mortgage industry was failing. I can find no evidence that he, or his successor, were politically appointed.
Sullivan and Prince were both chosen by NYS AG Elliot Spitzer. Both companies were told they would NOT be given the authority to operate in NY State unless their CEOs met with "his approval." What do you think that means ?
The lawsuits were politicized nonsense in the wake of the 2000-02 Tech Bubble implosion. You have trillions in underfunded pension plans being covered up by the same politicians micromanaging GAAP acounting which is not black-or-white.
The Guardian is a far-Left Socialist rag -- I thought you didn't like Socialism ?
Prince was guilty, Greenberg and Greenspan were warning in 2002. Again, I know because we had both guys speak at our trade organization. So I know 1st-hand that they were aware of the problem -- The Guardian is FOS.
Their 25 critiques are factually wrong, partially defamatory, and historicially inaccurate. Tell me what The Guardian is saying about the $36,000,000,000 CSPF bailout.
I'll tell you: nothing. It helps the political party they align with.
@GoldFinger1969 said:
Sullivan and Prince were both chosen by NYS AG Elliot Spitzer. Both companies were told they would NOT be given the authority to operate in NY State unless their CEOs met with "his approval." What do you think that means ?
The lawsuits were politicized nonsense in the wake of the 2000-02 Tech Bubble implosion. You have trillions in underfunded pension plans being covered up by the same politicians micromanaging GAAP acounting which is not black-or-white.
The Guardian is a far-Left Socialist rag -- I thought you didn't like Socialism ?
Prince was guilty, Greenberg and Greenspan were warning in 2002. Again, I know because we had both guys speak at our trade organization. So I know 1st-hand that they were aware of the problem -- The Guardian is FOS.
Their 25 critiques are factually wrong, partially defamatory, and historicially inaccurate. Tell me what The Guardian is saying about the $36,000,000,000 CSPF bailout.
I'll tell you: nothing. It helps the political party they align with.
.
Even if he did know ahead of time, Greenspan didn't act because the Fed member/owner banks didn't want him to.
You keep bringing up the CSPF bailout. That is not what we are talking about, but whatever. The Teamsters Union spends money on lobbying Congress and political donations (possibly about $7 million in the 2022 election cycle). In the grand scheme of things that doesn't seem like a whole lot, but it is enough to get significant political favors. The only way to reduce this sort of thing is complete and rigid campaign finance reform.
In this same vein, banks also donate to politicians for favorable legislation. Banks always seem to be lobbying for looser regulation. Wells Fargo donated about $2.8 million in the 2022 election cycle. Other major banks contributed: JP Morgan Chase, $1.6 million; Bank of America $1 million; etc. Some entity called "Amalgamated Bank" apparently donated $25 million.
I'm not a Guardian fan. But tell us specifically what is "defamatory and inaccurate" in their article.
@dcarr said:
Even if he did know ahead of time, Greenspan didn't act because the Fed member/owner banks didn't want him to.
He did act, he raised rates 17 times beginning in 2004. What do you want him to do, raise rates in a recession right on the heels of September 11th ?
You keep bringing up the CSPF bailout. That is not what we are talking about, but whatever. The Teamsters Union >spends money on lobbying Congress and political donations (possibly about $7 million in the 2022 election cycle). In >the grand scheme of things that doesn't seem like a whole lot, but it is enough to get significant political favors. The >only way to reduce this sort of thing is complete and rigid campaign finance reform.
The AFL-CIO and Teamsters spend HUNDREDS of millions in direct contributions plus the manning of phone banks. Again, you don't read about it in your biased sources so you are unaware of it.
BTW, if you predicted the peak of the housing bubble I presume you made a fortune and shorted real estate, right ?
In this same vein, banks also donate to politicians for favorable legislation. Banks always seem to be lobbying for >looser regulation. Wells Fargo donated about $2.8 million in the 2022 election cycle. Other major banks contributed: >JP Morgan Chase, $1.6 million; Bank of America $1 million; etc. Some entity called "Amalgamated Bank" apparently >donated $25 million.
The "entity" is a labor-union bank where all profits go back to Big Unions. Again, you're caught even when you find something useful !!
The Wall Street banks lobby to have their views represented. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their communities, employees, and shareholders.
I'm not a Guardian fan. But tell us specifically what is "defamatory and inaccurate" in their article.
The statements blaming individuals who warned about the housing bubble while ignoring those who kept stoking the bubble as late as 2008, such as Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep. Barney Frank.
The Guardian invented false statements like Meredith Whitney saying Citibank had to cut the dividend or face bankruptcy. I talked to Meredith a dozen times in 2007-09...she NEVER said that.
@dcarr said:
Even if he did know ahead of time, Greenspan didn't act because the Fed member/owner banks didn't want him to.
He did act, he raised rates 17 times beginning in 2004. What do you want him to do, raise rates in a recession right on the heels of September 11th ?
You keep bringing up the CSPF bailout. That is not what we are talking about, but whatever. The Teamsters Union >spends money on lobbying Congress and political donations (possibly about $7 million in the 2022 election cycle). In >the grand scheme of things that doesn't seem like a whole lot, but it is enough to get significant political favors. The >only way to reduce this sort of thing is complete and rigid campaign finance reform.
The AFL-CIO and Teamsters spend HUNDREDS of millions in direct contributions plus the manning of phone banks. Again, you don't read about it in your biased sources so you are unaware of it.
BTW, if you predicted the peak of the housing bubble I presume you made a fortune and shorted real estate, right ?
In this same vein, banks also donate to politicians for favorable legislation. Banks always seem to be lobbying for >looser regulation. Wells Fargo donated about $2.8 million in the 2022 election cycle. Other major banks contributed: >JP Morgan Chase, $1.6 million; Bank of America $1 million; etc. Some entity called "Amalgamated Bank" apparently >donated $25 million.
The "entity" is a labor-union bank where all profits go back to Big Unions. Again, you're caught even when you find something useful !!
The Wall Street banks lobby to have their views represented. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their communities, employees, and shareholders.
I'm not a Guardian fan. But tell us specifically what is "defamatory and inaccurate" in their article.
The statements blaming individuals who warned about the housing bubble while ignoring those who kept stoking the bubble as late as 2008, such as Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep. Barney Frank.
The Guardian invented false statements like Meredith Whitney saying Citibank had to cut the dividend or face bankruptcy. I talked to Meredith a dozen times in 2007-09...she NEVER said that.
The Federal Reserve has other tools besides interest rates. Greenspan could have altered the regulations. Besides your "trade group" did Greenspan ever publicly voice concerns over derivatives and 125% equity loans ? Did he ever mention it in Congressional testimony ?
You think the Federal Reserve should be completely independent in operation and policy, and that if it were beholden to the American public it would be compromised. Well, the Fed is already the puppet of the member/owner banks. And the Fed's operation and policy is designed to serve those member/owner banks first.
I'll remember not to become a customer of Amalgamated Bank. Any entity that donates that much for political reasons is not to be trusted. The amounts that Federal Reserve member/owner banks made in political contributions and lobbying is just what I found when I scratched the surface. There is probably a lot more.
What money I have has never been invested with "Wall Street", except for a 401K I once had, but cashed out of years ago (I didn't like the investment options that it provided).
Barney Frank should definitely be on the list. A typical politician who causes a major problem and then pats themselves on the back when they "fix" it.
Too much paper gold and silver to do that in the short term. We are now over $2K though. I remember Covid and 2009 and AU/AG was cheap compared to what it should be so I tried to buy physical - I could not find it any place close to spot. There was a good article I read about someone who actually had options and tried to take delivery. It was awful.
I think gold suffers from crypto stealing part of its role as a risk hedge and cashless barter. Maybe get some of that back if regulators sort the crypto play in laundering and tax evasion.
I don't own crypto but do own gold. I like being able to touch it. LOL.
Collector of Modern Silver Proofs 1950-1964 -- PCGS Registry as Elite Cameo
Interesting discussion, if gold does goes to 5k or even 10k do you think there is any possibility that traditional buyers the average person would sell to , coin shops for example, refuse to buy it at that price?
I know there are stores around my area that will take gold for goods, but they are getting fewer and far between these day.
@badger said:
I think gold suffers from crypto stealing part of its role as a risk hedge and cashless barter. Maybe get some of that back if regulators sort the crypto play in laundering and tax evasion.
I don't own crypto but do own gold. I like being able to touch it. LOL.
That's definitely true....same with U.S. Treasuries being a store of value.
Interesting fact: In 1980, 7 years after exchange rates were allowed to float and the Bretton Woods system was no more, gold and foreign exchange trading volumes were EACH about $1 billion a day.
Today, gold trading is about $50 billion a day....and currency trading is about $7 TRILLION a day !!!
@Goldminers said:
To infinity and beyond. Yes, this time is different. I expect quick to $2100, small pull back profit taking, then up to > > new higher levels.
As gold goes higher, it drags up the numismatic benchmarks.
By 2030, we will have set new ATHs in the price for an MS-65 Saint Double Eagle.
@GoldFinger1969 said: Well, another good week for gold. Continues to hang around $2,000. Could do it for weeks or months or even years but I continue to think that years from now....looking at a long-term chart....we'll look at $2,000 and ounce as a buying opportunity that laid there for YEARS...and nobody banged the drums...for bullion or investment-grade coins.
Simply another bad week for dollars. Gold is simply the canary in the coal mine.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
@derryb said:
Simply another bad week for dollars. Gold is simply the canary in the coal mine.
Look, I get that in the intermediate term gold and the dollar are generally inversely related. But if you check out the 5-day and 6-month charts, both gold and the dollar are UP from period lows and flat from when you start the excercise:
Over time, gold can move up without a dollar collapse. Global reserve currency financial superpowers with the preeminent military and the deepest, most liquid financial markets backed by the rule of law....do not go down the tubes overnight.
Hell, Greece embraced Socialism in 1980 and it took 30 years for them to go down the crapper.
Me ? I am, but not as much as I would like. I'd buy here...I'd buy at $1,800....again, I'm not concerned with the actual price of gold. I also am NOT saying go out and buy it all now.
I freely admit gold could still lie within $200 of $2,000 for another year or two, maybe more. I can't predict the move.
Again....I don't know where the next $200 or so in gold is (up or down)...but I do believe the next $1,000 is UP.
I don't want to be here when gold is approaching $3,000 posting that I hope it corrects to $2,700 and I'll pounce. The time to "pounce" is now....as it has been for the last few years....as it still is probably going forward.
@dcarr said:
The contrarian indicator strikes again !
.
I've been accumulating gold since $350ozT. Perhaps you should stick with peddling your gutter metal fantasy trinkets? THKS!
.
Maybe you should realize that people didn't buy silver at $50 per ounce like you always assume.
And maybe one day you will realize that people accumulating physical silver since it was $4 an ounce are doing all right.
@dcarr said:
The contrarian indicator strikes again !
.
I've been accumulating gold since $350ozT. Perhaps you should stick with peddling your gutter metal fantasy trinkets? THKS!
.
Maybe you should realize that people didn't buy silver at $50 per ounce like you always assume.
And maybe one day you will realize that people accumulating physical silver since it was $4 an ounce are doing all right.
.
Stack on Skippy. I'm sure break even for you will be right around the corner. :roll LLZ!
@dcarr said:
The contrarian indicator strikes again !
.
I've been accumulating gold since $350ozT. Perhaps you should stick with peddling your gutter metal fantasy trinkets? THKS!
.
Maybe you should realize that people didn't buy silver at $50 per ounce like you always assume.
And maybe one day you will realize that people accumulating physical silver since it was $4 an ounce are doing all right.
.
Stack on Skippy. I'm sure break even for you will be right around the corner. :roll LLZ!
.
Ooh, I'm glad to read that. You are the best contrarian indicator.
PS:
I've accumulated a few silver "collector" coins and I've produced some as well. But I don't consider myself a "stacker".
When gold was at $200, $2000 gold was a conspiracy theory fact. When hope dies, gold flies.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Long term gold price will continue to be reflected by long term dollar mismanagement.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
The metal of kings will continue NORTH and it has absolutely nothing to do with "longterm $$$ mismanagement". The gutter metal, expect the lost groundhog decades to continue. Opposite directions. Magin Dat! Hoard on! THKS!!!
Comments
Free money everywhere! Might not grow on trees.... but certainly seems to fall from the sky in some areas! (I keep watching for some in my back yard.... so far not much coming my way. Must be a 'drought' in my area. Climate change, global warming you know.)
Since the Fed can create fiat at will and buy whatever they want, the fact that they are buying real estate is no surprise. And they're doing it with newly-created fiat, anytime they want. So who owns the properties? The directors of the Fed banks? The upper management? Of course.
Banks like JPM can issue loans at will with no capital reserve requirement. That's 100% leverage. And buying anything with imaginary, newly-created money is unethical at best, and should be prosecuted for criminal fraud. But, they won't be.
I knew it would happen.
As for $5000 gold, not sure if that will become reality or not. But sure seems to make sense to have some portion of assets in it.
These days, 5,000 is just a number. Pick any number. Congress can pick their own numbers for debt and fiat. Physical gold is a real thing that responds to the imaginary output from the Fed. The number doesn't matter as much as the physical reality.
I knew it would happen.
It was all or mostly paid back.
Again...tell us when the Teamsters pay back the $36 Billion.
False. You have clearly never looked at a bank's balance sheet or 10-K.
dcarr said:
They don't. This is a tiny portion of their risk capital that is probably not even part of their regulatory capital.
Do you understand how regulation works ? Do you think regulators allow firms like GS to invest in risky real estate ?
I presume everyone know what "dcarr" stands for. "Dan" is just shorthand for dcarr. I thought it was more respectful and a nice change of pace rather than typing "dcarr" all the times.
My name is Mike if you want to use that.
But it remains that there were numerous bank bailouts, something you said did not occur.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
.> @GoldFinger1969 said:
.
"They don't" [put their own capital into real estate] ?
So are you disputing the Bloomberg article which indicates that they did ?
You keep trying to dismiss the issue claiming that it is a relatively small amount of money for a big bank such as Goldman Sachs. The article only mentions one instance, from one bank. How many more instances are there ?
"Risk Capital" or "Regulatory Capital" - you admit that you don't know (I don't know either).
But either way, these large banks have a privileged position with ties to the Federal Reserve and they are doing a lot more with the "free" money than making loans and investing clients' money.
.
False. You have clearly never looked at a bank's balance sheet or 10-K.
Which balance sheet? The one you see, or the one you will never get to see? Do you think that the regulators are about ready to start doing their jobs?
I knew it would happen.
But it remains that there were numerous bank bailouts, something you said did not occur.
They certainly did bail out AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be made whole, so that all of their bonuses could be paid.
I knew it would happen.
That never happened but keep believeing it did.
Well, another good week for gold. Continues to hang around $2,000. Could do it for weeks or months or even years but I continue to think that years from now....looking at a long-term chart....we'll look at $2,000 and ounce as a buying opportunity that laid there for YEARS...and nobody banged the drums...for bullion or investment-grade coins.
AIG would have failed, if not for being rescued by the Fed.
Where was the Federal Reserve in 2006 when hucksters on TV were offering 125% equity home loans ?
It was obvious that would end badly. But AIG was happy to keep raking in money by writing insurance polices for increasingly-dubious Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS). Banks gobbled up the MBS and that allowed the 125% equity loan scheme to go on (for a while). The Fed did nothing. When the whole thing fell apart and MBS tanked, AIG couldn't cover all the MBS insurance policies they wrote. If not for the rescue, AIG would have been unable to pay the substantial amount that they owed to Goldman Sachs and others.
I agree with that in all likelihood. Let the record show that politicians chose the CEO of AIG, replacing multi-decade founder Hank Greenberg. Also chose the CEO of Citibank, Chuck Prince. Both companies needed financial assistance because of the stupidity of their politically-appointed CEOs.
First, the GSEs -- Fannie & Freddie -- were the main promoters of the housing bubble. 1 political party was the driving force behind "crap mortgages" going back to HUD and 1998.
You are wrong about The Fed. The Fed (Greenspan) wanted it reigned in as early as 2002. I know, because my trade group was involved in the effort. It was shut down by elected officials of BOTH parties, but again, mostly from 1 political party.
Goldman would have been paid back -- at least 80 cents on the dollar, and probably 100 cents within 12-18 months. Even a 100% write-off wouldn't have killed Goldman and they STILL wouldn't have needed TARP $$$ (which they did NOT want) -- they had $35 billion in equity capital even with a 100% write-off of AIGs amount.
.
"Hank" Greenberg resigned as CEO of AIG amidst an accounting scandal in 2005. AIG had to restate financial earnings for the years 2000-2004. They were fined 1.6 billion dollars and criminal charges were brought against some AIG executives (one was sentenced to 4 years in prison). Greenberg admitted to being involved in a $500 million accounting fraud.
You make it sound like it was wrong to replace Greenberg. I can find no evidence that Greenberg's successor (Martin Sullivan) was appointed by politicians.
Chuck Prince resigned as CEO of Citigroup in late 2007 during a time when the mortgage industry was failing. I can find no evidence that he, or his successor, were politically appointed.
Hank Greenberg, Chuck Prince, and Alan Greenspan were named as three of the top 25 people who didn't see the mortgage crisis coming:
https://theguardian.com/business/2009/jan/26/road-ruin-recession-individuals-economy
I saw it coming, the very moment I saw a commercial on TV touting a 125% home equity loan.
.
Sullivan and Prince were both chosen by NYS AG Elliot Spitzer. Both companies were told they would NOT be given the authority to operate in NY State unless their CEOs met with "his approval." What do you think that means ?
The lawsuits were politicized nonsense in the wake of the 2000-02 Tech Bubble implosion. You have trillions in underfunded pension plans being covered up by the same politicians micromanaging GAAP acounting which is not black-or-white.
The Guardian is a far-Left Socialist rag -- I thought you didn't like Socialism ?
Prince was guilty, Greenberg and Greenspan were warning in 2002. Again, I know because we had both guys speak at our trade organization. So I know 1st-hand that they were aware of the problem -- The Guardian is FOS.
Their 25 critiques are factually wrong, partially defamatory, and historicially inaccurate. Tell me what The Guardian is saying about the $36,000,000,000 CSPF bailout.
I'll tell you: nothing. It helps the political party they align with.
.
Even if he did know ahead of time, Greenspan didn't act because the Fed member/owner banks didn't want him to.
You keep bringing up the CSPF bailout. That is not what we are talking about, but whatever. The Teamsters Union spends money on lobbying Congress and political donations (possibly about $7 million in the 2022 election cycle). In the grand scheme of things that doesn't seem like a whole lot, but it is enough to get significant political favors. The only way to reduce this sort of thing is complete and rigid campaign finance reform.
In this same vein, banks also donate to politicians for favorable legislation. Banks always seem to be lobbying for looser regulation. Wells Fargo donated about $2.8 million in the 2022 election cycle. Other major banks contributed: JP Morgan Chase, $1.6 million; Bank of America $1 million; etc. Some entity called "Amalgamated Bank" apparently donated $25 million.
I'm not a Guardian fan. But tell us specifically what is "defamatory and inaccurate" in their article.
.
He did act, he raised rates 17 times beginning in 2004. What do you want him to do, raise rates in a recession right on the heels of September 11th ?
The AFL-CIO and Teamsters spend HUNDREDS of millions in direct contributions plus the manning of phone banks. Again, you don't read about it in your biased sources so you are unaware of it.
BTW, if you predicted the peak of the housing bubble I presume you made a fortune and shorted real estate, right ?
The "entity" is a labor-union bank where all profits go back to Big Unions. Again, you're caught even when you find something useful !!
The Wall Street banks lobby to have their views represented. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their communities, employees, and shareholders.
The statements blaming individuals who warned about the housing bubble while ignoring those who kept stoking the bubble as late as 2008, such as Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep. Barney Frank.
The Guardian invented false statements like Meredith Whitney saying Citibank had to cut the dividend or face bankruptcy. I talked to Meredith a dozen times in 2007-09...she NEVER said that.
The Federal Reserve has other tools besides interest rates. Greenspan could have altered the regulations. Besides your "trade group" did Greenspan ever publicly voice concerns over derivatives and 125% equity loans ? Did he ever mention it in Congressional testimony ?
You think the Federal Reserve should be completely independent in operation and policy, and that if it were beholden to the American public it would be compromised. Well, the Fed is already the puppet of the member/owner banks. And the Fed's operation and policy is designed to serve those member/owner banks first.
I'll remember not to become a customer of Amalgamated Bank. Any entity that donates that much for political reasons is not to be trusted. The amounts that Federal Reserve member/owner banks made in political contributions and lobbying is just what I found when I scratched the surface. There is probably a lot more.
What money I have has never been invested with "Wall Street", except for a 401K I once had, but cashed out of years ago (I didn't like the investment options that it provided).
Barney Frank should definitely be on the list. A typical politician who causes a major problem and then pats themselves on the back when they "fix" it.
Too much paper gold and silver to do that in the short term. We are now over $2K though. I remember Covid and 2009 and AU/AG was cheap compared to what it should be so I tried to buy physical - I could not find it any place close to spot. There was a good article I read about someone who actually had options and tried to take delivery. It was awful.
You needed to start with a $20 bill.
Analyst on CNBC said look for these things as a sign gold is going higher (much higher):
Stays above $2,000 an ounce, preferably a new ATH closer to $2,100
A cover story in BARRON'S signifying increased retail interest in gold.
250,000 contracts traded on the gold contract at the CME.
Back over $2,000....we have crossed that line to the upside and downside ALOT the last 4 years.
Technically significant.
I think gold suffers from crypto stealing part of its role as a risk hedge and cashless barter. Maybe get some of that back if regulators sort the crypto play in laundering and tax evasion.
I don't own crypto but do own gold. I like being able to touch it. LOL.
Link to 1950 - 1964 Proof Registry Set
1938 - 1964 Proof Jeffersons w/ Varieties
One of these days the Metal of Kings will cross the $2k and never look back. Perhaps this is the day? RGDS!
Plenty of laundering and tax evasion surrounding the Metal of Kings as well.
I own all the above, diversification is a wonderful thing. THKS!
Hi all, I'm new to the forums.
Interesting discussion, if gold does goes to 5k or even 10k do you think there is any possibility that traditional buyers the average person would sell to , coin shops for example, refuse to buy it at that price?
I know there are stores around my area that will take gold for goods, but they are getting fewer and far between these day.
That's definitely true....same with U.S. Treasuries being a store of value.
Interesting fact: In 1980, 7 years after exchange rates were allowed to float and the Bretton Woods system was no more, gold and foreign exchange trading volumes were EACH about $1 billion a day.
Today, gold trading is about $50 billion a day....and currency trading is about $7 TRILLION a day !!!
Pushing to a new all-time high. $2,045 in after-hours. BTC also strong. Definitely seasonals and risk-on trades.
Triple top approaching at $2,075, give-or-take.
To infinity and beyond. Yes, this time is different. I expect quick to $2100, small pull back profit taking, then up to new higher levels.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
As gold goes higher, it drags up the numismatic benchmarks.
By 2030, we will have set new ATHs in the price for an MS-65 Saint Double Eagle.
New intraday all-time high for gold.....$2,096.
Simply another bad week for dollars. Gold is simply the canary in the coal mine.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Look, I get that in the intermediate term gold and the dollar are generally inversely related. But if you check out the 5-day and 6-month charts, both gold and the dollar are UP from period lows and flat from when you start the excercise:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/dxy
Over time, gold can move up without a dollar collapse. Global reserve currency financial superpowers with the preeminent military and the deepest, most liquid financial markets backed by the rule of law....do not go down the tubes overnight.
Hell, Greece embraced Socialism in 1980 and it took 30 years for them to go down the crapper.
My Gold and my Dollars are doing just fine. Sleeping like a baby. BOOMIN!
RGDS!
Blast off!
NRTH!
Are you buying at this level?
Me ? I am, but not as much as I would like. I'd buy here...I'd buy at $1,800....again, I'm not concerned with the actual price of gold. I also am NOT saying go out and buy it all now.
I freely admit gold could still lie within $200 of $2,000 for another year or two, maybe more. I can't predict the move.
Again....I don't know where the next $200 or so in gold is (up or down)...but I do believe the next $1,000 is UP.
I don't want to be here when gold is approaching $3,000 posting that I hope it corrects to $2,700 and I'll pounce. The time to "pounce" is now....as it has been for the last few years....as it still is probably going forward.
.
The contrarian indicator strikes again !
.
I've been accumulating gold since $350ozT. Perhaps you should stick with peddling your gutter metal fantasy trinkets? THKS!
.
Maybe you should realize that people didn't buy silver at $50 per ounce like you always assume.
And maybe one day you will realize that people accumulating physical silver since it was $4 an ounce are doing all right.
.
Stack on Skippy. I'm sure break even for you will be right around the corner. :roll LLZ!
.
Ooh, I'm glad to read that. You are the best contrarian indicator.
PS:
I've accumulated a few silver "collector" coins and I've produced some as well. But I don't consider myself a "stacker".
.
When gold was at $200, $2000 gold was a conspiracy theory fact. When hope dies, gold flies.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Well, gold hasn't been $200 since the 1970's about 48 years ago. Not sure those people are still around.
Gold has been basing aabout $1,800 - $2,000 for over a decade. We WILL liftoff to $3,000 but it might be next year or 2025. No way to tell.
Just buy what you can in the meantime rather than hope for ridiculous prices like $1,400.
Long term gold price will continue to be reflected by long term dollar mismanagement.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
The metal of kings will continue NORTH and it has absolutely nothing to do with "longterm $$$ mismanagement". The gutter metal, expect the lost groundhog decades to continue. Opposite directions. Magin Dat! Hoard on! THKS!!!