Options
P.M.'s are Sliding, & Oil is rising
mach19
Posts: 4,756 ✭✭✭✭
TIN SOLDIERS & NIXON COMING 
0
Comments
roadrunner
True enough, but nothing, absolutely nothing compares to the bailout of Bear Stearns in terms of fleecing the American Public, both from the standpoint of the banks & Fed, as well as the speculators in housing who deserve nothing more than to go under.
I knew it would happen.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Maybe those struggling folks should come on out and go to work on oil wells like the rest of us. Help wanted signs everywhere.
---At 1.07AM when you posted you were correct. Sorry, didn't see the time---
<< <i>True enough, but nothing, absolutely nothing compares to the bailout of Bear Stearns in terms of fleecing the American Public, both from the standpoint of the banks & Fed, as well as the speculators in housing who deserve nothing more than to go under. >>
While I agree with your point of view here, the problem is that had Bear Stearns failed, it would have been the first in a long string of dominoes.
We might be looking back to St. Patrick's Day as the start of the second great depression.
I'm not worried about filling my gas tank, but I was entertaining the idea of selling my home and bailing out on the rat race. I'm no speculator in real estate, this is my home.
As it stands now, I'd lose at least 150K compared to selling it a year ago. I'm sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place in that sense.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
I disagree. There isn't enough oil to meet demand. There is no slack in the system. I don't believe Saudi Arabia or any other owner of cheap oil can increase supply. Oil will hit $200/barrel in less than 10 years. Sell your gas guzzler while you can. Not too long from now you will be wishing gas were only $4/gallon again.
<<True enough, but nothing, absolutely nothing compares to the bailout of Bear Stearns in terms of fleecing the American Public, both from the standpoint of the banks & Fed>>
Bear guaranteed so many derivatives (over one trillion (with a T) bucks worth) failure would have brought the global banking system to a halt. If you think the economy is bad now you can't imagine how bad it would get if Bear failed. It had to be saved. While the taxpaying public is guaranteeing some loans Bear's shareholders shouldered the vast majority of the burden of this takeover. Shares went from the mid 100s to $10. This was a reasonable solution that put the losses where they belonged, the investors.
I think gold will go back up. I just bought some more today including some world gold coins.
<< <i>I disagree. There isn't enough oil to meet demand. There is no slack in the system. I don't believe Saudi Arabia or any other owner of cheap oil can increase supply. Oil will hit $200/barrel in less than 10 years. Sell your gas guzzler while you can. Not too long from now you will be wishing gas were only $4/gallon again. >>
Long term, I agree with you. But in the near term it's way overdone.
There were plenty of times inventory reports came in light in years past. But these days when it happens, speculators and people chasing the last bubbles in the financial markets bid it up another $10.
We might be looking back to St. Patrick's Day as the start of the second great depression.
The problem has not been solved. Using public funds to protect corrupt corporate managements is corrupt to the core. The problem will continue to recur in ways that will only become worse if it is not solved in legitimate ways. Just my opinion.
I was entertaining the idea of selling my home and bailing out on the rat race. I'm no speculator in real estate, this is my home.
As it stands now, I'd lose at least 150K compared to selling it a year ago. I'm sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place in that sense.
If you wonder where your equity went, the first place to start looking would be JPMorgan, courtesy of the FED. And that's exactly why I insist that the problem is only getting worse.
Bear guaranteed so many derivatives (over one trillion (with a T) bucks worth) failure would have brought the global banking system to a halt. If you think the economy is bad now you can't imagine how bad it would get if Bear failed. It had to be saved. While the taxpaying public is guaranteeing some loans Bear's shareholders shouldered the vast majority of the burden of this takeover. Shares went from the mid 100s to $10. This was a reasonable solution that put the losses where they belonged, the investors.
Shares should have been valued at $0. The real losers are the American Public. The corporate officers at Bear Stearns haven't been punished that I've heard, have you? Isn't what they did akin to counterfeiting? Tell me that this isn't collusion on a grand scale, being perpetrated by the banks, and the Fed. Go ahead, and tell me that it's not.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>the problem is that had Bear Stearns failed, it would have been the first in a long string of dominoes.
We might be looking back to St. Patrick's Day as the start of the second great depression.
The problem has not been solved. Using public funds to protect corrupt corporate managements is corrupt to the core. The problem will continue to recur in ways that will only become worse if it is not solved in legitimate ways. Just my opinion.
I was entertaining the idea of selling my home and bailing out on the rat race. I'm no speculator in real estate, this is my home.
As it stands now, I'd lose at least 150K compared to selling it a year ago. I'm sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place in that sense.
If you wonder where your equity went, the first place to start looking would be JPMorgan, courtesy of the FED. And that's exactly why I insist that the problem is only getting worse.
Bear guaranteed so many derivatives (over one trillion (with a T) bucks worth) failure would have brought the global banking system to a halt. If you think the economy is bad now you can't imagine how bad it would get if Bear failed. It had to be saved. While the taxpaying public is guaranteeing some loans Bear's shareholders shouldered the vast majority of the burden of this takeover. Shares went from the mid 100s to $10. This was a reasonable solution that put the losses where they belonged, the investors.
Shares should have been valued at $0. The real losers are the American Public. The corporate officers at Bear Stearns haven't been punished that I've heard, have you? Isn't what they did akin to counterfeiting? Tell me that this isn't collusion on a grand scale, being perpetrated by the banks, and the Fed. Go ahead, and tell me that it's not. >>
We would be A LOT worse off had BSC gone under. Maybe this is just a band aid, but band aids often keep infections from starting.
JPM didnt take anyones home equity. RE prices were at unsustainable and unsupprtable prices. They NEVER should have been so high. This is the same as saying JPM took your money in the internet stocks in 2000. If you were fool enough to buy stocks trading at 100x book value or 1000x profits then you should lose your money. The same applies if you spent too much for a house. People with no brains or common sense soon have no money.
The CEO of BSC lost almost $1 billion. He didnt do anything illegal, yet he sure paid in the wallet.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Well, that was a short 3 hour correction. Hitting about $905 and then coming right back.
Oil's response to the FED's liquidity injections is what one would expect To start blaming the oil companies and the milk man for rising prices is absurd. The FED, Treasury, and major banks/brokerages are the source of all this. They should get the blame, yet they keep on talking out the side of their faces saying how "WE" need to stop rising prices. Mrs. Pot.........meet Mr. Kettle. What do you think happens when you create TRILLIONs in liquidity out of thin air?
roadrunner
Bear's building in New York is worth a lot. It was hard to value some of the illiquid derivatives. The clearing desk was worth something. I'd say Bear was worth about $10/share.
Counterfeiting? No, it's not.
Collusion? Deals are made daily on Wall Street but, like the Bear deal, they are not made to defraud people so no it wasn't collusion.
Corporate officers at Bear lost hundreds of millions of dollars of the value of their Bear stock. Bear CEO Jimmy Cayne lost $500 million. He did nothing illegal. He lost the majority of his fortune because he was a bad manager. That seems fair to me.
The American Public has to date lost nothing on the Bear deal. What axe do you have to grind? Were you fired by Bear or something?
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>I just made a road trip (Apr 8th & 9th) through the heartland of Kansas and Oklahoma and 99% of the pumpers were active in the oil fields. Most of the time, a large percentage of the Grasshoppers are idle...at $100 per barrel you could smell the money comming out of the ground. >>
All those stripper wells are WAY past their prime so oil prices have to be high just to pump the few barrels a day they produce. Easy oil in the US is gone and now we must rely on unfriendly countries to supply us what we need.
<< <i>ummm no slide that I can see either .... me thinks someone has head in sand >>
At the time posted, They were sliding... See ther you go thinking again
<< <i>
<< <i>I just made a road trip (Apr 8th & 9th) through the heartland of Kansas and Oklahoma and 99% of the pumpers were active in the oil fields. Most of the time, a large percentage of the Grasshoppers are idle...at $100 per barrel you could smell the money comming out of the ground. >>
All those stripper wells are WAY past their prime so oil prices have to be high just to pump the few barrels a day they produce. Easy oil in the US is gone and now we must rely on unfriendly countries to supply us what we need. >>
We have plenty of oil in our own country and if the tree huggers would let us drill it and build new refineries, it would be cheaper than importing it, plus it would create more US jobs.
As it is, the Chinese are now drilling off the coast of Florida!!!
Carl, I believe I read recently that Bear's building and property is worth just over 1 billion. While that's nothing in the face of a trillion in derivatives, it is significant.
A billion dollars just isn't worth what it used to be.
John Marnard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920, page 235ff
Gold........+$19.........$934.40
Silver......+$.52........$ 18.19
<< <i>Sort of expected. Another test of the $880-$905 level and I'd say time for another run upwards. Some attractive share prices at these levels. $20's haven't budged much in all this cycling...a good sign.
Well, that was a short 3 hour correction. Hitting about $905 and then coming right back.
Oil's response to the FED's liquidity injections is what one would expect To start blaming the oil companies and the milk man for rising prices is absurd. The FED, Treasury, and major banks/brokerages are the source of all this. They should get the blame, yet they keep on talking out the side of their faces saying how "WE" need to stop rising prices. Mrs. Pot.........meet Mr. Kettle. What do you think happens when you create TRILLIONs in liquidity out of thin air?
roadrunner >>
there is an article in the WSJ today that says pretty much the same thing, except for the fact that the FED may be trying some unprecedented maneuvers soon. it's scary to think that congressmen/women who do know jackdung about the central banking system, role of the FED and the Treasury will be deciding what to do...if i have the time i'll link it but if anyone wants a copy a PM to me will get it, too
this should be over in the econ post....i might just copy paste it there...
<< <i>Yeah.... I like those upward slides.
Gold........+$19.........$934.40
Silver......+$.52........$ 18.19
I was going to say the same thing.
Yes it is significant.
jmski52 said BSC was worth zero but I was pointing out that it was worth around $10 partly because of the positive contribution of the value of their neat building. They have other assets as well. The problem was figuring out exactly how much they might lose. Actually they might not lose much (nobody knows yet), it was just that they borrowed short term and made long term investments then couldn't sell them when their short term creditors demanded payment.
<< <i>
<< <i>I just made a road trip (Apr 8th & 9th) through the heartland of Kansas and Oklahoma and 99% of the pumpers were active in the oil fields. Most of the time, a large percentage of the Grasshoppers are idle...at $100 per barrel you could smell the money comming out of the ground. >>
All those stripper wells are WAY past their prime so oil prices have to be high just to pump the few barrels a day they produce. Easy oil in the US is gone and now we must rely on unfriendly countries to supply us what we need. >>
Being from Wyoming I can tell you that is not true. They have been capping wells since the 1950's. They drill them, then cap them. They are probably pumping only a few % of the wells in the western states and Alaska. I can't say for sure what happens in the rest of the country, but this part of the country I know for sure.
JPM didnt take anyones home equity. RE prices were at unsustainable and unsupprtable prices. They NEVER should have been so high. This is the same as saying JPM took your money in the internet stocks in 2000. If you were fool enough to buy stocks trading at 100x book value or 1000x profits then you should lose your money. The same applies if you spent too much for a house. People with no brains or common sense soon have no money.
The CEO of BSC lost almost $1 billion. He didnt do anything illegal, yet he sure paid in the wallet.
On the contrary, bailing out BSC is no bandaid - it's an undeserved gift. JMP and BSC were both CULPABLE in creating the unsustainable and unsupportable home prices, and in creating massive financial instruments that had no backing in anything.
They geared up and created their OWN debt obligations FAR, FAR BEYOND the value of ANY assets they own, and they sold those instruments in bundles to hedge funds who are looking for high yields. That's not counterfeiting?
They leveraged their fake bonds 34:1 so that they could sell enough of them to pay their corporate officers 7 figures and more, year after year. I remain unconvinced that they didn't know how it would end. In the meantime, they stashed their own money overseas, out of reach - and you can take that to the bank.
For some reason, you can justify me losing all of my money in internet stocks if I bought at the wrong time, and yet you want to protect BSC's CEO from losing it all, even though he caused the destruction of 34X the amount of capital that his whole firm owned! He should lose it all, PLUS 33X more, before he is ever allowed to control any assets of his own in this lifetime. I don't understand your rationale at all, protecting a consumate derivatives schemer who destroys capital by orders of magnitude more than he owns.
Here's the kicker. Who do you think will walk away with the ownership papers to all the properties that get foreclosed? Answer that question, and you might understand why the FED has no business giving my (and your) tax money to the bankers.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Hot money is still chasing oil. Its current price makes no sense from the fundamental standpoint. I hope the oil bubble pops on the speculators, and sooner rather than later. They're fattening up at the expense of the world economy and struggling middle-class families who are giving up everything discretionary just to fill the tank. >>
I doubt that another 4 or 5 dollars a week to fill the tank is killing the middle class. I would think that the grocery bill increase is a MUCH bigger factor.
<< <i>We would be A LOT worse off had BSC gone under. Maybe this is just a band aid, but band aids often keep infections from starting.
JPM didnt take anyones home equity. RE prices were at unsustainable and unsupprtable prices. They NEVER should have been so high. This is the same as saying JPM took your money in the internet stocks in 2000. If you were fool enough to buy stocks trading at 100x book value or 1000x profits then you should lose your money. The same applies if you spent too much for a house. People with no brains or common sense soon have no money.
The CEO of BSC lost almost $1 billion. He didnt do anything illegal, yet he sure paid in the wallet.
On the contrary, bailing out BSC is no bandaid - it's an undeserved gift. JMP and BSC were both CULPABLE in creating the unsustainable and unsupportable home prices, and in creating massive financial instruments that had no backing in anything.
They geared up and created their OWN debt obligations FAR, FAR BEYOND the value of ANY assets they own, and they sold those instruments in bundles to hedge funds who are looking for high yields. That's not counterfeiting?
They leveraged their fake bonds 34:1 so that they could sell enough of them to pay their corporate officers 7 figures and more, year after year. I remain unconvinced that they didn't know how it would end. In the meantime, they stashed their own money overseas, out of reach - and you can take that to the bank.
For some reason, you can justify me losing all of my money in internet stocks if I bought at the wrong time, and yet you want to protect BSC's CEO from losing it all, even though he caused the destruction of 34X the amount of capital that his whole firm owned! He should lose it all, PLUS 33X more, before he is ever allowed to control any assets of his own in this lifetime. I don't understand your rationale at all, protecting a consumate derivatives schemer who destroys capital by orders of magnitude more than he owns.
Here's the kicker. Who do you think will walk away with the ownership papers to all the properties that get foreclosed? Answer that question, and you might understand why the FED has no business giving my (and your) tax money to the bankers. >>
Right!
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Yes, the FED and it's banker buds screwed the pooch and knew exactly the outcome all along. One author has taken this to the next step to say that this was the plan all along. The next step will give more control to the FED to act as watchdog over its own illegal actions. Ain't that a gas. And the sheeple will give more power to the FED to help save our economy (like giving the wolf control over the sheep dogs that guard the sheep). It's a shame, but it's coming unless the FED goes down in flames first. And that could happen if they keep sucking up hundreds of billions in worthless assets.
And to keep the destruction of the economy going the FED is lowering margin requirements for their buddies and re-initiating the same game once again. Any guesses how round 2 will end?
roadrunner
<< <i>The next step will give more control to the FED to act as watchdog over its own illegal actions. Ain't that a gas. And the sheeple will give more power to the FED to help save our economy (like giving the wolf control over the sheep dogs that guard the sheep). >>
And the beat goes on.
Who else but the government can screw things up royally, turn around and say "See? That's why we need more control over things", and actually get people to go along?
If you took your car to the repair shop to get the brakes fixed and found after you drove it home that it was worse than before, would you think it would be a good idea to go back to the same shop when they tell you they did the best they could for what you spent with them and they'll fix it right if you just bring it back and pay them more more money next time around?
<< <i>
<< <i>The next step will give more control to the FED to act as watchdog over its own illegal actions. Ain't that a gas. And the sheeple will give more power to the FED to help save our economy (like giving the wolf control over the sheep dogs that guard the sheep). >>
And the beat goes on.
Who else but the government can screw things up royally, turn around and say "See? That's why we need more control over things", and actually get people to go along?
If you took your car to the repair shop to get the brakes fixed and found after you drove it home that it was worse than before, would you think it would be a good idea to go back to the same shop when they tell you they did the best they could for what you spent with them and they'll fix it right if you just bring it back and pay them more more money next time around? >>
Or actually thank the home invader, armed robber, break and entry thief and other weasel type people after giving up your wallet then go back to watching "the game".
Seems to be the way it is.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>We would be A LOT worse off had BSC gone under. Maybe this is just a band aid, but band aids often keep infections from starting.
JPM didnt take anyones home equity. RE prices were at unsustainable and unsupprtable prices. They NEVER should have been so high. This is the same as saying JPM took your money in the internet stocks in 2000. If you were fool enough to buy stocks trading at 100x book value or 1000x profits then you should lose your money. The same applies if you spent too much for a house. People with no brains or common sense soon have no money.
The CEO of BSC lost almost $1 billion. He didnt do anything illegal, yet he sure paid in the wallet.
On the contrary, bailing out BSC is no bandaid - it's an undeserved gift. JMP and BSC were both CULPABLE in creating the unsustainable and unsupportable home prices, and in creating massive financial instruments that had no backing in anything.
They geared up and created their OWN debt obligations FAR, FAR BEYOND the value of ANY assets they own, and they sold those instruments in bundles to hedge funds who are looking for high yields. That's not counterfeiting?
They leveraged their fake bonds 34:1 so that they could sell enough of them to pay their corporate officers 7 figures and more, year after year. I remain unconvinced that they didn't know how it would end. In the meantime, they stashed their own money overseas, out of reach - and you can take that to the bank.
For some reason, you can justify me losing all of my money in internet stocks if I bought at the wrong time, and yet you want to protect BSC's CEO from losing it all, even though he caused the destruction of 34X the amount of capital that his whole firm owned! He should lose it all, PLUS 33X more, before he is ever allowed to control any assets of his own in this lifetime. I don't understand your rationale at all, protecting a consumate derivatives schemer who destroys capital by orders of magnitude more than he owns.
Here's the kicker. Who do you think will walk away with the ownership papers to all the properties that get foreclosed? Answer that question, and you might understand why the FED has no business giving my (and your) tax money to the bankers. >>
We would not have had a RE bubble if it were not for the GREED of Americans. The bankers may have given them the tools by which to dig their own grave, but Americans didnt have to use them. Just as Sturm Ruger makes handguns doesnt mean you have to use one to shoot yourself in the head. TV shows like "Flip this House" contributed to the greed and envy. I am the last person you would call religious but I think greed and envy are sins. To think you could afford a house that is 10x your income is absolutely absurd. Banks have never wanted to be in the real estate business and they certainly dont now.
And BSC's CEO didnt cause the destruction, it was caused by a lack of confidence. And as you know, a lack of confidence in ANYTHING, will result in failure.
Also, did you know that BSC was the only firm NOT to pony up money to correct the LTCM problem? What comes around, goes around. BSC got what they deserved, nothing more, nothing less.
The more concerning problem you should try to deal with the the global food crop inflation.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
This is only a tiny part of the story unfolding. WE could easily handle the $1-$10 TRILLION or so in mortgage losses that will eventually result. What we can't handle so well is the next way of defaults with CDO's ($45 TRILL), auto loans, credit cards, and misc derivatives totalling up to $550 TRILLION. The little guy had no role in 90% of this scam. Credit goes to the banks, brokerages, corporations, congress, and the FED. Don't lay this one of the little guy buying a home, even a 2nd or 3rd one. Those defaults will pale to what is coming next.
BSC's CEO most certainly was behind/'responsible for the 40-1 leverage being used on stupidly valued OTC derivatives. He's just mad that he didn't get out (or fired) on a golden parachute before the crap hit the fan. What, these guys all figured they invented a new way to make billions in bonuses by repackaging debt? And the blame for this stupidity of leverage is placed at the foot of the investor for not having more confidence in this Ponzi scheme? The confidence excuse is what is being run up the flag so consumers will continue to go back in the water.......all is fixed....we caught the great white shark (BSC). What they don't know was that they only caught the baby. Momma and the rest of her full grown brood are still circling the waters.
roadrunner