A Secretive Banking Elite Rules Trading in Derivatives

[Spiderman]

Been going-on for awhile. Don't hold your breath, waiting for Big Gov to do anything.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/business/12advantage.html?hp

[lamboguy]

these instruments have been used to wreck not only the housing maket but other banks and financial institutions as well. when a financial institution smells that another institution is on the ropes they kick them in between their legs until they get knocked down. they are vicious blood suckers. they operate within the context of laws, that shouldn't be legal. what the banks are doing today is far worse than what the mobsters did in the past. if john gotti knew how easy it was to steal mucho dineros legally he would have gone that route instead of doing what he did and going to the can to finish off his life.

a few quarters ago, goldman sachs reported they made multi-billions trading these markets, during the whole quarter they only had 1 losing day. that is like anyone on this board betting horse for 3 straight months and only losing 1 day. that is impossible to do unless you can rig the game. the last quarter goldman sachs slipped they lost 3 days and made a little less money from their 'trading desks"

[DJofSD]

The last line says it all:

“Fundamentally, the banks are not good at self-regulation,” Mr. Lubke said in a panel last March at Columbia University. “That’s not their expertise, that’s not their primary interest.”

This is just anothe example why former SEC chairamn Cox should be hung on the yardarm.

[slewis]

The last line says it all:



This is just anothe example why former SEC chairamn Cox should be hung on the yardarm.

Could you explain exactly what jurisdiction the SEC has over the interbank derivative market?

[slewis]

these instruments have been used to wreck not only the housing maket but other banks and financial institutions as well. when a financial institution smells that another institution is on the ropes they kick them in between their legs until they get knocked down. they are vicious blood suckers. they operate within the context of laws, that shouldn't be legal. what the banks are doing today is far worse than what the mobsters did in the past. if john gotti knew how easy it was to steal mucho dineros legally he would have gone that route instead of doing what he did and going to the can to finish off his life.

a few quarters ago, goldman sachs reported they made multi-billions trading these markets, during the whole quarter they only had 1 losing day. that is like anyone on this board betting horse for 3 straight months and only losing 1 day. that is impossible to do unless you can rig the game. the last quarter goldman sachs slipped they lost 3 days and made a little less money from their 'trading desks"

So I guess using your theory of wrecking lives, if you invested all of your 401K in one particular stock and that company went bankrupt, the entire theory of the securities industry should be shut down?

The derivatives didn't bankrupt AIG, the traders trading them did.

Goldmans traders, I guess, are just better then everyone else's. They go into work on Monday morning with the same market opportunities other institutions have. NO ONE knows by Friday where the markets will close, it's their jobs as traders to have a "view" of where the markets will be in the future, and use PRUDENT JUDGEMENT to trade accordingly and make profit.

[lamboguy]

i watch gold trading almost on a daily basis on the comex. i see someone put up 40,000 contracts of gold to sell. those guys that claim to be the sellers, in most cases never sell the 40,000 contracts, yet other traders panic and sell theirs and push the price down. when the price comes down the same guys that had the original sells become buyers at cheaper levels.

as you know in the latest housing fiasco, goldman sachs bought up all the derivetives that AIG sold them on the bet that the housing market would collapse. the problem occured that goldman sachs made all that money but could not collect on their bets because AIG was insolvent. the government bailed out AIG so goldman could collect on their bets.

i was in las vegas when the sportsbook gary austin went bancrupt. i was holding a piece of paper that was worth $400 saying that i won a baseball bet on the yankees. no one bailed gary austins out to get me paid off on my piece of paper.

[DJofSD]

Could you explain exactly what jurisdiction the SEC has over the interbank derivative market?
Let me ask a question: what monies were being used in these transactions?

[slewis]

Let me ask a question: what monies were being used in these transactions?

There is no exchange of capital on a derivative contract until settlement.

So the short answer is no money.

[slewis]

i watch gold trading almost on a daily basis on the comex. i see someone put up 40,000 contracts of gold to sell. those guys that claim to be the sellers, in most cases never sell the 40,000 contracts, yet other traders panic and sell theirs and push the price down. when the price comes down the same guys that had the original sells become buyers at cheaper levels.

as you know in the latest housing fiasco, goldman sachs bought up all the derivetives that AIG sold them on the bet that the housing market would collapse. the problem occured that goldman sachs made all that money but could not collect on their bets because AIG was insolvent. the government bailed out AIG so goldman could collect on their bets.

i was in las vegas when the sportsbook gary austin went bancrupt. i was holding a piece of paper that was worth $400 saying that i won a baseball bet on the yankees. no one bailed gary austins out to get me paid off on my piece of paper.


First of all, regarding the first part of your statement, if traders get bluffed into market moves, I guess they dont have enough confidence in themselves.
Too bad. I guess the traders at Goldman, as I stated, are better.

I know many traders that would take that stare down in a second, and they dont work for Goldman.
It's your 'free maket" Lambo, you know, the one the right wingers on this web site preach all the time.

The second part of your statement holds a lot of water and raises the question: "If I'm doing my job, but I take unprudent risk because of the short term profit I'll make, am I breaking the law"?

To this Lambo, you have a wonderful argument.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Could you explain exactly what jurisdiction the SEC has over the interbank derivative market?

As you know, it was Larry Summers who opposed regulating the CDS market back in 1998, another one of his brillant calls. If you don't know how smart Larry is, just ask him. :rolleyes:

[DJofSD]

There is no exchange of capital on a derivative contract until settlement.

So the short answer is no money.

And when the settlement occurs, what money is used?

[slewis]

As you know, it was Larry Summers who opposed regulating the CDS market back in 1998, another one of his brillant calls. If you don't know how smart Larry is, just ask him. :rolleyes:

LOL... What everyone doesn't get Mike, and I've posted this previously, is that the rerason the derivative market grew so quickly is mainly because it is UNREGULATED. Plus, no "cash and carry".. which is a fancy term of no margin requirements for banks. Which means no reporting to the FED.

So for the big mouth know it all economists on PA, like Boxcrap, who in between his bible preaching tries to ram the "Govt stay out of everything" concept down our throats, this catch 22 exists. Just like the health care debate, where Health Ins corporations put profits ahead of peoples lives.

Similar concept, different industry. No Govt regulation=every man for himself=AIG=Govt bailout (or possible world war).

The stupidity of the PA experts.

[Robert Goren]

as you know in the latest housing fiasco, goldman sachs bought up all the derivetives that AIG sold them on the bet that the housing market would collapse. the problem occured that goldman sachs made all that money but could not collect on their bets because AIG was insolvent. the government bailed out AIG so goldman could collect on their bets.Goldman was not the only one hold derivatives from AIG when the housing market collapse. Every big investment bank had some. If the government doesn't cover the derivatives, they all become insolvent and probably take down almost every bank in the country with them.

[slewis]

And when the settlement occurs, what money is used?

Depending on the institution. Obviously if it's a loss it comes from the institutions treasury.
If you read my earlier post you'll learn under no way shape or form are institutions required to include derivative exposure on their balance sheets.

Therefore: No SEC regulation. Sorry.

[DJofSD]

Depending on the institution. Obviously if it's a loss it comes from the institutions treasury.
If you read my earlier post you'll learn under no way shape or form are institutions required to include derivative exposure on their balance sheets.

Therefore: No SEC regulation. Sorry.

OK, perhaps then you've taken me to school. So, for the moment I'll concede the point. However, if I were a share holder in any of those companies, I'd be p*ssed. And, as a taxpayer, I am p*ssed.

[lamboguy]

my biggest problem as a taxpayer is that when a financial institution or corporation makes a profit i see no financial reward. when they lose, i have to share in the losses in the form of bailouts. this happened in our country and is happening right now in ireland, and i suspect it will happen in portugal and spain and probably alot of other places.

when my country prints up money to bail these guys out, it is making the value of the money that i am walking around with worth less.

i have to admit that i am not the most intelligent person in this world, i dropped out of college in my first term. but certain things don't make to much sense from where i am sitting, like bailing out these guys to begin with, and the banks having the pollition's in their back pockets no matter what party they are from.

i am not a righty or a lefty. i am an individual that doesn't like it when someone tries to push my buttons like these political parties and banks are doing at the present time.

[Saratoga_Mike]

LOL... What everyone doesn't get Mike, and I've posted this previously, is that the rerason the derivative market grew so quickly is mainly because it is UNREGULATED. Plus, no "cash and carry".. which is a fancy term of no margin requirements for banks. Which means no reporting to the FED.

So for the big mouth know it all economists on PA, like Boxcrap, who in between his bible preaching tries to ram the "Govt stay out of everything" concept down our throats, this catch 22 exists. Just like the health care debate, where Health Ins corporations put profits ahead of peoples lives.

Similar concept, different industry. No Govt regulation=every man for himself=AIG=Govt bailout (or possible world war).

The stupidity of the PA experts.

Basel II, essentially government regulation, gave Triple-A rated paper, which in many cases turned out to be junk, the same standing in capital standards as US treasuries. If the government hadn't given a few select rating agencies special status, perhaps the crisis would have been more contained because buyers and sellers would have been more cautious when buying up various securities. I'm sure that's what Box was trying to communicate! :)

[boxcar]

LOL... What everyone doesn't get Mike, and I've posted this previously, is that the rerason the derivative market grew so quickly is mainly because it is UNREGULATED. Plus, no "cash and carry".. which is a fancy term of no margin requirements for banks. Which means no reporting to the FED.

So for the big mouth know it all economists on PA, like Boxcrap, who in between his bible preaching tries to ram the "Govt stay out of everything" concept down our throats, this catch 22 exists. Just like the health care debate, where Health Ins corporations put profits ahead of peoples lives.

Similar concept, different industry. No Govt regulation=every man for himself=AIG=Govt bailout (or possible world war).

The stupidity of the PA experts.

I don't think rationing under ObamaCare is working too swell for you. Every few days, it appears, you're off your meds and go sociopathic on us. But other Marxist lovers here have preached that health care is beyond fantastic in the UK, Canada, etc. Might wanna check that out ASAP, lest you be accused of the very stupidity of which you so incessantly accuse everyone else of being guilty. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[delayjf]

So, given their potiential affect on ours and the worlds economy, why aren't they regulated??

[slewis]

So, given their potiential affect on ours and the worlds economy, why aren't they regulated??

Delay,

I want to answer both you and Lambo here. My first day on the job at a bank, we traded 30 million dollars of yen with another bank (we were lenders). I asked my boss "what guarantee do we have that we'll get the money back, plus the interest". He told me the international banking industry is unregulated. He said "the banks reputation" is all you need. If we EVER (or another bank) failed to make good on an obligation, we were done. NO ONE will ever trade with us again. It virtual doom for that institution.

It's a self regulating industry, due to the fact that so much prestiege and world reputation is at stake. The only industry profilactic are "credit limits". In other words, I'll lend you funds all day, every day, until I have what my credit dept deems "too much exposure". At this point, we can no longer lend to you (I can borrow, just cant lend) until previoius trades, some done many moons ago, roll off. This situation is a GLOBAL credit review, whereas, my london trading desk will also no longer be able to lend to you, and it stretches to many trading instruments, until things start rolling off.

The system works. Now there have been "rogue traders" who have "hidden trades" because they were losing money and felt they could "trade their way out of the mess", similarly to a gambler who starts doubling down.
You can google the name "Nick Leeson", as he's the guy who took down a mid sized Brittish Merchant bank this way.
But it only happens if upper executives at the bank get sloppy, and dont check traders positions on a daily basis. There are plenty of checks and balances banks use to prevent this.

But in the case of AIG (and in effect Goldman), it was greed. I use the example of a rogue insurance company that will write millions of hurricane insurance policies on properties in say, South Fla, without having the right amount of reserves to pay off in case a hurricane hit. That's why insurance carriers are regulated by state Govt, so they cant get away with that.
But in the Banking industry, bankers are not supposed to make investments (or trade) to a situation that would "take the bank down".

But what Goldman did was to increase their credit lines to AIG, probably overexposing themselves 20 or 30 times.
What AIG traders did was flat out stupid. They didn't trade. They gambled, like a dumb kid that steals $5000 out of is dad's drawer and goes to Atlantic City.

Now Lambo, you make the valid point about the bailout.
I told people when this all went down (and I posted it here as well), AIG traders knew EXACTLY what the risks were. But they also knew that if they did these deals, they stood to make 100's of millions for the institution.
These guys then make 10's of millions in bonus money.

To me, this is criminal. But go and find a law to prosecute. None exists.
What I was calling for when the Govt bailed them out was to permenantly ban every executive and trader at these firms from the banking or financial industry, for life. But instead, out polliticans get hoodwinked into believing that "these guys were needed to "un-wind" those positions. What a joke.
The American public was robbed, but the criminals were captured and are back on the job. I spoke to a friend the other day and he told me nothing has changed, everyone's making millions and bonuses are huge.

So as long as corporate America continues to have the politicians in their back pockets, you can expect more of the same.

But if you regulate, and prosecute, well then Boxcar calls you a Socialist and "anti business".

So which way do you guys prefer?

[cj's dad]

congrats on posting information which was clear and concise.

I say that because so many of your posts talk down to those of us who you deem to be beneath your intellectual level.

More informative posts such as the previous will be much appreciated.

[lamboguy]

i like his post's as well, and i certainly appreciate him sharing his knowledge of financial markets and sharing them with us.

[Robert Goren]

Slewis, could you explain exactly what a credit default swap and a derivative is? More exactly the ones trade/created by the London office of AIG. I am pretty sure I know, but I would like to see an good explaination of them.

[slewis]

congrats on posting information which was clear and concise.

I say that because so many of your posts talk down to those of us who you deem to be beneath your intellectual level.

More informative posts such as the previous will be much appreciated.


:lol: :lol:

I can PROMISE you (and others) that the LAST THING I ever think is that I'm intellectually above ANYONE and I'm not going to start pretending such on PACE ADVANTAGE.

[boxcar]

:lol: :lol:

I can PROMISE you (and others) that the LAST THING I ever think is that I'm intellectually above ANYONE and I'm not going to start pretending such on PACE ADVANTAGE.

Right. You just pretend that everyone else is intellectually beneath you. And this I can promise you with your long history of posts. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar
P.S. I'm glad to see you've been able to replenish your supply. :D

[johnhannibalsmith]

Not to be redundant, but before Boxcoche jumps in with his saga length rebuttal to Slewis - that was really an excellent post to capture the essence of your position, from your perspective.

[slewis]

Slewis, could you explain exactly what a credit default swap and a derivative is? More exactly the ones trade/created by the London office of AIG. I am pretty sure I know, but I would like to see an good explaination of them.


Wall St. is always looking to get higher yields for investors.



For the example I’ll try and use round numbers:



Banks, write mortgages. They need inflo of cash to continue writing more and more loans. You cant write unlimited loans. You must meet some reserve criteria.



Along comes the Mortgage Backed Security. What they do is BUY a bunch of loans from the Bank in exchange for CASH. The bank, if it sold the mortgages to homebuyers at say 6%, will offer the Mortgage backed Security people at say 4%. The bank has now locked in their profit and the loan is the responsibility of the Mortgage backed Security people, who, in turn, offer a security to investors at say 3% YIELD (which is higher then they are getting in a CD, etc). They “pool” a bunch of these loans together for these securities and what gives the investors their “yield” are the constant flow of homebuyers making their monthly mortgage payments.



But what should happen if the market turned sour and people default on the loans.

Well, a small number of “possible defaults” are built into the yield of the Mortgage Backed security through actuarial statistics and analysis.

No problem. But what happens if A WHOLE BUNCH of people default?



Hence, the “Credit Default Swap” is born.



It is a derivative (a fancy term for contract) which states something to the effect of “You pay me up front, “X number of dollars”, and I’ll take the liability from you should X Y and Z happen.

(Which in essence, was a WHOLE BUNCH OF HOMEBUYERS defaulting on their homes and the Real Estate Market collapsing).

In the case of the Credit Default Swap, it’s an insurance policy against such.

It provided the last bit of protection against the issuers of the Mortgage Backed Securities, making them easier to market.

I never traded them (CDS). I dont hink they existed when I was on Wall St. I traded interest rate swaps, mostly in Deutche Marks and Yen and that was back in the 90's when derivatives first came out.
So when all this went down with Credit Default Swaps, it was kinda new to me too.

[boxcar]

Not to be redundant, but before Boxcoche jumps in with his saga length rebuttal to Slewis - that was really an excellent post to capture the essence of your position, from your perspective.

SL should have stuck with essay. But once he starts defending himself in a separate post, that bit of sophistry should not go unanswered.

I think SL could be suffering from a Good Cop, Bad Cop Syndrome -- all neatly gift-wrapped in one skull. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[slewis]

Right. You just pretend that everyone else is intellectually beneath you. And this I can promise you with your long history of posts. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar
P.S. I'm glad to see you've been able to replenish your supply. :D


You know Boxy, I once had a boss that told me "The reason why you're unpopular is because you can be a very intimidating person, look people square in the eye, and tell them the truth.
People dont want to know the truth, they cant face the reality, they're afraid.
You'd be a lot more popular and will go further in life if you "play the game" " he stated to me.
I told him God didn't put me put on this planet to "play the game".

Even your God can appreciate that.:jump:

[Robert Goren]

Slewis, thank you, that is what I understood. A credit default swap is a fancy term for an insurance policy.

[DJofSD]

People that promote popularity over performance are terrible people to have as your manager. Their opinion is as variable as the wind.

Stick by your guns. It often is the individual that is offended by the way the message is delivered that has a problem, not the person delivering the message. First and foremost, to be offended is a choice -- most often an unconscious one but a choice nonetheless. They can grow and learn to separate their emotional response from their rational understanding of the issue at hand, or, they can stay in a mode of being ruled by their lizard brains, easily manipulated.

[bigmack]

Slewis, thank you, that is what I understood. A credit default swap is a fancy term for an insurance policy.
They structured CDS's to be like insurance but not regulated as such. Clever fellows.

CDS contracts have been compared with insurance, because the buyer pays a premium and, in return, receives a sum of money if one of the events specified in the contract occurs. However, there are a number of differences between CDS and insurance, for example:
The buyer of a CDS does not need to own the underlying security or other form of credit exposure; in fact the buyer does not even have to suffer a loss from the default event.

In contrast, to purchase insurance, the insured is generally expected to have an insurable interest such as owning a debt obligation;
the seller doesn't have to be a regulated entity; the seller is not required to maintain any reserves to pay off buyers, although major CDS dealers are subject to bank capital requirements; insurers manage risk primarily by setting loss reserves based on the Law of large numbers, while dealers in CDS manage risk primarily by means of offsetting CDS (hedging) with other dealers and transactions in underlying bond markets; in the United States CDS contracts are generally subject to mark-to-market accounting, introducing income statement and balance sheet volatility that would not be present in an insurance contract.

[Robert Goren]

I could sell a CDS to Tom on Boxcar's car even though I have no money to pay off if Boxcar wrecks his car. There are no laws against doing this. Is that right? No wonder the whole thing blew up.

[boxcar]

But if you regulate, and prosecute, well then Boxcar calls you a Socialist and "anti business".

This isn't a fair representation of my position. It comes nigh to making me appear to be a anarchist, which I'm not. I'm not anti-government. Nor am I anti-government regulation per se. However, I am very much anti-over-regulation. I'm anti-authoritarianism. I'm anti-government oppression. I'm anti-tyranny. In short, I'm for as limited government as possible.

So which way do you guys prefer?

This guy prefers what I just stated. But admittedly, I am biased about my own carefully thought out positions, informed opinions, etc. :D

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

RG, as a guess, I believe each state has laws that prohibit selling insurance where there is not any underwriting. In essance, you are commiting a fraud.

Also, if you recall, part of the initial debate back when all of the CDS and housing melt down started was whether or not the states had any skin in the game.

[slewis]

I could sell a CDS to Tom on Boxcar's car even though I have no money to pay off if Boxcar wrecks his car. There are no laws against doing this. Is that right? No wonder the whole thing blew up.

Not quite that simple Bobby. Remember, AIG at the time was triple AAA rated with enormous assets to cover most windfalls. I used to hear that bull sh#t from them everytime we turned them down in the trading markets.
They'd call us an complain, with "Why cant you increase your crdit lines to us, do you know what our assets are, blah blah blah"? And they were right.
They were huge. But they were NOT bankers.

Goldman got cozy with them and if Bernanke didn't bail out AIG, Goldmans exposure to them would have bankrupted them too!

You're not talking bout some rinky-dink operation in AIG.

Let me remind everyone that the SWAPS themselves are not evil, nor is the concept. It's when you dont use them PRUDENTLY they create disaster.

Kinda like a gun

[DJofSD]

Not quite that simple Bobby. Remember, AIG at the time was triple AAA rated with enormous assets to cover most windfalls. I used to hear that bull sh#t from them everytime we turned them down in the trading markets.
They'd call us an complain, with "Why cant you increase your crdit lines to us, do you know what our assets are, blah blah blah"? And they were right.
They were huge. But they were NOT bankers.

Goldman got cozy with them and if Bernanke didn't bail out AIG, Goldmans exposure to them would have bankrupted them too!

You're not talking bout some rinky-dink operation in AIG.

Let me remind everyone that the SWAPS themselves are not evil, nor is the concept. It's when you dont use them PRUDENTLY they create disaster.

Kinda like a gun
But without a clearinghouse or some agency providing oversight, how do you know if the assests that are being used to underwrite the derivatives are not being overpledged?

[slewis]

This isn't a fair representation of my position. It comes nigh to making me appear to be a anarchist, which I'm not. I'm not anti-government. Nor am I anti-government regulation per se. However, I am very much anti-over-regulation. I'm anti-authoritarianism. I'm anti-government oppression. I'm anti-tyranny. In short, I'm for as limited government as possible.



This guy prefers what I just stated. But admittedly, I am biased about my own carefully thought out positions, informed opinions, etc. :D

Boxcar

Yes, the question(s) is/are, how "informed" those opinions of yours are.

When people like Mosty and Hcap produce statistics and graphs that constantly expose your position as "un-informed' you dismiss those facts instead of addresing the truth.

When I posted Carly Fiorina outsourced 80,000 jobs, BIGMACK was all over me with the correct statistics. I have no problem admitting the error..(although my conceptual belief on the subject remains intact).
That's a point we could debate going forward.

You rarely (if ever) back up your statements with facts, just your theories of solving society's problems through your bible.

[boxcar]

Yes, the question(s) is/are, how "informed" those opinions of yours are.

When people like Mosty and Hcap produce statistics and graphs that constantly expose your position as "un-informed' you dismiss those facts instead of addresing the truth.

When I posted Carly Fiorina outsourced 80,000 jobs, BIGMACK was all over me with the correct statistics. I have no problem admitting the error..(although my conceptual belief on the subject remains intact).
That's a point we could debate going forward.

You rarely (if ever) back up your statements with facts, just your theories of solving society's problems through your bible.

We can graph each other to death. Numbers can be massaged and/or interpreted to mean different things, as with "man-made" global warming as one great example. Another great example are sports statistics, etc., etc. Or how bookkeepers can "cook the books", etc. Statistics/numbers must be interpreted in their contexts in order to acquire a proper understanding of what is being represented. Don't misunderstand: I'm not dismissing statistics as a legitimate mode of argument or debabe. All I'm saying is that quite often I don't have the time to do the research. However, you are dead wrong when you say that I never have backed up statements with numbers. It would be more accurate to say that I infrequently do.

As far as society's problems are concerned, I find your objection to bible-based solutions to be disingenuous because the Left itself is just as guilty of appealing to the morality of public policy issues as often as the "religious right" does! Great case in point was a few months ago when a bunch of liberals went to the House to present "moral arguments" (laughably based on the bible to boot!) to congress critters for the amnesty of illegals. Or how about all the Class Bigots who incessantly preach their "social gospel" against the evils of Capitalism or the runaway greed of the "rich" who have earned their fortunes on the necks of the poor, etc.? The Left continually talks about "social justice"? And if justice isn't a moral issue, then what is?

Anyway you want to slice it or dice it, SL...at the end of the day what defines a society -- what defines a People -- are the collective morals or ethics of a nation. There's no escaping what we humans are, i.e. moral beings. Therefore, when all is said and done this nation will continue to decline or reverse its course and rise again based on the moral decisions we make as individuals and in the corporate sense within the institution of government.

Boxcar

[slewis]

We can graph each other to death. Numbers can be massaged and/or interpreted to mean different things, as with "man-made" global warming as one great example. Another great example are sports statistics, etc., etc. Or how bookkeepers can "cook the books", etc. Statistics/numbers must be interpreted in their contexts in order to acquire a proper understanding of what is being represented. Don't misunderstand: I'm not dismissing statistics as a legitimate mode of argument or debabe. All I'm saying is that quite often I don't have the time to do the research. However, you are dead wrong when you say that I never have backed up statements with numbers. It would be more accurate to say that I infrequently do.

As far as society's problems are concerned, I find your objection to bible-based solutions to be disingenuous because the Left itself is just as guilty of appealing to the morality of public policy issues as often as the "religious right" does! Great case in point was a few months ago when a bunch of liberals went to the House to present "moral arguments" (laughably based on the bible to boot!) to congress critters for the amnesty of illegals. Or how about all the Class Bigots who incessantly preach their "social gospel" against the evils of Capitalism or the runaway greed of the "rich" who have earned their fortunes on the necks of the poor, etc.? The Left continually talks about "social justice"? And if justice isn't a moral issue, then what is?

Anyway you want to slice it or dice it, SL...at the end of the day what defines a society -- what defines a People -- are the collective morals or ethics of a nation. There's no escaping what we humans are, i.e. moral beings. Therefore, when all is said and done this nation will continue to decline or reverse its course and rise again based on the moral decisions we make as individuals and in the corporate sense within the institution of government.

Boxcar


Pretty much agreed.:ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

Pretty much agreed.:ThmbUp:

Christmas has truly arrived early. I could not have asked for a better present. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar
P.S. Oh...in my excitement, I nearly forgot to thank you, SL. :lol: :lol:

[delayjf]

If you read my earlier post you'll learn under no way shape or form are institutions required to include derivative exposure on their balance sheets.

So lets start regulating them, force them to list them as liabilities on the balance books.

While I am as big a capitalist as anybody, I do believe in oversight and in this case considering the amount of money and the impact on this nations economy, I believe in hefty fines, jail time, and civil liability for violations that occur at the highest corporate levels.

All this discussion about regulations, good and bad, seems vague, perhaps a tread started to specify good regulation vs bad regulation might be more informative.

[acorn54]

the whole banking mess was allowed to happen when clinton repealed the glass-siegal act, which did not allow banks to speculate in the markets. it was a concept that was the result of what happened during the great depression. i guess people never learn.

[slewis]

the whole banking mess was allowed to happen when clinton repealed the glass-siegal act, which did not allow banks to speculate in the markets. it was a concept that was the result of what happened during the great depression. i guess people never learn.


Sorry but you're quite incorrect. I was in the business in the 80's and 90's and 95% of our trading was spec and the other 5% was customer pricing.
The real spec trading started in the 70's.


But you can blame Clinton if you'd like.

[slewis]

So lets start regulating them, force them to list them as liabilities on the balance books.

While I am as big a capitalist as anybody, I do believe in oversight and in this case considering the amount of money and the impact on this nations economy, I believe in hefty fines, jail time, and civil liability for violations that occur at the highest corporate levels.

All this discussion about regulations, good and bad, seems vague, perhaps a tread started to specify good regulation vs bad regulation might be more informative.

You make great points. But until we change the way things are done in Washington, whether it's drilling off-shore for oil, health care or banking, the people have very little to say. The corporations and their lobbyists with open checkbooks trump what you (or I) believe should be regulated.

[delayjf]

The real spec trading started in the 70's.
Has it always been on the scale that took place in the 00? And what's to stop it from happening again.