Sunday’s Breakfast Menu, Feb. 8

0 Comments »
Sunday’s Breakfast Menu, Feb. 8
By Sarah Wheaton

Not surprisingly, some of the top figures in the nation’s economic policy are appearing on the talk shows this Sunday.
“Fox News Sunday” and ABC’s “This Week” both have Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council, while Christina Romer, head of the Council of Economic Advisers, Faces the Nation on CBS. Senator Kent Conrad, the Budget Committee chairman, and Senator Tom Coburn are also on “Face the Nation.”
Michael S. Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, is also on “This Week,” and Senator John Cornyn is the other guest on “Fox News Sunday.”
NBC’s “Meet the Press” is bipartisan and bicameral, with Senators John Ensign, Republican of Wyoming, and Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, as well as Representatives Mike Pence of Indiana and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
CNN’s “State of the Union” has Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Senators Richard Shelby of Alabama and Charles E. Schumer of New York, Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Sphere: Related Content

Are you a beginner?

0 Comments »

If you are a beginner, think about what you need to know first!. First there is no certain time that a person needs to start investing especially with economy getting worse and worse. Second, there is also no particular product that you need to start investing your time and money in right away. One of the first things a person needs to know is do your own homework. Don't be fooled into buying analysis in fancy subscriptions, before you thoroughly analyze all the investment options that are available. Then start with one that fits your financial situation the best. The number one thing a person looking to getting started in investing could do is to first learn the stock market investing basics and get as much information as possible from different very well known sources.

The longer you spend in investing, the more you will come to know about the ins and out of investing. Beginner stock market investing is listed on tons of great website's that can help you along the way. Starting simple is one of the best things a person can do with their money when investing. Invest in smaller funds that you have been observing for a while and then when you feel comfortable with expanding go ahead. There are so many different avenues to acquire when investing in the securities market so taking the proper one for you is the most effective route to go.

The first thing that a beginner in stock market investing should do would be to sit down and figure out what your investing goals are - be it big or small. Some questions that you may want to ask yourself are:

- Are you going to be investing in the short term or the medium term?
- Are you looking to invest for your retirement?
- Do you need to invest to get money before your retire?
- Are you saving for your children's college?

Those are just a couple of questions a person had better ask themselves before diving right in. There are also many different types of investment accounts that you may want to start investing your money is when starting such as:

- Certificates deposit
- Discount Brokerage
- Full Service Brokerage
- 401K or 403B
- Traditional IRA
- Roth IRA
- Coverdell IRA (this usually used for educational purposes).
- 529 plan

Again those are only a sampling of what is out there for investing purposes. Make certain to take a closer look at all options before beginning your investments.

After your investment accounts are open and you have put your money in, it is time to set off on the investing process. Some great investing tips that you may want to follow would be to:

Choose your levels that you want to invest in. You'll want to decide on your asset class to invest in. Such as money market accounts or CDs.

Once you have narrowed down how you want to invest then it is time to select the actual investments. Shopping and looking around for the highest percent possible on your CDs will help you gain the most money possible. Before you start investing you may choose to visit banks or brokerages to see which one is offering the best deals. Today, one of the more popular investment is of course in stocks. Since you are a beginner than you will should try to start with stock mutual funds. As you near retirement age, you should begin to look into investing in Bond Funds. You can use them if you are young, but they are usually used by the older generations.

Taking the time to sit down and learn the most things about investing with benefit and make you more money than just jumping right in. It is very important to remember that the stock market is very risky and there is no guarantee that you will make any money. Loosing all your money in what you are investing in is very possible. You may wish to speak with a few brokerage firms or banks before you invest if you are a stock market investing beginner. If you need help just ask - they all have people who would be willing to help you. The stock exchange can be a very profitable thing just take time to find out as much as possible so you will be sure to do good from it in the end. Sphere: Related Content

A new era...We need help!!!

0 Comments »
Sphere: Related Content

Bank of America Strong...Hmm???

0 Comments »


Friday, January 16, 2009
WSJ: Bank of America to Receive $20 Billion Injection, Support for $118 Billion of Loans


The market's case of nerves this week seems a tad more justified, given that the details of the Bank of America rescue plan are apparently out, Previous press reports suggested the Charlotte bank might need $8 to $10 billion of additional equity to compensate for losses related to the Merrill acquistion. Yes, as Senator Everett Dirksen said, a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking real money, but an infusion of $10 billion or less, particularly after the bank trying to back out of the Merrill purchase, would not have been a catastrophic number.

But the level of support set forth in the Wall Street Journal belies the idea that BofA was a strong bank, able to absorb the risks of garbage barges like Countrywide and Merrill (in fairness, Merrill at least has some good franchises along with the junk on its balance sheet. We've long inveighed against the Countrywide acquisition). They were both known problem children, suitable only for a highly capitalized and capable institution. The latest turn of events raises considerable questions about Ken Lewis' judgement as well as the health of the bank ex these turkey deals (and that should be no surprise either, given that BofA is a retail giant and consumer balance sheets are badly impaired).

From the Wall Street Journal:

Reeling from previously undisclosed losses from its Merrill Lynch & Co. acquisition, Bank of America Corp. received an emergency capital injection of $20 billion from the Treasury, which will also backstop about $118 billion of assets at the bank...

The developments angered some Bank of America shareholders, who began to question why Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis didn't discover the problems prior to the Sept. 15 deal announcement. Many also wanted to know why he didn't disclose the losses prior to their vote on the Merrill deal on Dec. 5, or before closing the deal on Jan. 1.

The situation put Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in the position of negotiating to spend money destined for the Obama administration, a further reason for the poor regard in which the bailout is held in Washington....

Bank of America said it learned of Merrill's losses after the Dec. 5 shareholder vote.

Yves here. Huh? The deal was agreed in mid-September. I ought to track down the merger agreement, but pretty much every deal has representations and warranties by the seller (for instance, that there have been no material adverse changes since the last financial save as disclosed). This was supposed to be a coup of sorts for BofA, rescuing bruised but not broken Merrill, but the apparent safeguards for the buyer even in a hastily brokered deal is more akin to a shotgun wedding.

And in the days following, both Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Mr. Paulson impressed upon Mr. Lewis the importance of closing the transaction for the firm's own sake and also warned of the consequences for the country's overall financial system, say people familiar with the discussions.

Bank of America spokesman James Mahoney said: "Beginning in the second week of December, and progressively over the remainder of the month, market conditions deteriorated substantially relative to market conditions prior to the Dec. 5 shareholder meetings. So Merrill wound up making adjustments for the quarter that were far greater than anticipated at the beginning of the month. These losses were driven by mark-to-market adjustments which were necessitated by changes in the credit markets, and those conditions change on a daily basis."

At one point in December, Mr. Lewis even sent lawyers to New York to find out whether Merrill's situation amounted to a material-adverse situation that might allow the bank to cancel the deal, according to a person familiar with the situation.....Merrill Lynch Chief Executive John Thain and Tom Montag, the firm's global head of sales and trading, positioned these losses as ...."market related" and not out of step with the rest of Wall Street, according to attendees at these meetings....

Yves here, Reader reality testing would be useful here. "Material adverse change" means big time decay. I don't follow the blow by blow in credit markets, but aside from a marked deterioration in commercial real estate, I was under the impression that conditions in the credit markets were generally improving in December. Treasury bond prices fell a bit (but from super high levels, and that would be a sign of willingness to move into riskier assets), mortgage spreads tightened, even junk bond prices improved. Back to the article:

Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson also urged Mr. Lewis to finish the deal and not invoke a material-adverse change clause, saying it was in his interest to finish the deal. If they walked away, it would reflect poorly on the bank and suggest it hadn't done its due diligence and wasn't following through on its commitments.

Yves here. True but irrelevant. You don't compound an error (lack of due diligence and risk-shifting back to the seller where due diligence could not be done adequately) by proceeding with a turkey deal if you have a way to get out. The pretexts are irrelevant. Lewis was not willing to cross the Treasury and Fed in an environment like this when he'd almost certainly need their support at some point. Back to the piece:

The policy makers told Mr. Lewis that if conditions were really as bad as he believed, then the government could step in with a rescue similar to that used for Citigroup Inc. in November. In such an arrangement, the government would provide cash and guarantee against part of the firm's losses.

In addition to a capital injection from the Treasury, the Fed, Treasury and FDIC are working on an asset-guarantee plan modeled after the Citi rescue. The government may backstop a figure of $115 billion to $120 billion in Bank of America assets, with BofA agreeing to take a portion of first losses, the Treasury and FDIC taking second losses, and the Fed backstopping a large chunk of the rest.

Some conspiracy-minded readers have suggested Merrill was not in as bad shape as portrayed, but served as a convenient pretext to give a lot of support to BofA in one fell swoop, which (in the long run) would go over better with the markets than the drip-drip-drip of quarterly writedowns and compensatory cash injections.

Update 1:40 AM: Some useful detail on how the dough for the deal was cobbled together from the WSJ Economics Blog. As we have noted, Treasury with the auto rescue plan relied on the notion that even though the TARP funds were very close to fully committed, quite a few of the payments had not yet been made.

Posted by Yves Smith on Naked Capitalism
Sphere: Related Content

PRICE GAP PORTENDS GOLD PRICE BOOM

0 Comments »

Most consider the New York market ‘spot’ price for an accurate indication of the true price. However, investors now buying buy physical or ‘fabricated’ gold, are paying a premium of between $20 and $30 per ounce. When these gaps existed in the past, major increases in the price of gold were imminent.

For much of the 20th Century, gold continuously defied global government efforts to restrain its price. The premium currently in place may be evidence of the latest round of such policies.

In 1934, President Roosevelt devalued the U.S. dollar by some 75 percent by raising the official price of gold from $20 to $35 an ounce. This opened the door to the first great wave of inflation of the 20th Century. Following World War II, national governments, particularly the American Treasury, held the vast bulk of the free world’s gold. The official $35 price was maintained, almost by official dictate.

However, in the 1960’s, a ‘free’ market gradually developed that traded gold at a premium to the official $35 price. In response, the London Gold Pool, a central bankers’ gentlemen’s agreement led by the Bank of England and the New York Fed, was established to hold the so-called ‘free’ market price of gold “to more appropriate levels” … to “avoid unnecessary and disturbing fluctuations in price” which could erode “public confidence in the existing international monetary structure.” The agreement lasted until 1968. Thereafter, the price of gold was set solely by the free market.

As the inflationary financing of the Vietnam War began to filter into the international economy, private investors and nations with trade surpluses began to buy gold to protect their wealth. The ‘free’ market price began to soar above $35 an ounce. Far from reducing the demand for gold, as many esteemed Keynesian economists had predicted, this free market price increased the demand for gold.

Surplus nations demanded gold from the American Treasury at the official price. Experiencing a serious run on the national official gold reserves, President Nixon broke the U.S. dollar gold exchange link in August 1971. It unleashed a wave of competitive international currency devaluations and the second great inflation of the 20th Century. Subsequently, the U.S. dollar was devalued further, by some 20 percent, as gold officially was revalued to $42 an ounce.

However, led by America, the central banks then made a determined attempt, through the IMF, to “demonetize” gold. Central banks agreed not to fix their exchange rates against gold and agreed ‘voluntarily’ to the removal of their obligation to conduct transactions between themselves at the official price.

In addition, the IMF was persuaded to ‘distribute’ some 153 million ounces of gold into the market and to minor nations. This had the perverse effect of greatly increasing the interest in owning gold.

An even stronger ‘free’ market began to operate alongside the official price. As inflation continued to clime, so did gold. In the early 1980’s the free market price reached $850 an ounce, while the official price remained at $42 an ounce.

In 1999, the Central Bank Gold Agreement (CBGA), also known as the Washington Gold Agreement, led to the coordinated sales of central bank gold via the IMF. Clearly designed to depress the free market price, it is widely believed that the IMF sales were timed to magnify volatility in the free market price in order to destroy gold’s perceived worth as a ‘store of value’. The CBGA was renewed on September 27, 2004, for a further five years.

More recently, market dealers have become increasingly aware of a covert official ‘blessing’ for large naked short positions opened by major ‘bullion’ banks. These bets are designed to force down the free market price of gold.

In the mainstream investment community, gold has been consistently scorned as an investment. Many respected analysts have even suggested that gold’s allure is wholly based on perception and that the metal lacks intrinsic value. And yet, in terms of U.S. dollars, gold returned about 5.8 percent in 2008, following a 31.4 percent return in 2007. Thus far in the 21st Century, gold has delivered an average annual return of some 16.3 percent.

Despite the powerful attempts of governments to eradicate gold’s role in monetary affairs, the free market price has risen continuously. Today, although the possibility of global depression act as a head wind, the existence of an “above market” premium for fabricated gold, may foretell a major threat to the credibility of paper currencies, a major U.S. dollar devaluation and a consequent strong rise in the price of gold in the months ahead.
For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar, read Peter Schiff's just released book "The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets."
Sphere: Related Content

Please enter a Financial No Spin Zone

0 Comments »
Here is a video everyone should listen to even though its months old. Widom of the ages and he's still in college.




Watch for CN.BSTV coming soon Sphere: Related Content
0 Comments »
A federal magistrate refused to revoke bail on Monday for Bernard L. Madoff, the financier accused of operating a $50 billion Ponzi scheme, while signs emerged that his lawyer was actively negotiating a plea agreement that could conclude the baffling fraud case without a trial.

Morning Call: January 13

Federal prosecutors acknowledged in a court order released Monday that Mr. Madoff’s lawyer, Ira Lee Sorkin, is “engaging in discussions concerning a possible disposition of this case.”

While Mr. Sorkin would not comment, several former prosecutors said that language clearly indicated that the discussions were about a deal in which Mr. Madoff would agree to plead guilty in exchange for some type of leniency.

“He’s trying to cut a deal,” said Marvin G. Pickholz, a former securities regulator and specialist in white-collar crime. “The only other possible ‘disposition’ that could be negotiated would be for the government to drop the whole case — and that’s not going to happen.”

The information was contained in an order, signed by the United States Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis, that approved a 30-day delay in a hearing on Mr. Madoff’s case that otherwise would have been held on Monday.

Continue reading on NYTimes.com Sphere: Related Content