If anything, the last few days have nailed the point home that Barack Obama is not going to be the one leading us out of the financial crisis.
You might call David Brookes a conservative (Read his column here) , but even a liberal like Paul Krugman yesterday in his column rubbished the Obama administration's response to the financial crisis as one stuck in a "time warp." And why isn't Larry Summers or Tim Geithner or Obama himself in Davos right now.
Mr. President, you have to realize that this is an international banking crisis we are dealing with, and not an election that has to be won.
So, where is the leadership that is going to take us out of this? It has to be Prime Minister Gordon Brown. More on him soon, but watch this (From 49:53 to 52:21) as he recounts the then-British Treasury secretary in the 1930's responding to John Maynard Keynes proposal to overturn the economy, and makes a valid case for counter-cyclical spending.
Is it just me, or Zakaria's face just drip with awe.
Showing posts with label Financial crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Financial crisis. Show all posts
Monday, February 2, 2009
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The 'betrayal' of London, unheard in New York
As the world more than acquainted itself with Lehman Brothers Midtown Manhattan headquarters when news of the collapse of the financial giant started streaming in, it was easy to forget that Lehman Brothers had an overseas operation, and one that is more profitable.
The top executives at Lehman Brothers in New York did not.
Around 1230 in the morning of 15th September, Lehman announced in a press release that the 158-year-old investment bank would file for bankruptcy protection. In the hours and days leading up to Lehman’s collapse and Chapter 11 filing, $8.07 billion was mysteriously transferred from Lehman’s London subsidiary at Canary Wharf to its Midtown headquarters in New York. Canary Wharf is where Lehman ran its operations in Europe employing around 4, 000 people.
At the opening of Lehman’s new European headquarters in London on 5th April 2004, Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor told Lehman employees, “I would like to pay tribute to the contribution you and your company make to the prosperity of Britain. During its 150 year story, Lehman Brothers has always been an innovator, financing new ideas and inventions before many things even began to realize their potential.”
On 20th September 2008, Gordon Brown stated its support to Lehman Europe’s claim that Lehman New York return its $8 billion.
The British tabloids called this repatriation of $8 billion to New York as the “betrayal” of London. Times Online quoted one executive saying, “We were basically told ‘London, you’re on your own’.” Another E-Mail by an angry executive to Bart McDade, the President of Lehman, quoted by the newspaper read, “Come on guys. Show some respect for the rest of the world who carried your flag and believed in the ‘one firm’ culture. There is a thing called ‘appreciation and class’ even after the war is lost.” Lehman Europe and its employees in London were literally left in the lurch, under the administration of Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) that was called for the dissolution of Lehman Europe.
All this as Lehman New York was raising a toast to Bob Diamond, the President of Barclays, on the orchestration of a $1.75 billion takeover of Lehman’s American investment-banking and capital-markets division, securing 10, 000 jobs and $2.5 billion in bonuses for the staff at the New York office.
In the United States, one could have gone oblivious to this. The New York Times covered the story as reported by Julia Werdigier of The International Herald Tribune in DealBook, its daily filing of mergers, acquisitions and other market movers. Not exactly the headlines.
Werdigier explicitly states “the money was moved to New York from London as part of the usual flow of the firm’s cash between the two financial centers just before the bank collapsed Monday morning.”
Usual flow of money?
Evening Standard ran a story by David Cohen on this “betrayal” of London. In this story, Robert Daniels, a director at Lehman’s Canary Wharf office, explains what this ‘usual’ flow of money was. On Fridays, Lehman London would transfer billions of dollars to the New York headquarters, and is given a portfolio of assets in return. On Mondays, this trade is reversed in what is a standard inter-bank transfer. But this transaction leading up to Lehman’s collapse was different.
“The money was not returned to our bank account from the US and all we were left with was a bunch of useless assets. Nobody can tell us where it has gone. What we do know is that the money disappeared on Friday night and did not come back into our account on Monday morning. That is why the administrators came in on Monday and found no cash and said they probably can't pay our September salaries.”
In the story that appeared in the New York Times, Werdigier goes on to discusses a beleaguered Gordon Brown and the criticism he faces from within and outside the Labour Party on his handling of the British economy amidst difficult times. Why would Werdigier do that? Is Werdigier implying in a very subtle way that it is just Brown trying to be seen as doing something?
More so, it reports PWC sending a letter to Lehman New York “requesting that the money be returned to London, where it is needed to pay the bank’s creditors, employees, bills and some daily expenses.”
On 19th September, PWC filed an 83-page motion disputing the $8.2 Billion taken from London.
Was it the New York Times and the American media deliberately underplaying this story, or the British sensationalizing it too much?
“It goes beyond who gets paid their September salaries. It could be a huge legal issue, setting Lehman London employees against their New York colleagues. This is billions we're talking about, billions that have been moved overnight out of the UK to the US to the detriment of the British economy” says Daniels.
After Lehman’s collapse, much of the financial world continues to undergo an ugly restructuring in the last fortnight. But what hasn’t changed is this strange denial and ignorance of the new global reality the American media, at least in this financial crisis, seems to be catering to.
Maybe the holding company is entitled to ring fence bonuses and ensure employment for its preferred employees when it negotiates takeover bids. It could be well within its right to talk about a unified corporate culture, and then leave your overseas divisions with literally empty vending machines and a lack of basic information that borders on complete apathy.
But there is a slight alteration to the narrative now. It is the British financial services provider, Barclays, that has taken over Lehman’s profitable American assets. And if ever things go down, they might not have to hesitate to play it dirty.
Lehman: You are on your own, London, Danny Fortson, Times Online- 09/21
Lehmans’ $5 Bn ‘betrayal’ of London, David Cohen, Evening Standard- 09/17
Fury at $2.5 Bn Lehman Bonus, John Waples, Times Online- 09/21
UK’s Brown wants Lehman Cash returned, Julia Werdigier, NYTimes- 09/22
The top executives at Lehman Brothers in New York did not.
Around 1230 in the morning of 15th September, Lehman announced in a press release that the 158-year-old investment bank would file for bankruptcy protection. In the hours and days leading up to Lehman’s collapse and Chapter 11 filing, $8.07 billion was mysteriously transferred from Lehman’s London subsidiary at Canary Wharf to its Midtown headquarters in New York. Canary Wharf is where Lehman ran its operations in Europe employing around 4, 000 people.
At the opening of Lehman’s new European headquarters in London on 5th April 2004, Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor told Lehman employees, “I would like to pay tribute to the contribution you and your company make to the prosperity of Britain. During its 150 year story, Lehman Brothers has always been an innovator, financing new ideas and inventions before many things even began to realize their potential.”
On 20th September 2008, Gordon Brown stated its support to Lehman Europe’s claim that Lehman New York return its $8 billion.
The British tabloids called this repatriation of $8 billion to New York as the “betrayal” of London. Times Online quoted one executive saying, “We were basically told ‘London, you’re on your own’.” Another E-Mail by an angry executive to Bart McDade, the President of Lehman, quoted by the newspaper read, “Come on guys. Show some respect for the rest of the world who carried your flag and believed in the ‘one firm’ culture. There is a thing called ‘appreciation and class’ even after the war is lost.” Lehman Europe and its employees in London were literally left in the lurch, under the administration of Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) that was called for the dissolution of Lehman Europe.
All this as Lehman New York was raising a toast to Bob Diamond, the President of Barclays, on the orchestration of a $1.75 billion takeover of Lehman’s American investment-banking and capital-markets division, securing 10, 000 jobs and $2.5 billion in bonuses for the staff at the New York office.
In the United States, one could have gone oblivious to this. The New York Times covered the story as reported by Julia Werdigier of The International Herald Tribune in DealBook, its daily filing of mergers, acquisitions and other market movers. Not exactly the headlines.
Werdigier explicitly states “the money was moved to New York from London as part of the usual flow of the firm’s cash between the two financial centers just before the bank collapsed Monday morning.”
Usual flow of money?
Evening Standard ran a story by David Cohen on this “betrayal” of London. In this story, Robert Daniels, a director at Lehman’s Canary Wharf office, explains what this ‘usual’ flow of money was. On Fridays, Lehman London would transfer billions of dollars to the New York headquarters, and is given a portfolio of assets in return. On Mondays, this trade is reversed in what is a standard inter-bank transfer. But this transaction leading up to Lehman’s collapse was different.
“The money was not returned to our bank account from the US and all we were left with was a bunch of useless assets. Nobody can tell us where it has gone. What we do know is that the money disappeared on Friday night and did not come back into our account on Monday morning. That is why the administrators came in on Monday and found no cash and said they probably can't pay our September salaries.”
In the story that appeared in the New York Times, Werdigier goes on to discusses a beleaguered Gordon Brown and the criticism he faces from within and outside the Labour Party on his handling of the British economy amidst difficult times. Why would Werdigier do that? Is Werdigier implying in a very subtle way that it is just Brown trying to be seen as doing something?
More so, it reports PWC sending a letter to Lehman New York “requesting that the money be returned to London, where it is needed to pay the bank’s creditors, employees, bills and some daily expenses.”
On 19th September, PWC filed an 83-page motion disputing the $8.2 Billion taken from London.
Was it the New York Times and the American media deliberately underplaying this story, or the British sensationalizing it too much?
“It goes beyond who gets paid their September salaries. It could be a huge legal issue, setting Lehman London employees against their New York colleagues. This is billions we're talking about, billions that have been moved overnight out of the UK to the US to the detriment of the British economy” says Daniels.
After Lehman’s collapse, much of the financial world continues to undergo an ugly restructuring in the last fortnight. But what hasn’t changed is this strange denial and ignorance of the new global reality the American media, at least in this financial crisis, seems to be catering to.
Maybe the holding company is entitled to ring fence bonuses and ensure employment for its preferred employees when it negotiates takeover bids. It could be well within its right to talk about a unified corporate culture, and then leave your overseas divisions with literally empty vending machines and a lack of basic information that borders on complete apathy.
But there is a slight alteration to the narrative now. It is the British financial services provider, Barclays, that has taken over Lehman’s profitable American assets. And if ever things go down, they might not have to hesitate to play it dirty.
Lehman: You are on your own, London, Danny Fortson, Times Online- 09/21
Lehmans’ $5 Bn ‘betrayal’ of London, David Cohen, Evening Standard- 09/17
Fury at $2.5 Bn Lehman Bonus, John Waples, Times Online- 09/21
UK’s Brown wants Lehman Cash returned, Julia Werdigier, NYTimes- 09/22
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Is it our tryst with destiny?
The financial crisis bothers me. Why should it?
I have been asking myself that over the past few days. Is it the paucity of jobs once I graduate? Or is it hurting me financially? Or is it a very intelligent concern that I have for the world around me? Not really.
I think I figured it out.
Amidst rising oil prices during the Gulf War in 1991, India found itself in a balance-of-payments crisis and the prospect of defaulting on its loans. The IMF mandated a liberalization of the Indian economy; a coming out of sorts for what was a closed and to a certain extent, an unproductive economy.
I was two then.
Today, a liberalized India with fewer and fairer taxes, less regulation, a relatively smaller government is the second fastest growing economy in the world.
A liberalized India is all I ever knew.
After a couple of hundred years of British Imperialism, India in 1947, in its first Prime Minister’s words, “had made a tryst with destiny” and had won independence.
Instead it saw a post-war Europe and Japan reemerge from the debris. United States was well, the United States. They were calling it the boomer years. Even a lot of Asia followed.
India wasn’t communist. Nor was it comfortable enough with itself to embrace the free market. But give the Government a li’l leeway, it will kick open the door. Government grew bigger, corruption got endemic in its system and epidemic in proportions. As the world took the next leap forward, we found ourselves tucked in an ugly li’l corner that we had carved out for ourselves stagnating.
It was still waiting for its tryst with destiny.
In 1989, the wall finally fell. Literally.
Post-liberalization, it was India itself that India needed to conquer. Three hundred years stuck in an abyss, India was in the waiting room for so long that it had almost forgotten what it was waiting for.
Yes, India could build tall buildings, write the next generation of software, have its own breed privatized financial institutions and multinationals, raise money in Bombay like they did in New York and London, show long lingering kisses in movies, have jobs so that we could graduate out of college and not take the first flight out. And of course, beat Australia in cricket.
Never was private wealth and enterprise celebrated with such ferocity. It mattered that an Indian ran the biggest steel conglomerate in the world, and an Indian publicly- held company would one day drive home Jaguar from Ford.
They say we are in global financial meltdown.
The Bombay Sensitive Index, India’s equivalent to the Dow Industrial Average, has plummeted to 9,975 from a 52Wk High of 21,206.77. The Foreign Institutional Investors (FII’s), who happened to be more often than not the big banks that find themselves in a spot, have liquidated $ 9 billion worth holdings in India.
It is apparent that India will get hurt too.
World over, there is a growing call for more regulated markets and bigger government intervention.
Wasn’t Regulation what got India there in 1991? Wasn’t it the all-encompassing evil that kept India back as the world moved forward? Now they tell us to learn otherwise.
It is like getting up one morning and realizing that your neighbor is your actual father.
But a funny thing has happened. The years post-liberalization, even if kicked off by creative investors who couldn’t make returns big enough and the excessive liquidity that characterized all these years, India has somewhere realized that if a billion people get up every morning, brush their teeth and go to work, the economy would prevail.
But this financial crisis, unlike 1991, the IMF and the ‘ostensible’ free markets needn’t dictate anything. India has $300 Billion worth of foreign exchange lying around, and an economy that even by the most conservative estimate, will continue to grow at 6.5 %.
Things will get ugly. But wasn’t this where India wanted to be all along? The era of easy foreign liquidity might be over, but it is an India that finally could do without it. This is our tryst with destiny. And now that we have almost made it, let us not let it slip away.
The credit crisis hits India, but it may profit [The Economist- 10/14/2008]
I have been asking myself that over the past few days. Is it the paucity of jobs once I graduate? Or is it hurting me financially? Or is it a very intelligent concern that I have for the world around me? Not really.
I think I figured it out.
Amidst rising oil prices during the Gulf War in 1991, India found itself in a balance-of-payments crisis and the prospect of defaulting on its loans. The IMF mandated a liberalization of the Indian economy; a coming out of sorts for what was a closed and to a certain extent, an unproductive economy.
I was two then.
Today, a liberalized India with fewer and fairer taxes, less regulation, a relatively smaller government is the second fastest growing economy in the world.
A liberalized India is all I ever knew.
After a couple of hundred years of British Imperialism, India in 1947, in its first Prime Minister’s words, “had made a tryst with destiny” and had won independence.
Instead it saw a post-war Europe and Japan reemerge from the debris. United States was well, the United States. They were calling it the boomer years. Even a lot of Asia followed.
India wasn’t communist. Nor was it comfortable enough with itself to embrace the free market. But give the Government a li’l leeway, it will kick open the door. Government grew bigger, corruption got endemic in its system and epidemic in proportions. As the world took the next leap forward, we found ourselves tucked in an ugly li’l corner that we had carved out for ourselves stagnating.
It was still waiting for its tryst with destiny.
In 1989, the wall finally fell. Literally.
Post-liberalization, it was India itself that India needed to conquer. Three hundred years stuck in an abyss, India was in the waiting room for so long that it had almost forgotten what it was waiting for.
Yes, India could build tall buildings, write the next generation of software, have its own breed privatized financial institutions and multinationals, raise money in Bombay like they did in New York and London, show long lingering kisses in movies, have jobs so that we could graduate out of college and not take the first flight out. And of course, beat Australia in cricket.
Never was private wealth and enterprise celebrated with such ferocity. It mattered that an Indian ran the biggest steel conglomerate in the world, and an Indian publicly- held company would one day drive home Jaguar from Ford.
They say we are in global financial meltdown.
The Bombay Sensitive Index, India’s equivalent to the Dow Industrial Average, has plummeted to 9,975 from a 52Wk High of 21,206.77. The Foreign Institutional Investors (FII’s), who happened to be more often than not the big banks that find themselves in a spot, have liquidated $ 9 billion worth holdings in India.
It is apparent that India will get hurt too.
World over, there is a growing call for more regulated markets and bigger government intervention.
Wasn’t Regulation what got India there in 1991? Wasn’t it the all-encompassing evil that kept India back as the world moved forward? Now they tell us to learn otherwise.
It is like getting up one morning and realizing that your neighbor is your actual father.
But a funny thing has happened. The years post-liberalization, even if kicked off by creative investors who couldn’t make returns big enough and the excessive liquidity that characterized all these years, India has somewhere realized that if a billion people get up every morning, brush their teeth and go to work, the economy would prevail.
But this financial crisis, unlike 1991, the IMF and the ‘ostensible’ free markets needn’t dictate anything. India has $300 Billion worth of foreign exchange lying around, and an economy that even by the most conservative estimate, will continue to grow at 6.5 %.
Things will get ugly. But wasn’t this where India wanted to be all along? The era of easy foreign liquidity might be over, but it is an India that finally could do without it. This is our tryst with destiny. And now that we have almost made it, let us not let it slip away.
The credit crisis hits India, but it may profit [The Economist- 10/14/2008]
Monday, October 13, 2008
25 reasons why I will miss the financial crisis (Update: If it ever gets over)
It really seems that the $ 2546 Billion European bailout is the beginning of the end of the Financial Crisis and the subsequent rally across financial markets. I think I will miss the financial crisis. Really.
1- It bummed Sarah Palin out of the front page.
2- Bristol Palin too.
3- Nancy Pelosi and House Republicans.
4- I could get by without knowing who Gossip Girls were:
Someone else: "Oh my god! Blake Lively!"
Me: Man, the economy is soo fucked up, dudee!
Someone else: I know. I feel so bad that I even brought up Gossip Girls. How shallow am I?
5- Hank Paulson, apart from other things, having a perspective on 15 seconds of fame.
6- The John McCain way to make you a star. Ask Chris Cox.
7- You could not get by with thinking that Freddie Mac was a McDonald's burger.
8- On Lehman Monday, I wanted to call Dad.
"Dad, You were wrong!" Look at these bankers with boxes outside Lehman's midtown headquarters. They look silly. And that is how you wanted your son to look when you insisted on me going to business school!"
9- Oil under $80 a barrell. Exactly the change folks in Ohio, Michigan and Main Street want.
10- Random conversations at the bar that went something like this
Me: The economy is so fucked upp, dudee. Can I buy you a drink?
Blonde: (Looking puzzled) Yeah sure.
Blonde: (After a few drinks) Intelligent guys really turn me on.
11- The Socialists at NYU finally having an audience that stayed, even after the free pizza, coffee, soda, cookies and tons of other freebies ran out.
12- Learning how to plot Iceland on a map.
13- More so, imagining flustered British people learning how to plot Iceland on a map after losing their deposits with Icesave.
14- "Oh bilmey! He had thinnngs on his mind!" The British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, finally found a reason for the bags underneath his eyes.
15- But the man with bags underneath his eyes, Gordon Brown, would eventually become the European Superhero with a bailout plan that will become the status quo for more bailouts. So all you kids who don't make the cool cut, there is a happy ending.
16- Finding a banker or a guy dressed like one literally at Taco Bell days ago.
17- It just wasn't the Mets screwing up bad this year.
18- Sad guys on the trading floor.
19- Germany getting mad at Ireland over bank guarantees. Then Germany doing the same thing a few days later. Moral of the story: The Irish know their shit.
20- A corollary to the above: Drinking can't be all that bad.
21- Playboy and BusinessWeek together in the toilet magazine rack in a room shared by four guys between the ages 18- 20. And the BusinessWeek looking more used.
22- Financial lingo having a poetic rhyme to it.
"Dow."
"Holy Cow!"
"How?"
23- CIA guy: We know where the weapons of mass destruction are, chief.
W.: Where?
Cheney: They are not in Iraq? I knew it was Iran.
John McCain: No stupid. They are in Spain.
W.: Let the guy talk for a change.
CIA guy: It's in the derivative market right in downtown Manhattan in a street called Wall Street.
Cheney: How do you know?
CIA guy: Warren Buffet in 2003 talked about it, and we now have intelligence for it. My credit card is good for shit.
John McCain: I think I found my treasury secretary. I am going to make a press release.
W.: I thought you had suspended your campaign.
John McCain: My friends, Country First.
24- Even though he was on the phone with Hank Paulson throughout the financial crisis and pleading Main Street's case, Barack Obama still finding time to go to the gym.
25- And finally, coming home at 4 AM, switching Bloomberg on and know that you weren't the only one having a rough day. People do screw up. And so do we. Funnily enough, we were in it together. And that felt good.
1- It bummed Sarah Palin out of the front page.
2- Bristol Palin too.
3- Nancy Pelosi and House Republicans.
4- I could get by without knowing who Gossip Girls were:
Someone else: "Oh my god! Blake Lively!"
Me: Man, the economy is soo fucked up, dudee!
Someone else: I know. I feel so bad that I even brought up Gossip Girls. How shallow am I?
5- Hank Paulson, apart from other things, having a perspective on 15 seconds of fame.
6- The John McCain way to make you a star. Ask Chris Cox.
7- You could not get by with thinking that Freddie Mac was a McDonald's burger.
8- On Lehman Monday, I wanted to call Dad.
"Dad, You were wrong!" Look at these bankers with boxes outside Lehman's midtown headquarters. They look silly. And that is how you wanted your son to look when you insisted on me going to business school!"
9- Oil under $80 a barrell. Exactly the change folks in Ohio, Michigan and Main Street want.
10- Random conversations at the bar that went something like this
Me: The economy is so fucked upp, dudee. Can I buy you a drink?
Blonde: (Looking puzzled) Yeah sure.
Blonde: (After a few drinks) Intelligent guys really turn me on.
11- The Socialists at NYU finally having an audience that stayed, even after the free pizza, coffee, soda, cookies and tons of other freebies ran out.
12- Learning how to plot Iceland on a map.
13- More so, imagining flustered British people learning how to plot Iceland on a map after losing their deposits with Icesave.
14- "Oh bilmey! He had thinnngs on his mind!" The British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, finally found a reason for the bags underneath his eyes.
15- But the man with bags underneath his eyes, Gordon Brown, would eventually become the European Superhero with a bailout plan that will become the status quo for more bailouts. So all you kids who don't make the cool cut, there is a happy ending.
16- Finding a banker or a guy dressed like one literally at Taco Bell days ago.
17- It just wasn't the Mets screwing up bad this year.
18- Sad guys on the trading floor.
19- Germany getting mad at Ireland over bank guarantees. Then Germany doing the same thing a few days later. Moral of the story: The Irish know their shit.
20- A corollary to the above: Drinking can't be all that bad.
21- Playboy and BusinessWeek together in the toilet magazine rack in a room shared by four guys between the ages 18- 20. And the BusinessWeek looking more used.
22- Financial lingo having a poetic rhyme to it.
"Dow."
"Holy Cow!"
"How?"
23- CIA guy: We know where the weapons of mass destruction are, chief.
W.: Where?
Cheney: They are not in Iraq? I knew it was Iran.
John McCain: No stupid. They are in Spain.
W.: Let the guy talk for a change.
CIA guy: It's in the derivative market right in downtown Manhattan in a street called Wall Street.
Cheney: How do you know?
CIA guy: Warren Buffet in 2003 talked about it, and we now have intelligence for it. My credit card is good for shit.
John McCain: I think I found my treasury secretary. I am going to make a press release.
W.: I thought you had suspended your campaign.
John McCain: My friends, Country First.
24- Even though he was on the phone with Hank Paulson throughout the financial crisis and pleading Main Street's case, Barack Obama still finding time to go to the gym.
25- And finally, coming home at 4 AM, switching Bloomberg on and know that you weren't the only one having a rough day. People do screw up. And so do we. Funnily enough, we were in it together. And that felt good.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
We called it
We will be full of ourselves for a minute or so. Midnight today, the ban on Short Selling would expire. Now you might ask what is the reason why we at The Antifits would have a reason to feel even better than we do about ourselves?
We called it. We knew it was temporary.
On 09/19/2008, The Antifits wrote:
"I don't necessarily agree with the backlash against, say, short selling. And I would have markets deregulated than the other way round."
On 09/25/2008, The Antifits wrote:
"And apart from a certain executive pay clause and the temporary ban on short selling, it will be all on his terms."
And at times when it was politically incorrect to do so, around the time when a visceral McCain was suspending campaigns and Barack Obama was on the phone with Hank Paulson.
Moral of the story: Read the Antifits and be ahead of the Times.
No pun intended on the Times thing.
Ban on Short Selling ends - Did it make any difference [NYTimes- 10/07/08]
We called it. We knew it was temporary.
On 09/19/2008, The Antifits wrote:
"I don't necessarily agree with the backlash against, say, short selling. And I would have markets deregulated than the other way round."
On 09/25/2008, The Antifits wrote:
"And apart from a certain executive pay clause and the temporary ban on short selling, it will be all on his terms."
And at times when it was politically incorrect to do so, around the time when a visceral McCain was suspending campaigns and Barack Obama was on the phone with Hank Paulson.
Moral of the story: Read the Antifits and be ahead of the Times.
No pun intended on the Times thing.
Ban on Short Selling ends - Did it make any difference [NYTimes- 10/07/08]
Monday, September 29, 2008
The cost of indecision
Cost of the Proposed Bailout to the taxpayer= - $ 700 Billion
Bailout rejection by Congressional Republicans=- 777 points on the Dow= - $ 1.2 Trillion
Cost of inaction today= - $ 700 Billion + (- $ 1.2 Trillion)
= - $ 500 Billion
I did the Math. You say God bless America.
House rejects bailout package, 228- 205; Stocks plunge [New York Times]
Talent Flight Feared by City Firms [New York Sun]
Why did the rescue bill fail [NYMag- Daily Intel]
Lehmann's demise triggered Cash Crunch Around Globe [WSJ Online]
Why Main Street needs to support the bailout [Accrued Interest]
Bailout rejection by Congressional Republicans=- 777 points on the Dow= - $ 1.2 Trillion
Cost of inaction today= - $ 700 Billion + (- $ 1.2 Trillion)
= - $ 500 Billion
I did the Math. You say God bless America.
House rejects bailout package, 228- 205; Stocks plunge [New York Times]
Talent Flight Feared by City Firms [New York Sun]
Why did the rescue bill fail [NYMag- Daily Intel]
Lehmann's demise triggered Cash Crunch Around Globe [WSJ Online]
Why Main Street needs to support the bailout [Accrued Interest]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
